Wikipedia talk:Binding content discussions/Archive 1

Thoughts
This is a proposal to create a process to allow for binding resolution of intractible content disputes, through RFCs. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  03:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Three years ago I spent a few weeks replying to lots of RfCs. Often I seemed to be the only one. The two I launched myself had a similar level of response. Without a large-scale change of culture this proposal would leave many disputes unresolved, or resolved in a quite arbitrary way, depending on whether you set a threshold on the number of replies. Peter jackson (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My experience too. Participation is quite thin. This can be true even on important, but difficult, read easy to get in trouble over, issues, hot potatoes, if you will. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps part of the issue at present is lack of interest, but also lack of advertising of the RFC. Due to the fact the matter would be binding for a period of time, and that the disputes only get to that stage after all methods failed, I do think that this may be a bit more successful than a conventional RFC. We shall see. I think a perfect test case would be Senkaku Islands, which is undergoing yet another move proposal. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  11:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the fact that mediation has to have failed will make a big difference on the kind of disputes that would undergo this process. I haven't made any detailed study on why mediations fail, but my understanding is that it is usually due to user conduct. Normally if there are problems with user conduct after a mediation, then cases to go would be ArbCom or maybe community sanctions. Disputes that slip through all of these safeguards would be rare, so there would very likely be more community interest in them than normal RfCs. As for the advertising, they should be advertised at least as well as minor policy changes, as that is what, in effect, they would be. I also like the light-weight nature of this approach, and think it will be more palatable to the community than the various content committee ideas that I have seen. Steve has developed this proposal well enough that I think the fine details could be worked out at the Village Pump, although not on the proposals board at first. Before that, though, I think we should change the wording of the introduction. At the moment, the first sentence is screaming "this proposal is a bad idea!" even though it is becoming ever-more apparent that binding content decisions are necessary to solve the most intractable of WP disputes. Let's get the introduction sounding good before we ask for outside comment. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that mediation is voluntary. The content committe proposal explicitly says that refusal by some parties to accept it counts as failure of mediation. Peter jackson (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In a sense, I think the Senkaku Islands case does doesn't see below comment from 6 December Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC) form quite the right test case, because that article and the conduct of user's therein has already gone to Arbcom, and the topic has been placed under discretionary sanctions. So, effectively, if the RfC reaches something resembling consensus, it will be binding, because anyone seeking to alter the outcome will likely be hauled to WP:AE for sanctions. However, this would have been an excellent process to solve the naming issue. After our mediation failed, we could have said, "Fine, we all can't talk to each other, let's let the community decide and be done with it". While this wouldn't have stopped the bad behavior, and we might have ended up at Arbcom anyway because some of the participants needed a topic ban for general reasons, it would at least have gotten the naming issue out of the way. Regarding the planned policy itself, I have a few questions/prompts.
 * 1) How much agreement would there need to be from the involved parties themselves in order to start the Binding RfC?  What I mean is, for Arbcom, I didn't need the other parties agreement to start the Arbcom case; they didn't have to participate, but Arbcom could render judgments on them just the same.  For Mediation, on the other hand, major participants refusing to participate means the mediation fails.  Where does a Binding RfC fall on this scale?  To take a similar situation currently wrecking havoc across the Wiki, can any of the involved parties call for a Binding RfC on the use of visual images in Muhammad? What if the other parties don't want to (because they feel that the various other venues are handling it well enough)?
 * 2) I think the Safeguards needs to be clarified a bit so that it is really clear that 1) real world circumstances can render the decision moot, and 2) only significant real world changes can do that. So, back to Senkaku Islands, if tomorrow China decides to bring a warship to the islands, drop of troops, and establish a base, and if other countries openly accepted this, well, that might be a good cause for changing the names, no matter what a binding RfC found. Alternatively, someone can't say, "A new research paper was published that sheds new historical light on this subject, which is enough to change the outcome of the vote".  I know that we can't actually lay out the distinction between these two events, but we should be clear that there is a difference.
 * 3) I think we should consider something longer than a year. Since we're going to give the option to let real world changes alter the results, and since the process itself will take close to two months (plus however much time it took on the page to even get the process started), we're not necessarily saving ourselves all that much if someone wants to immediately re-run the results at the end of a year. Two or three years feels more appropriate to me.
 * 4) The results need to be stronger. If this is binding, an alteration should lead to a final warning (if the user wasn't previously involved), and then to an immediate block/topic ban.  If you have to have yet another discussion, that also defeats the purpose of the binding nature of the RfC. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Qwrxyian. Thanks for your feedback. In advance, I apologise for the length of my reply. As you can probably tell, I am still hammering out this proposal. Just like DRN, this will probably be changed quite a bit before it is implemented. To answer your questions:
 * I think that it would perhaps have less to do with how many of the parties agree as opposed to how obvious the need for a binding RFC is. To elaborate a bit, the onus is on the party requesting the binding RFC to show that other methods of content dispute resolution have been tried and were unsuccessful. I also think that this may answer the other part of your question. If there are other forms of dispute resolution that are currently being used effectively, then it really wouldn't ever the criteria for a binding RFC. My proposal is a rather different process in dispute resolution, and while binding content resolution has been discussed before in various formsl in practice is something that has been utilized on Wikipedia rarely (three by my last count) so I think the rollout of such a procedure should be slow. I do however think that there should be some agreement by the parties that they are unable to resolve the dispute among themselves (that they agree to disagree). An alternative that has been suggested, is instead of having a discussion on whether to have an RFC, perhaps it just needs to be certified by X amount of users. I think the key to acceptance here is demonstrating the need for a binding RFC, and that other methods have been tried and failed.
 * Based on the fact the past three disputes that have had binding resolution have all been naming disputes, and have been based on real world conflict (Macedonia, Ireland article names and Abortion), I think that if significant real world changes occur regarding the topic under a binding RFC, then dissolving the decision would be necessary. I see the need for it only being significant changes making the decision moot. At the same time, there is a very careful balance we need to find here, between "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, consensus can change" versus "Repeated discussion can be harmful and drive editors away from the project". I think initially we should favor the former approach. While I see the need for teeth and the fact that if anyone can re-open a discussion to change the result of the binding RFC, it will defeat the purpose of the process, to minimize disruption. In the infancy of the process, I think that we should take the cautious approach, but would appreciate thoughts on how to best balance between the two.
 * I think in the long term, extending the amount of time that a decision could be binding for would be reasonable. From the start though, I think we should set the bar a little lower. I figured the mention of two or three years from the get-go would receive a "zomg" from people reading the proposal. But if a few test cases go well, it could definitely be extended to a few years.
 * As for sanctions and enforcement, mostly I think we would address naming disputes first, so the only real enforcement needed would be page protection. If down the road other issues go to binding RFCs, it could be addressed with in-line comments in the text, or edit notices, as well as warnings if the decision is violated. At the same time, I think that binding RFCs would be rarely utilized apart from naming disputes, and probably shouldn't be. Issues with sourcing are often either due to use of unreliable sources, misrepresentation of what the sources say, or synthesis, to name a few. Other issues are often caused by POV pushing, or users digging their heels in until one person gives up. These are conduct issues, and should be dealt with by ArbCom. In essence, if the issue with the content is chiefly caused by user conduct, then it shouldn't be addressed by ArbCom (assuming mediation etc has been tried). This process should really be used if the issue is not chiefly conduct, or if after mediation and arbitration has been gone through, issues remain (such as Senkaku Islands). It really is a perfect example.
 * I hope I've answered your questions and that you and others will have more comments so we can make this a workable proposal. Apologies for the length. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 06:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Being verbose is usually my problem :). I'll think more in general on what you say, but I had one immediate thought related to point 4.  Yes, move protection solves the article problem, but it doesn't necessarily solve the talk page problem.  That is, a binding RfC has to not only decide the "issue", but it also has to mean "no more discussion of this on the talk page barring unforseen real-world changes".  Again, taking SI as a good example case, there weren't many move-wars (a big war in 2005, then 2 isolated attempts in 2009 and 2010); but the issue almost never left the talk page discussion.  That's what I meant by requiring clear remedies: If an editor raises changing the name (note, for instance, that both Sea of Japan and Liancourt Rocks still get talk page requests for such moves), they're told, once (just like with discretionary sanctions) that the issue is not currently up for debate due to the binding RfC, and after that they're removed from the topic/site.  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see where you are coming from here, and agree on the importance of such. Something like move protection would only "enforce" the result, it would do very little to minimise the disruption caused by endless discussion. This is something that this proposal is designed to combat. Along with other things, a balance needs to be found here. I'm fine for the discretionary sanctions idea ie. User is warned that discussions regarding the title of the article went to a binding RFC, and then if they continue to discuss the issue they are ejected from the talk page. This should be combined with edit notices as well. This does need to be balanced with the whole "don't bite the newcomers" idea. We don't want to be too heavy-handed. But for people that participated in the discussion then disagree with the result, by all means something like this should be implemented if this proposal is going to have any teeth. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 22:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A very good concept, and I particularly like the implicit recognition that not all non-admins are mindless trolls. I would however suggest that if all sides can agree on a suitable closer before the RfC begins, it would greatly strengthen on-wiki and off-wiki legitimacy of the process. I raise "off-wiki" because on the sorts of issues we are talking about (feuds that generally have ethnic, national, political or religious dividing lines), whether Wikipedia is perceived as being neutral does matter. The time and kilobytes involved with trying to agree a closer would at worst temporarily divert the two sides from the tired old crap that they usually argue about. At best, the value of having an arbitor that both sides are comfortable with would be immeasurable. We would obviously need a fail-safe in the unlikely event that two sides cannot find a mutually acceptable person. —WFC— 09:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting idea. Part of the problem with the parties selecting a person to close the RFC is that it doesn't account for the possibility that the closer may become suddenly unavailable (change in real life circumstances, sudden illness). I also think that we should keep options open. RFCs at present can be closed by any uninvolved administrator, and to a lesser extent by an experienced user in good standing. While a binding RFC would have a greater impact, I don't see any real need to change things to require the parties to agree on a closer. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 22:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If there's consensus for a procedure that generates binding content decisions, then the discussions must not be closed by a single person. They should be closed by a triumvirate of trusted users.  This should mean at least one person with a community mandate to judge consensus and with the tools to enforce the decision if necessary (i.e. admin or crat), at least one person active in the subject area (i.e. elected by the participants, the appropriate Wikiproject etc.), and at least one person who has appropriate dispute resolution skills (i.e. active in dispute resolution boards and procedures).— S Marshall  T/C 20:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I did have an idea like this back in 2008. It's now disappeared into the black hole that is our deleted pages, but in essence the idea was that binding content decisions could be made by a panel of admins or crats. This alternative may work a little better, as long as there is no "panel" ie. Works similar to current RFCs except requires a consensus between those closing it, as opposed to the decision of one. I think perhaps that having two users close the RFC (an admin and a user experienced in DR) may be a good idea, but the inclusion of someone from a WikiProject could cause issues (there have been times when issues have been because policy/wikiproject practice have conflicted) or even when the dispute has been within the WikiProject itself. Perhaps we could just work it with two? Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 22:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is to be a binding RfC, I would like to see the bar set fairly high.

Here are some proposed rules to get a discussion started:

There must first be a limited-time discussion of the wording, with the proposer having the final say.

All binding RfCs must have an expiration date. Setting the date too far in the future may result in it not passing.

To be considered to be binding an RfC must result in at least 2/3 yes/no ratio AND at least 30 more yes votes than no votes, or 30 more no votes than yes votes. Thus there could be one of five results; binding consensus for, ordinary consensus for, no consensus, ordinary consensus against, binding consensus against.

Once decided, the ratio for overturning is the same, and thus a proposal that passed at 60 yes 30 no would not be overturned by a subsequent vote of 40 yes 70 no or 5 yes 30 no. Voters are encouraged to consider that binding RfCs are difficult to overturn when voting.

An amended RfC must pass with a higher ratio and a larger majority than the RfC it is amending.

If two binding RfCs conflict, the one with the higher ratio wins.

As an alternative, any RfC may be binding upon those who agree beforehand to be bound by it. In such cases the ratio requirements are 60/40 and the numerical superiority requirement is 15.

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a problem here. An RfC can state "That the pages X Y and Z be left in place for 1 year, and the no discussion on moving them take place before the year is up".  Of course technically someone can challenge with an RfC to amend the "year" to 3 months or something, like some on-wiki version of Gnomic, but unless they have a very good reason, they are going to get shot down by the wider community (if not the involved community) as disruptive. We saw this happen on the Ireland naming dispute recently. If on the other hand there is a good reason,  they may rightly get community support. Rich Farmbrough, 23:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC).


 * @GuyMacon, I don't think that numerical figures for participation and decisions would be the best idea. I think that those closing the RFC can judge if a consensus exists, and work off that. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 22:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Alas, I could not think of a way to explain the principle I am suggesting (set the bar high, require a certain number of people to participate, and set the undo bar high) without giving examples using actual numbers. I would be quite happy if a system was devised that kept those desirable properties while also keeping the desirable property of one well-reasoned "vote" beating out a dozen votes made for the wrong reason. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess to me this appears to be reifying something we're doing anyway with some of the post-arbcom binding decisions we've done. To me the key is whether giving it a name and a place in the wiki-management makes it an option that will be better participated or more readily thought of....and I don't have an answer for that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My proposal intends to address the fact that there's no clear and concrete procedure in place for binding solutions to intractible content disputes. I also note that when issues are purely regarding content, without conduct issues rising to the level of intervention of ArbCom. I also considered the fact that the Abortion case took quite some time to be closed, perhaps partly due to the difficulties in creating a more structured process for resolving the naming disputes. The fact that the Senkaku Islands dispute is still unresolved, even after an ArbCom case. I see benefit in there being a concrete community process for resolving these sort of disputes, and think this is a workable way of doing it. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 03:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Unclear How is this different than a regular RFC? Gerardw (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerard. Apart from the obvious "it's binding" difference, I envision the structure of the "RFC" to be different as well. At present, most RFCs are made up of an intro, then various users will make statements and others endorse that. While this works for some things, it doesn't work so well for others, and I don't think the design of a conventional RFC would work quite well here. With a binding RFC, say a dispute over article titles, the two (or various) options for a title would have been discussed in the past (through other DR venues) so a need to re-discuss the potential titles would be minimal. The initial section of the "RFC" (for lack of a better word) would outline the alternative options (say between various article titles) and parties would add evidence to their preferred option, such as usage of the title in reliable sources, policy to back up their viewpoints etc. After a period of time, it would open up to an AFD style vote (in which users would detail their preferred option after analysing the evidence presented and why). Now, I realise this will attract comments like "Polls/Voting is evil" but most significant changes are decided by votes, such as RFA, AFD, and major policy changes (the Inactive admins proposal is one I can think of recently). Though all of these generally require reasoned arguments which are weighed by the closer, essentially they are still a vote of sorts.
 * I would suggest that we use the Senkaku Islands naming dispute as a test case, to see how this will work in practice, but realise a few details need to be ironed out first. It may be time for me to take this to the Village Pump (properly this time, not just a link) to get more comments on the matter. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 21:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, Steven, we already have an RfC running at Talk:Senkaku Islands, and since the article is under discretionary sanctions, it's essentially binding already (in that if there is a consensus, if anyone tries to revert against that consensus, I'll be taking them to WP:AE).Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I can see now where confusion arose because I screwed up. My original comment here was that SI is a bad choice, because an RfC taken following and Arbcom decision is basically already a binding RfC (in my opinion). I feel that this process is best used in lieu of ArbCom, rather than after it.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was confused indeed. I did see the RFC discussion there, but part of the problem is lack of observability. I feel that one of the successes of DRN is it's observability. Being somewhat hidden on a talk page can limit participation to an extent. And while the result of the RFC would be binding in a sense of AE sanctions, it doesn't really prevent repeated discussion from occurring. The structure on the talk page looks good though, so I thought it could benefit from this proposed process. (Also, I am curious. How on earth do you pronounce your name? Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 01:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec): First to Steven Zhang: Thanks for the comment on the structure. The real problem is that...well, I won't drag this talk page into the problems there (though they should be evident from looking at the second argument section).  I do agree that having some form of better notability would help.  It's almost like the real problem isn't just the issue of binding, but of the fact that there are really 2 different kinds of RfCs.  One of them is "This is a new problem that we have never encountered before, and while we've talked about here amongst ourselves, we're not able to figure out what to do."  The other one, which is what this binding process would focus on, is "This is a problem that not only we, but editors before us have argued about for a long time.  The positions on both sides have been set, and no one's budging.  We need the community to step in and make a ruling so that we can all move on to other things."  I know that this doesn't actually tell us how to structure this page, but perhaps this helps someone else frame the issue better. Regarding my name, once upon a time I pronounced it "quueerikshunnn" (back when the name was used for role-playing games and it was deliberately only semi-pronounceable), but have mostly given over to pronouncing it "quirks-ian" (where the latter part is just like the first name Ian)...as in, someone who embodies being "quirky".  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @Qwyrxian, the RfC or your RfC now at that talk pate cannot be a binding RfC. I need to repeat what I said in my talk page: the current situation and atmosphere there is not fair nor justicial in order to solve that naming issue; The RfC I started but unfairly closed because of your unreasonable request is simple and straightforward on the disputed naming issue, and this is why you dare not face it, and dare not debate/answer it. You have tried to mix up the different concepts and played the tricks you like to play. Facing almost a common sense supported by numerous reliable sources and critical as a root question to the naming issue, you are the one sticking to an unsupportable viewpoint against neutrality and verifiability showing signs of "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT". You are enough to be brought to the WP:AE. Unfairly closing the RfC I started and forcibly starting your RfC has resulted in  stifling voices from other sides. This is why no one from your opposition is showing there, not only I am not.  This is against Wikipedia's spirit. No real consensus can be drawn from such unfair nor justicial "RfC". You cannot be a dictator that only you can start an RfC in that topic of Wikipedia. Your RfC therefore is absolutely and totally not qualified as a binding RfC. --Lvhis (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Lvhis: Stalking my edits, I see. Well, in any event, this isn't the place to discuss it. We'll both do what we think necessary following the present RfC; you're of course welcome to pursue WP:AE against me; check with an uninvolved admin you trust about how to do so.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * seems like it would be appropriate (somewhat like RFCU) to require an uninvolved editor to open the RfC, after a request at a suitable noticeboard(not that they're required to do the leg work of writing out the positions etc, just a neutral editor certifying that a binding RfC is necessary), this user could be the experienced dispute resolution closer mentioned earlier or a formal mediator, either way they could participate in the triumvirate close (even neutrally recruiting the other two closers). Additionally I would suggest some sort of site wide notice (watchlist note or the like) to inform diverse editors that such an event is occurring and bring in a wide set of opinions.Crazynast 10:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I like this idea, especially the idea of using watchlist notices to encourage participation in the binding RFC. It seems like a good way to get more eyes on these binding RFCs, which is a problem we face with traditional RFCs. Feel free to alter the proposal to add this in. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 23:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"At the same time, I think that binding RFCs would be rarely utilized apart from naming disputes, and probably shouldn't be. Issues with sourcing are often either due to use of unreliable sources, misrepresentation of what the sources say, or synthesis, to name a few. Other issues are often caused by POV pushing, or users digging their heels in until one person gives up. These are conduct issues, and should be dealt with by ArbCom. In essence, if the issue with the content is chiefly caused by user conduct, then it shouldn't be addressed by ArbCom (assuming mediation etc has been tried)." (Steven; I assume the last "shouldn't" should be "should".)


 * Be honest. How often does ArbCom take action against anyone for POV pushing? As a proportion of those guilty of it? Peter jackson (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, it should say "Should" not "shouldn't". I agree, ArbCom doesn't address POV pushing enough, especially civil POV pushing, and this seems unlikely to change in future, unless the 2012 ArbCom is vastly different. At the same time, I don't think that this proposal is the best way to address POV pushing, but do have ideas for other proposals to address these issues. Let's take it one step at a time. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 23:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support of the general idea. Some of the details are currently vague (like duration of discussion on whether to hold the binding RfC and how binding RfCs would be amended), but it's better to be too vague starting out than to be too specific. I think the proposer of the RfC should explicitly propose a specific enforcement mechanism, since that ultimately is the real result of the discussion. Small notes: you say one month, but RfCs are conventionally 30 days. I would also allow the RfC to be extended beyond 30 days if needed, like conventional RfCs. My general feeling is that amendments, including early dissolution of a binding RfC, should only be done through new binding RfCs, to ensure the same level of participation (unless it was agreed during the RfC that some specific limited changes could be made at a later time). Dcoetzee 02:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good idea (amendments by another RFC) but it should perhaps be a process to dissolve th other RFC, or it could be a process to change the result, as long as the caveats (real world changes) mentioned in the proposal are met. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 07:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably support. If we make sure that the process is dominated by truly neutral individuals and that obvious outside or internal organizing efforts against either a specific BLP or issue or an issue in general are taken into account. (An ongoing concern in one BLP where neutral parties and even admins brought in always complain about an undue mass of negative opinion, and even delete some or much of it, but POV editors just add it back as soon as they leave.) Israel-Palestine issue is particularly problematic, including since there has been outside organizing to get POV parties editing and into admin positions per this series of articles. On the other hand, have to balance the legitimate purposes of Wikiprojects, including the ones on Israel and Palestine, as well as WikiProject:Israel Palestine Collaboration. (Again, my fantasy, such neutral professional editors/admins could be hired to work their magic. Sigh...) CarolMooreDC 17:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that having the requirement for an RFC to be closed by multiple users would counteract any neutrality issues, and that the combined experience of those users would create a better result to a binding discussion. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 07:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely better. Of course, the decision of any past binding RfC can be changed by circumstances, new information, revelations, etc. and some of those may be relatively subtle. So that's another factor to consider. CarolMooreDC 06:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well my initial thought is that issues that go to a binding RFC would have exhausted other content dispute resolution methods (like DRN and mediation) thus it is likely that all this information is already out there. It's most suited for deadlocked situations (such as Senkaku Islands and Abortion) though others may fit into the scope of binding RFCs as the process develops. After all, DRN has morphed quite a bit compared to how it started out. I think what's needed at first is a test case to see just how this would work. I think that lack of visibility is an issue, so perhaps we could use watchlist notices to advertise binding RFCs as well. I think that if changes were to occur that would significantly affect the outcome that a discussion could be opened to perhaps nullify the RFC, but ideally these would need to be very significant. The purpose of a binding RFC is twofold, not only to bring some closure to the dispute itself, but to minimise the disruption caused by endless discussion. At the same time, this to a point needs to be balanced with the fact that consensus can change. It's all about finding the balance, but I think that is something we can hash out after a test case. We won't know if we don't try. I think it might be time to take this, ironically, to an RFC to be ratified by the community. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 06:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose It might be a good idea if considering the principle alone. However, experience has shown that it does not work. We tried it with an issue in the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area. A decent idea got warped a little (not too bad) and ended up passing with "consensus" even though a little under half involved opposed it. It could have worked out but then the decision was used as leverage in disputes that were what can easily be seen as "battlefield" like. How editors use the structure of RfCs makes it too complicated to amend or even police effectively. Although we should assume good faith in the community, it has already failed once and I have a hard time believing that it will magically work on a larger scale. Cptnono (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Conventional RFCs lack a strict structure, which is often their downfall. A simplified, structured format for a binding RFC (the word being interchangeable with discussion) would be used to keep things controlled and focused on the issues at hand. The requirement that the discussions are closed by more than one user, in agreement, lessens the chances of bad outcomes. I've replied in more detail on your talk page. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 07:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Steven Zhang asked for some history on the issue. I feel silly since I actually started the conversation over there but am not sure on which page it actually is. It was all in regards to the legality of settlements in lands Israel controls. It is in one of the subpages of WP:IPCOLL. Anyone know where off the top of their heads?
 * I really do agree with SZs idea. Unfortunately, it is hard for me to assume that an RfC can fix an issue if it is contentious enough require arbitration's assistance (the troubles, 9/11, I-P, or whatever). I also assume that "binding" RfCs open up to many opportunities for gaming by editors who have battlefield mentalities. Filibustering is a primary concern from my experience. Although it is hard to say, I don't trust editors or the RfC process to fix issues that have been elevated to arbitration or even mediation. Worst of all, I do not trust editors to create wording for a binding solution that is followable/not exploitable. This would not be an issue in the perfect Wikipedia world. But we would not need this policy if it was.Cptnono (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand your concerns completely. The potential for binding discussions to be misused if the process is not set up correctly is quite possible. That said, I still think that the requirements for three users to close the RFC would mitigate some of these issues. I am admittedly an idealist, and while we should build in safeguards to prevent misuse of our processes, don't think that we should let them stand in our way. We shouldn't change our processes to accommodate this sort of behaviour, rather we should create our processes and make the users change their behaviour. I have other proposals in my head to deal with these issues (like POV pushing) but I'm taking it one step at a time. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 23:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here you go, WP:Legality of Israeli settlements and the associated lengthy and complicated discussion page. On balance, despite the ongoing issues and imperfections, I think the process and outcome was a net positive step in the right direction. The situation post-WP:Legality of Israeli settlements in terms of editor behavior and the policy compliance of content seems better than before it existed, at least as far as I'm concerned.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. An interesting read. I suppose in short it comes down to strength of argument in relation to policy as opposed to raw numbers. Perhaps the RFC could be in an AFD style format of sorts. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 23:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting, yes, that "Through a long process on the talk page, the following text has established consensus:


 * The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this."


 * Er, why should such an obvious statement need "a long process"? Peter jackson (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Many reasons a) there's no such thing as the international community, it's a vague abstraction b) Israel is part of the international community therefore statement fails c) it's synthesis to place this statement in articles about individual settlements because to do things like add the statement '...is divisible by 2' to articles about individual even numbers based on the statement 'every even number is divisible by 2' is synthesis since the statement doesn't mention the particular even number of the article in question d) whether to include this legality statement should be dependent on the number of words in an article so as not to give undue weight to this statement e) every settlement is potentially different legality-wise f) there are thousands of sources so which ones should be used g) the reliable sources aren't reliable and can't make these statements h) we should explain Israel's position in more detail...but many RS don't mention it at all...what should we do i) the Israeli government may take legal action against Wikipedia j) they aren't illegal, they are disputed... I could go on. It was fascinating. I think it gives some insight into how difficult it is to keep everyone focused on policy based arguments when there is a real world conflict that some editors care a lot about. However, it was eventually resolved without any casualities.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I still sometimes forget that "obvious" isn't good enough for Wikipedia. Peter jackson (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: As the outcome of the binding RfCs has unusual power as proposed, the binding RfCs should be prepared more carefully and very well. This should include to solve some specific and detail question(s) prior to starting such binding RfCs, or to dissect some specific questions out from a pack or package of the naming issue in question, and solve them first. After solving such question(s) via regular DR venue including regular RfC, a subsequent binding RfC will be able to start and process easier, simpler, more smoothly and efficiently, and with as less POV pushing points as possible. On the other words, let the binding RfC narrow down or pinpoint argue point as less as possible, that will have less chance confusing those (uninvolved) editors who are willing to participate in. Taking the example of "Senkaku Islands", there is even a dispute whether the name "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name or the English name before discussing whether it is suitable to be the title of the Wikipedia page. This question should be solved prior to the real binding RfC. If it is clear that this name is an English name, it will be easier to argue for letting it stay on the page. If it is clear that this name is the Japanese name, the supporting parties have to argue why such local name on the disputed geographic entity can override other local name per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. No matter what result comes from the pre- DR, the subsequent binding RfC will be simpler, fairer, more clear, and also easier to tell whether and where there is POV pushing and who is POV pushing, and this kind of binding RfC will be easier to be judged and closed by multiple neutral editors. I believe other topics which need binding RfC will have or have already had such similar situations. --Lvhis (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Two RFCs seems a little process wonky to me. Perhaps the requirement of a binding RFC being opened is that the issues that are being taken to a binding RFC must be clearly defined with clear options as solutions, ie: In the case of Senkaku Islands, the three main options are Senkaku/Pinnacle/Diaoyu islands.  Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 00:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As said in many places of this talk page and its project page, a binding RfC is different from a non-binding RfC. Therefore, generally speaking, a non-binding RfC followed by a binding RfC will not be process wonky, or may even be necessary. In the case of "Senkaku Islands", once a consensus being reached or a concept being clear that "Senkaku" and "Diaoyu" are local names, in the binding RfC, Senkaky/Diaoyu should be options under "Local names", while another option will be "Non-local names". "Pinnacle" is one of possibilities of "Non-local names". If "Pinnacle" is not good enough, there may be other way to solve this in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sorry we have probably had to talk about a specific case too detail which I prefer to avoid to. --Lvhis (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support on first reaction, not haveing read the above. A binding RFC should be contingent on the failure of a recent non-binding RFC to resolve an issue.  The advisory-only aspect of RFCs is frustrating when you consider how much effort is required to make a meaningful contribution as an outsider.  I would take an binding RFC far more seriously than other RFCs, which I consider onyl really useful as a centralised dscussion page for already interested editors.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree on the idea " A binding RFC should be contingent on the failure of a recent non-binding RFC to resolve an issue." --Lvhis (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's already down the slippery slope. "Non-binding" RfCs are binding to the extent that they garner sufficient participation and a clear consensus can be derived from them. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I support this in principle, though of course such a thing would require a lot of thought in its implementation. Binding content decisions are not something I'd like to see happen often, but there are cases where they are essentially required to resolve genuinely intractable disputes or extreme cases of tendentiousness causing significant disruption. I would like to see the ArbCom and community at large be empowered to direct that such an RfC be held and determine the options available for it with input from editors on all sides. It is not and should not be within the remit of ArbCom to rule on who is "right" in a content dispute, but it is their main purpose to put an end to disruption. I think this should be considered a last resort, and requested by ArbCom or in the same manner as a community-based sanction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While the current situation is hardly satisfactory and is slanted significantly towards the status quo, I see a lot of messiness in this proposal. So often the devil is in the detail, the wording. How does canvassing and other unfair techniques play into what would be a more powerful outcome? Would it not create another set of problems? Tony   (talk)  14:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I really like this idea. It would be helpful to have a neutral person act as a referee on some never-ending discussions.  hopefully this idea can get some traction and the broader community can hammer out details.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the failure of the troika approach to decide anything but "no consensus" I saw at VNT, this proposal is just arguing for more bureaucracy for little or no tangible benefits. If adopted as policy, this proposal will probably weaken the normal consensus-building methods, including RfCs. I can already see "but, hey, that RfC was not binding" arguments being added to POV pushers' arsenals. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * STRONGLY SUPPORT - In cases such as the ongoing anti-consensus edit war occurring at Michael (album) this type of RfC could easily introduce enforcement by block of people wilfully violating clear community consensus even if the brightline 3RR is not broken. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 00:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would strongly  support something like this and see great  potential  for it,  especially  if advertised through  a watchlist  notice, and when moderated by  an admin or 'crat who  would recuse from  the debate.  Two  issues, for example,  that  immediately  come to  mind  that  would benefit from  this kind of RfC would be the 10-year old conflict  at talk:East  Germany, now at  RfC. There has been much  edit warring  over this  and the RfC is partly dominated by  the particpants of the slow-burning  edit war on  the article. As Barts suggests above, this type of RfC could easily introduce enforcement by block (or perhaps topic ban) of people wilfully violating clear community consensus even if the brightline 3RR is not broken.  The second case is the perennial  and long disputed (by  some) precedents for notability  for schools, over which  many  discussions have been begun over the years. This has resulted recently  in a spree of hundreds of  school AfDs that  have only  served to  disrupt the constructive workflow of many  editors. Those who  currently  dispute it  are even unable to  agree on  a proposal  statement  for a new, structured discussion.
 * It should be an easy  process for Arbcom  to  quickly review such  cases and decree that either a binding  RfC should take place,  or that  one is not  necessary.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Having a minimum threshold (XX number of votes) and a ratio of at least 2/3rds to impose a solution would be good starting points. In addition, minimum/maximum time period such as one month should exist to minimize the chance of abuse. Should something dramatic happen such as China landing troops on Senkaku, the discussion may be reopened by say 20% of the number of the participants of the BRFC requesting so, with these requests having a window of one week to be put in. Of course my numbers and ratios are just suggestions, but any such procedure will have to have them codified. Ngchen (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support It is about time we have a policy like this one. Too much time is wasted because of the lack of binding resolutions, and this will put a stop at some editors whose sole purpose in the project seem to be arguing forever or endlessly pushing their POV.--Mariordo (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think it is a great idea in principle, but needs to be discussed thoroughly, in order to ensure that it addresses the major issues. As a user who was banned by the community in July 2007 in just 5 hours 11 mins for being a "POV pusher and harasser", and being part of various Requests for Arbitration (example), I find that they are utter inefficient, and do not necessarily address the points the are set-up to find. Here is what I think needs addressing:
 * Dispute resolution often completely ignores points being made. If I state that I believe that there is an issue, I expect at the very least that editors address the point, one way or another. And vice versa.
 * People should not be allowed to make statement (or perhaps accuasation of an editor) without Diffs. In one of my statements, I included over 40 diffs in order to make easy for the facts to be checked. In return I had editors make outrageous claims about my character, based on nothing but opinion.
 * Dispute resulution should not be a free-for-all. We don't need a dozen members of Arbcom, and several dozen editors to make an opinion. What we need is a small number of interested people to have a rational discussion. --Iantresman (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The essence of this proposal is voting after which further discussion is tabled
The core of this proposal is that discussions are tabled for a year after this (new) type of "binding RfC". (I'm using "tabled" in the US sense of the word here.) The whole troika stuff is just a side show of little importance. Tabling further discussions may or may not be appropriate in a given context. A RfC ("binding" or regular) can be extremely poorly worded or thought out (over the solution space) and inconclusive, and making such a RfC binding would be little more than a wikilawyer's tool to prevent progress. On the other hand, if participants in a RfC agree to table further discussion as part of the RfC proposal itself, then that should be binding at least on themselves. Sometimes it may necessary for an outside force to impose long-term postponement of discussion. I think ArbCom has passed a few decision like that, e.g. in the Ireland case. However, the "binding RfC" on Ireland was basically just a vote. The fact that ArbCom is elected by votes, and they vote on decisions as well, is probably no coincidence. ¶ What this proposal comes down to is: discussion going on for a while is fine and part of the consensus building process. Repeating the same arguments to infinity is in the disruptive editing territory. After most if not all the plausible solutions are on the table, voting is sometimes appropriate (as it was done in the Ireland case). When dispute resolution comes down to a vote, editors should also vote whether to table further discussions, barring the appearance of any new evidence. Tabling further discussions needs to be a clear and separate decision, not a backdoor clause that can be easily gamed. ¶ Unfortunately, this proposal has too few details on how to prevent gaming that aspect. The opposite is also true. Some persistent POV pushers never agree to tabling an obviously deadlocked or even solved issue, and will try to wear down the opposition with repetition (instead of a premature vote). But that's in the behavioral territory, and there are obvious solutions for that, up to and including ArbCom, discretionary sanctions, community restrictions, etc. ¶ So, this proposal is not really well thought out because the tabling of further discussion is in itself an important decision not to be taken lightly at whim of one or two editors. When ArbCom imposes a tabling of discussion, it's a decision that presumably has the indirect backing of the majority of Wikipedia community because of the elected status of the Arbitrators. So in such cases, the of tabling discussion is taken by different, higher authority forum than one editor deciding to hold a "biding RfC" where the only actual outcome probably is tabling of discussion by the built-in contract of this proposed "binding RfC" process. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Poor choice of title
Based on my two comments, it should be clear what it is so, but let me briefly reiterate: this proposal is mainly about postponing discussions, and the choice of title has the unfortunate implication that regular RfCs are never binding (or at least are much less binding) as a method for establishing consensus. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * More importantly, how can a "request for comment" be binding? It's a request for comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not the best title, no, but at the point of making the page I couldn't think of a better title. Suggestions are welcome.  Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 03:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of parallel discussion/RfC
The VPR thread on this proposal has been advertised on WP:CENT as a RfC on this proposal. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So is this going no where so I can unwatch the page? Thanks. CarolMooreDC 14:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no, discussion is taking place on the village pump..it's just slow. I'll see if I can get a watchlist notice. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 19:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea - feel free to keep me in the loop. — Ched : ?  07:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Use this on tough issues without misconduct
You know, I think this might best be applied to long-running disputes where there is no user misconduct - in fact, that should perhaps be a condition of a binding RFC.

There is a long-running dispute at Las Vegas/Las Vegas, Nevada as to whether the city should be at Las Vegas or whether a disambiguation page should be used (turns out that the strip is not in city limits, which is the big hang-up). All editor's in these disputes have behaved civilly, there have never been accusations of suckpuppetry, and no one's been hauled to the Admin notice board. These good-natured disputes are an ideal choice, then, since they're not being dealt with elsewhere. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  23:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Straw Poll

 * Oppose redundant to arbitration committeeCurb Chain (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As ArbCom have clearly expressed they do not deal with content, and generally only take cases where there are major conduct issues, can you explain how this proposal is redundant to ArbCom please. Thanks. (And even if it is slightly redundant, redundancy is good. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 21:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am open to it if it means we do use a more solid and structured discussion-base to resolve disputes in future, although these can often be set up without this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose Consensus, we claim, is flexible. An overriding binding RFC must have a larger majority than the one it supersedes? We have found a way to establish Truth: a binding RFC with a 100% majority. Only ten people voted, but that's enough. Nine hundred and ninety come to oppose them, but only achieve 99.9% < 100%; probably not what you wanted. Procedures don't make peace, people make peace. Procedures don't make consensus, they make wiki-lawyering essential for those with a POV -- including the POV of NPOV. This will make the problem worse, rather than better. htom (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but where in the proposal does it say that? If something like that were to occur, of course that would not happen. Common sense and all. I feel that you fail to note that this is a proposal in its infancy, and is not complete. Anyways, I don't know why there's a straw poll here. I've moved discussion over to the village pump, so please provide your ideas there. This proposal isn't 100% complete, so please point out the issues you see with it and what you think should he changed with it. Thank you. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 21:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Contentious Ambiguous Article
Sometimes there is no consensus. We don't know. The usually Reliable Sources don't know, or disagree. Sometimes there's a consensus there, sometimes there is not. Knowing you do not know is real knowledge. Accept it. NPOV is a POV, and BRFC will merely lock one version -- and if it's contentious it's unlikely to be any of the NPOV versions, if such exist. Rather than Binding RFC, how about a tag Contentious Ambiguous Article, lacking Consensus, to warn both readers and editors that the subject is, well, CONTENTIOUS. Some things are just not known, or the state of knowledge of them is uncertain. Accept that, allow it, and move on. If it gets sorted -- it won't, under a BRFC -- we get a better article, if it doesn't, that very contention reflects both reliable sources and the real world: ambiguity. htom (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea to me. A proper written tag could replace/prevent placing several unclear POV tags added frequently to articles just as a mean of "I don't like it that way" and often stay for weeks, month or even years w/o the issue being resolved and against the intention those tags are meant for; On the other hand, a "contentious" tag could stay on an article for a prolonged time. There is of course a potential of misuse but that we have with most of our tags too.TMCk (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I fear this proposal does not solve some of the intractable problems on Wikipedia - especially disputes about areas which intrinsically attract advocates of opposing POVs, and where any forced consensus is going to cause as many problems as it solves. I do not know the actual best solution, but this one needs a lot of modifications if it is to have a remote chance of working on those "advocacy articles". Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The tag/template proposed by the OP sure doesn't solve the actual problems but is not as contentious as POV tagging and therefore would be a good start IMO. This proposed tag of course should only stay as long as there is "un-forced" consensus in one direction and you're right when you say that forced consensus can create more problems instead of solving them.TMCk (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The opposite type of solution is needed
An RFC involves a community level discussion, but what is needed to resolve a problem is a discussion involving only a few people. But since the community ultimately decides, this requires the community to elect a few people who can best represent them. These few elected people would then make editorial decisions for some limited time. Count Iblis (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you might like the logical extension of my suggestion at ? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can can't change
This proposal seems intended to lock in content decisions indefinitely. That contradicts long-standing principles, including the view that "consensus can change". WP:CCC. While it isn't spelled out, I presume that a subsequent binding RFC could overturn an earlier one. But what if the original RFC had 20 participants and the later one had only five? Does each succeeding RFC on the same point have to have equal or greater number of participants? What would prevent a series of binding RfCs, each started by the losing party in the previous RFC? Instead of creating consensus by working towards a mutually acceptable outcome, that could polarize editors supporting different versions.  Will Beback   talk    22:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course consensus can change. This would happen when negotiation and collaboration has failed, like through mediation. It also needs to be considered that the endless continuation of some disputes is counter productive as well and also polarises editors, often driving them away from the subject area or making the subject area one where new editors are reluctant to navigate to this area. I forsee it would be used in highly charged areas, like Israel/Palestine, Abortion, or other various other naming disputes. The "real world changes" clause would be the criteria for changing results of binding RFCs. Take a dispute over an article title of a location. After the discussion and result of the binding RFC, then something like the location being renamed would be a criteria for a new discussion. Consider, that all other forms of dispute resolution would need to have been tried first. I understand the concerns about CCC, but think the issues where editors dig their heels in until someone gives up isn't the way to do things. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 23:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that subsequent RFCs would not be allowed to overturn the original binding RFC. What if only five people participated in the binding RFC? Do they effectively decide the matter until the country itself is renamed (or whatever), regardless of how many other editors come through and disagree later?   Will Beback    talk    23:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There have been RFCs on fundamental style issues, such as the AD/CE date controversy, which were effectively binding and which settled long-standing debates. Rather than creating a new bureaucratic procedure, maybe it'd be best to see if the problems this proposal was meant to address could not have been handled through an existing mechanism. But some of the big past debates have been very messy, so there's certainly room for improvement.   Will Beback    talk    09:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

OK -- what needs to be stated is that the prior consensus and reasoning therefor must be weighed in any future changes in consensus, and that the no "change" can be made where the prior consensus was based on absolute requirements of Wikipedia policy at all, nor in any area reasonably considered to still be under ArbCom restrictions regarding such a change in consensus. This would prevent the ludicrous example of a 3-2 !vote changing a consensus possible reached by a 17 - 3 !vote or the like. And prevent routine revisiting of such things as AC/CE etc.  Collect (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weighed, yes. But more updated information - or information ignored by past editors but submitted now - always relevant to changing the consensus. Assuming it's not a consensus to just ignore the hard won understanding that something actually is compliant with policy, i.e., for example, if there's an attack on a BLP, WP:RS defenses of that person on the particular issue are allowable. (One I've had problems with over the years.) CarolMooreDC 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Consensus can and should be able to be changed but a small minority of editors should not disrupt Wikipedia by continually re-opening issues where the consensus has been pretty clear. There are two things to consider: how many people !voted on an RFC and what was the nature of the "consensus".  If you have a 60/40 !vote in favor of something, that consensus can shift easily.  (IMO, 60/40 is not even a "consensus")  Even a 90% !vote can change fairly quickly if there were only 10 !votes.  It only takes 5 editors to put the percentage below 66%.


 * One idea I have is that we need is an approximate rule of thumb that says something like "RFCs with less than 10 total !votes can be re-opened at any time, less than 20 !votes can be re-opened within 2 weeks, more than 20 !votes can be re-opened within a month."


 * Or, alternatively, if the number of !votes required to change a consensus (defined as the "winning" side drops below 66%) is less than 10, the RFC can be re-opened immediately, if it is less than 25, it can be re-opened within a month, if it would take less than 50 to change the consensus, it can be re-opened in 3 months. Any consensus that needs more than 50 !votes to change the consensus would require 6 months before it could be re-opened.


 * --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's bureaucratic bureaucratic and each case should be considered on a base by base basis.Curb Chain (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, it's bureaucratic but we need some rough rule-of-thumb by which to consider cases. There's always room to ignore all rules but you gotta have rules in order to ignore them once in a while.  Surely, you don't want to be constantly running RFCs up to ARBCOM which shouldn't be deciding content cases anyway. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. I've never heard of discussions on wikipedia being decided by a rough rule of thumb.  Each time a rule is proposed, it's shot down as requiring the decision decided on a case by case basis, and that to make such black and white rules is WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP.  This simply is making a rule that doesn't need one.Curb Chain (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course consensus can change, but enthusiasts exploit that adage by "testing the water" regularly, leading to infinite time sinks and exhaustion of the most valuable editors, namely those who do not have an emotional involvement in the topic. Any binding RFC should include the proposed "binding" period: after that time, anyone can re-open the RFC, but before expiry, attempts to stoke the coals would be speedily closed (with sanctions for repeat offenders), unless substantial developments warrant discussion. There is no need to define what "substantial" means—reasonable editors will understand, and unreasonable ones will be told after their first failed re-open that in order to avoid sanctions they should seek advice from other editors before attempting another. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well-intentioned but misguided. Arbcom can't solve things (look at the current AC case on Betacommand 3 and how far his history goes back), civility is unenforceable (another current arbcom case), RFA reform is endless and hopeless, etc. This is all because wiki culture can't change human nature and human nature is what makes wiki what it is, a place where bullies and the power hungry will always end up on top, just like the real world. Pumpkin Sky  talk  02:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Civility is enforceable, via blocks and bans. (I'm not sure what you are saying here.)Curb Chain (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of the above, and thus most strongly oppose any attempt to implement this. As said, it is a problem, but the solution is even more problematic. Such crystallization of policy has ramifications we can't imagine: think, if such a policy was introduced and Wikipedia was around when combustion was viewed in phlogistonic terms, and a binding RFC was made on it - just imagine. It flies in the face of everything Wikipedia stands for, and is alien to the Wiki ethos. I think it can be summed up in a nutshell, as the section title does: "Consensus can can't [?!] change". This is the most pressing issue that I have seen in my time viewing Wikipedia: if it is passed, part of the core of Wikipedia changes, and what it was, it is no more: alarmism is valid in this circumstance, I think. St John Chrysostom view / my bias 18:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In your example, people would quickly move to reopen the article for the requisite changes. Any reasonable proposal has to have a mechanism to do such, in light of new developments. Ngchen (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @St John Chrysostom: Please engage with the issue: a casual glance at many pages shows that a lot of energy and time is devoted to arguing, usually with very little effect (is it really such a big deal if the lead image at pregnancy shows a naked woman for another six months until the next RFC?). It would be better to have an RFC that gives a result for a known period (say six months or a year)—that RFC can decide what image to use, and after a knock-down brawl and the RFC is closed, everyone has to comply for the agreed period. If the topic involves a situation that might change (say the RFC concerns a person who has been accused of a crime, and new evidence comes to light after the RFC), then some mediation process can quickly decide whether the new evidence warrants opening a new RFC (where the question "is there a good likelihood that the new evidence would change the outcome?"—not "have we sufficiently exhausted the opposition that another RFC might go our way?"). Under the current system, there is effectively no end to argument, and that is driving away people who don't actually want to spend their entire lives arguing over and over and over. Johnuniq (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In a democracy, things get done. In a consensus, things don't.  Why do you think the EU had to switch to a majority vote from consensus upon enlargement of the EU?Curb Chain (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Safeguards
Ok, I think bRFC should be a last resort and rarely invoked. When invoked, it needs to be such that a few loud voices don't prevail and since we are talking about essentially freezing an article in a specific condition for a period of time, I think any such proposal needs to have certain safe guards. Those safeguards would include:
 * A defined period for which a specific bRFC is binding.
 * Widespread community awareness---this should include a banner being included at the top of the page such as we had announcing this discussion.
 * A specific quorum. In order to be binding, a certain number of editors must chime in.  Thus ensuring that a diverse perspective is obtained.

Without those safeguards (and possibly others) I would be reluctant to endorse a binding resolution.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 06:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea, and add a guideline that the defined period should be from 6 to 12 months, and an open acknowledgment that some binding results will get the "wrong" result—however if such a result can occur despite a reasonable discussion, the result is better than the alternative of never-ending argument which, while part of human nature, is destructive for the community and the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * These are all going points, and need to be incorporated in any such proposal, otherwise such a mechanism it's too easy to WP:GAME. Another thing that needs to be agreed upon before a BRFC is that the solutions that people are to vote on are reasonably exhaustive of the solution space. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Locking?
I feel I am joining the discussion a bit late, so between what's been covered here and at WP:VPR I may have missed something. However, my current understanding of the proposal is that it essentially provides what might be called a "line-item lock"? Is this description appropriate? Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct problem, wrong solution
The problem over content is rarely the content itself, but rather attitudes to said content. I'm going to pick something that isn't really a huge hot-button issue as an example - part of what obfuscates this is that the topics in question are often ones that are currently ongoing and have therefore colored people's perceptions.

For example, if someone believes that the American Civil War should rightly be called The War of Northern Aggression, they're going to make that change and fight for it unless a) it is shown that the more common title is in use by consensus, and more importantly b) the editor accepts the statement as consensus. If the editor does not, then what difference does it make that we said it was one and not the other? What precludes the editor from disagreeing and saying that the bRFC is wrong? Nothing, and therefore the bRFC either can't be binding, or it has to be revisited every time there is a concern. Neither of these situations is efficient. Moreover, unless there's socking that is caught, there can be any number of support votes for the new position to create a false consensus.

In short, we should continue doing what we do now, which is binding people over their actions, not content. We also have ANI, RFC/U, AIV, and ArbCom to do this to varying degrees. This proposal is unenforceable in the face of not only potential changes in information, but also the open nature of the project. People are going to make edits they wish to make whether or not there is a policy in place against them. If they did not, then no such policies would be in place in the first place. MSJapan (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Someone may try to rename the American Civil War as The War of Northern Aggression, but it's unlikely that they will be able to do all of the following. (1) Demonstrate that there is an ongoing, intractable dispute with the name, that has not been resolvable with other methods and (2) be able to muster 2/3rds or so support for the proposal for the move, with time limits and quorum requirements. Canvassing can be a problem, but if it can be proved that someone is canvassing, the person ought to be blocked. If the person doing the canvassing is the initiator of a BRFC, perhaps the BRFC should be declared void, unless there is consensus to keep it going? My take is that such a process is preferable to the endless circular debates that plague some of our toughest content issues. Ngchen (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not really buying this argument. To say that the open nature of the project implies a binding RFC is unenforceable would also imply that no policy is enforceable. Blatant vandalism may continually occur for all time, but we deal with it rapidly and block the offenders, and it works. The same would be done to users who violate binding RFCs. To say that "they could create lots of socks so the process is invalid" would be to say the same of RfA - where socks are identified and the users who use them punished. Moreover, binding statements on content are already issued by Arbcom, and are already enforced. The argument here is not really whether such binding statements should be permitted, but whether the community should provide a process for issuing such a statement on its own. Dcoetzee 17:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * RFC's (including the close of them) are an imperfect, vague process. Nothing should be categorically binding based on them. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Binding resolutions are already issued by Arbcom. Surely you're not suggesting that their process is perfect and precise. What quality of Arbcom rulings makes it okay for them but for RfC to be binding? Is that a quality that binding RfCs could also adopt? Dcoetzee 01:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with North and Japan, it's a bad way to solve a big problem. Mythpage88 (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Arbcom process is much more defined, less arbitrary, and less prone to the issues that RFC's are. North8000 (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But Arbcom does not get involved in content disputes. Currently, the toughest content disputes are either never settled, or settled in a very ad hoc manner. Ngchen (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying that Arbcom does handle these. I was responding to the question posed above. Sinceerely North8000 (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes disputes are settled in an ad hoc manner. That's why WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE exists.Curb Chain (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)