Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Mini-RfC on drafts and questions
The result was base the RfC on proposal F/G. The proposal being drafted at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/RfC draft has the support of all the editors who participated in this discussion, even if not all of those editors think it is the best possible solution. Although individual editors expressed support for other solutions, none of those solutions have the explicit support of all the editors active in the discussion. I also note that turnout for this discussion was low, and that none of the mediation participants that were previously involved have come back to comment. I think this is a good indicator that, in North8000's words, it is "time to get this baby moving". Let's shift our focus to final tweaks of the RfC wording, and to practical matters such as where to host the RfC and where to advertise it. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Hello everyone! It looks like things have stalled somewhat over the last few days, so I'm starting this discussion as an attempt to breathe some life back into the proceedings. In this discussion I'd like us to decide once and for all about what combination of drafts and questions we should include in the proposed verifiability RfC(s). The discussion has become quite complicated, so this is my attempt at simplifying things so that the various proposals can be more easily compared and commented on by mediation participants who have not yet been active in discussing step 7. My hope is that by getting wider input from mediation participants that it will be easier to find a consensus about which structure to use.

I have made a summary of the different proposals below. Feel free to tweak them if I have copied any details wrongly or taken anything out of context. If you think of a completely new idea, then by all means include it. It's probably best to outline it in the discussion, though, to avoid any confusion. I have also made a very brief summary of the arguments for each type of RfC. As the summary is very brief, there are inevitably points that I have left out - feel free to add more if you think of any.

Finally, in the comments section, please indicate which proposal or proposals you would like to use in the RfC, and include your reasoning. Your comments should take into account the various arguments that have been put forward for the different types of proposals. After everyone has commented I will weigh the strength of the arguments and see if a consensus has been reached. You don't need to include all the previous arguments made on this talk page as part of step 7, as I will be taking these into account as well. If you want to include a short summary of your position, though, it might make my task easier! And as usual, let me know if you have any questions or comments about the process. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

 * Proposal A: This is a proposal by North8000, and is a suggestion of how to organise an RfC on drafts.

I'll describe it followed by arguments in key areas. Have the RFC consist of the 5 drafts plus the one currently in the policy. The sequence should be random. For clarity each should get a dispassionate neutral 1-sentence explanation regarding what it is/does structurally in relation to VNT. Make these things emphatically clear in the RFC: When closing, assign numerical values of 4,3,2,1,0 to the choices respectively. Tally them up. The one with the highest number goes in.
 * Each proposal is taken only with respect to it's treatment of VNT (including "threshold")    Other items not directly related to this can and will be tweaked afterwards.   So, don't rate a draft based on secondary wording not related to treatment of VNT/threshold.
 * Respondents should rate EVERY draft with one of the following 5 exact choices: Strong Support, Support, Neutral, Oppose, Strong Oppose.  Emphasize that it is very important to the process that they rate EVERY draft.  Each choice can and should be used as many times as they wish. Respondents should add comments to this if they wish.
 * The RFC is just for editors who are at least slightly active. To participate, one must have had 5 edits total to Wikipedia in January-April 2012.


 * Proposal B: This is S Marshall's preferred proposal, and consists of two separate RfCs.

Question 1: Please select group(s) that best match your views and note your views on them.
 * Group 1: Editors opposed to any substantial change to WP:V.
 * Group 2: Editors who want to keep the wording "verifiability, not truth" as-is but would support other changes to the policy.
 * Group 3: Editors who want to keep the wording "verifiability, not truth" but add explanation or clarification.
 * Group 4: Editors who would prefer to replace "verifiability, not truth" with fresh wording.
 * Group 5: Editors who would prefer a large-scale restructuring/rationalisation/simplification of Wikipedia's policies such as WP:ATT.

Question 2: Please use this free text area to discuss the reasons for your choice of group or make any other comments you may have.


 * Proposal C: This is a proposal by Blueboar, and also consists of two separate RfCs.


 * What I would suggest is two separate RFCs... the first would ask the general questions.
 * 1. Do you think the lede should contain the words "verifiability, not truth"?
 * 2. Do you think the lede should say more about the distinction between perceived truth and verifiability?
 * 3. Do you think the lede should talk about verifiability without mentioning "truth" at all?
 * 4. Do you think the lede should mention "verifiable but inaccurate" material?


 * The second would ask about our drafts. Perhaps something like:


 * As a follow up to the above RFC... a team of editors has spent the last few months in discussions over these questions at WP:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability, and created the following drafts to show what the lede of the policy might look like, depending on what the consensus is on the questions asked above.
 * Please refer to the drafts and comment upon them. Let us know which one you like best, which ones you would be willing to accept as an alternative, and which one you like least (consider ranking them from "most like" to "least like"), and tell us why you either like or dislike them.


 * List of drafts


 * Proposal D: This is S Marshall's second-choice proposal, with both drafts and questions.

Please read the following four drafts:
 * (Insert the four drafts agreed.)

Question 1: Please add as many or as few comments as you wish to the following headings:-
 * Things I like about draft #1
 * Things I don't like about draft #1
 * Things I like about draft #2
 * Things I don't like about draft #2
 * Things I like about draft #3
 * Things I don't like about draft #3
 * Things I like about draft #4
 * Things I don't like about draft #4

Question 2: Please select group(s) that best match your views and note your views on them.
 * Group 1: Editors completely opposed to any substantial change to WP:V.
 * Group 2: Editors who want to keep the wording "verifiability, not truth" as-is but would support other changes to the policy.
 * Group 3: Editors who want to keep the wording "verifiability, not truth" but add explanation or clarification.
 * Group 4: Editors who would prefer to replace "verifiability, not truth" with fresh wording.
 * Group 5: Editors who would prefer a large-scale restructuring/rationalisation/simplification of Wikipedia's policies such as WP:ATT.

Question 3: If you wish, please use this free text area to discuss the reasons for your choice of group or make any other comments you may have.


 * Proposal E: This is a proposal by Tryptofish, and consists of both drafts and questions.


 * The introduction at the top (I'll make some bold edits there in another day or two) should tell people to not just "vote", but provide informative comments, and should encourage discussion using the "#:" notation.


 * Part 1: Options would be the draft options. There would be three editable fields for each draft option: Support, Support with revisions, and Oppose (no need for a further discussion field, I think). The instructions would say that if you support or oppose, please indicate in your comment what you like or dislike about the option. If you support with revisions, that means that you would not support as is, and please indicate clearly what revisions you would require in order to support.


 * Part 2: Endorsements would, in effect, be our general questions. For each position, there would be only one editable field: endorse. You can endorse as many or few positions as you wish.
 * Based on S Marshall's list above, plus whatever else I could think of from our discussions so far, these are the positions that I'm aware of, worded as positions that one could endorse:
 * "I oppose any substantial change to WP:V."
 * "I want to keep the wording "verifiability, not truth" as is, but I would support other changes in the policy."
 * "I want to keep the wording "verifiability, not truth", but I support explanation or clarification of that wording."
 * "I want to move the wording "verifiability, not truth" to a section below the lead, with explanation or clarification of that wording."
 * "I want to move the wording "verifiability, not truth" to a footnote, with explanation or clarification of that wording."
 * "I support including a discussion of "verifiable but inaccurate" material in the policy."
 * "I support replacing "verifiability, not truth" with new wording."
 * "I support a large-scale restructuring/rationalisation/simplification of Wikipedia's policies, such as WP:ATT."


 * Proposal F: This is a proposal by Kalidasa, and consists of both drafts and questions.


 * See this version of the RfC draft page


 * Proposal G: This is proposal F, except with a change in the first sentence of Draft C. [See (a) of Poll.]


 * See this version of the RfC draft page

Arguments for the different proposals
These arguments are a vast simplification of all the discussion that has been held about this issue. While I feel that they sum up the discussion that has taken place so far, they should not be seen as an alternative to reading the full talk page. All participants are invited to add other points to the list - just remember to sign your additions so that people are aware of who added them. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * For two RfCs, the first one using general questions

— Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's easier to proceed from general principles to specific wording than the other way around
 * Shorter RfCs will be easier for editors to understand and comment on


 * For RfCs on specific drafts

— Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors who agree to general principles may not agree to specific wording in drafts
 * Editors who reject specific wording in drafts give us a clear indication of how to revise the drafts to gain consensus, whereas this might not be so clear for general questions
 * One RfC will take less time than two RfCs


 * For one RfC with both drafts and questions

— Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC) — Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Allows us to hedge our bets - even if no individual drafts reach consensus, the general questions might
 * People are different. Some will find it easier to proceed from general principles to specific wording, others will want to see the fine print of a draft before making a comment.

Comments

 * I still think it's a bad idea to include drafts, but I accept that drafts are inevitable at this juncture. I must admit to liking Kalidasa's version quite a lot.— S Marshall  T/C 16:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that proposal "A" is the best because it sort of combines the best of both worlds. By it's wording, it IS more a RFC on general principles, but it does lead to an action item/conclusion. I would like to ask S. Marshall if, on their poll items,  they would consider asking people to give their comments on several or ALL of the choices.   When you say "pick one" of many choices, you are introducing a serious flaw of randomness; choices most similar to each other will "kill" each other, even if they represent the most common opinion.  While I think that "A" is best,  I think that C, E & F are also fine.  And if S Marshall made that one change, then I think that B & D would also be fine, if not, not. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On the "similar choices killing each other", we just have to trust the closer to see past that, North. We're not trying to create a "foolproof" RFC here.  We're trying to create one that has some prospect of reaching a rough consensus in the closer's opinion.  Having said that, I would expect RFC participants to endorse more than one option if there's more than one option that they like (and oppose more than one if there's more than one they dislike), and I have no problem with that behaviour.— S Marshall  T/C 22:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On your first point, IMHO that requires an immensely bold & complex and impartial subjective analysis which maybe 1% of people can do; IMHO the odds of them being the closer(s) are unlikely.  On your second point, would you be willing to note that in those? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That 1% figure might be overly cynical... Wikipedia admins seem to manage it fairly regularly and I'm pretty confident that they're not in the top 1% of anything. ;-)  On the second point, sure, you can add something to that effect as far as I'm concerned.— S Marshall  T/C 23:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just clarifying, my "1%" comment was just for when you tell people to pick one choice from more than two choices, which is an unusual case. I'll try adding that note to your 2.
 * I added that. If it sticks, then my preference is still for "A", but then I'd say that B,C,D,E & F are also fine. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No surprise here, but I like Tryptofish's proposal, as improved upon by Kalidasa. I see no need to have a questions-based RfC in advance of an RfC on actual improvements to the policy page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the current version of the draft RfC page, I'd be inclined to omit the "discussion" sections for each of the A–E drafts—just "support", "support with revisions", and "oppose". There should be an RfC talk page for general discussion, and I'd like to encourage respondents to discuss matters about the individual drafts using the "#:" notation. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought the RFC would happen on a talk page, such as WT:V where the last one happened. To me, it seems very strange to open a Request For Comment and then put the actual comments on a separate page.  I'll resist the temptation to trot out my line about the difference between a request for comment and a request for votes because that's getting old, but I do want to achieve something more useful than a numbered tally of views.— S Marshall  T/C 23:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I better clarify what I said. I entirely agree that a productive RfC is going to require discussion. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking very specifically about the layout of the part of the RfC page where the draft options are. I'm actually advocating for more discussion within the !voting sections of that part of the RfC page! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The similarities between drafts D,E,F and G -- all of which have a section with drafts, followed by a section with general questions -- show that this is an idea which has made sense to several of us here. It is not necessarily anyone's preferred option -- my own preferred option would have the general questions before the drafts -- but I think it is a workable option. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My thinking for having the drafts before the questions is that the questions tend, psychologically, to put respondents in the position of having "taken a stand". That's not a bad thing at all, but there could be an advantage to forming a reaction to the drafts before making up one's mind. Then again, I could be over-thinking it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It really isn't crucial to me whether the general questions come before or after the draft ledes. So why did I mention this? Basically, I wanted to say that it is slightly misleading to think of proposal F as Kalidasa's. Perhaps a better description is what you said above "Tryptofish's proposal, as improved upon by Kalidasa". Your proposal E, as I understand it, was based on S.Marshall's proposal D, which is really a compromise between a drafts-only approach (A), and a questions-first approach (B and C). Maybe we have been gradually moving towards a consensus, after all... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just recapping, I said that I like "A" the best, and that ALL of the others are also fine with me. Time to get this baby moving! :-) North8000 (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What is "the information in an article"
Could someone clarify what is meant by "the information in an article". Does it refer to: For example, "According to Brie(1995), the Moon is made of cheese" Articles often present information that is not true (eg. Phlogiston theory, astrology, Time cube).--Iantresman (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A statement in the article
 * The facts (information?) being described by the statement
 * The statement is true and verifiable
 * The facts are false


 * Well, the rule is for (a condition on) the existence of the actual material (text etc.) in the article, but that which must be sourcable is the statements contained therein. True/false is not relevant to this particular requirement.  Anything beyond that is the subject of this 18 month debate.   North8000 (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The word information has its usual meaning, for example as in the way you used it when you wrote, "Articles often present information that is not true (eg. Phlogiston theory, astrology, Time cube)." Also, in your article example of Phlogiston theory, there is the information that it is an obsolete theory, "The phlogiston theory ... is an obsolete scientific theory ..." .--Bob K31416 (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, a "verifiable" statement about false "facts" is exactly what VnT ought to be about. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

History
In the history of the RfC there is the sentence, "A previous RfC in October–December 2011 did not reach consensus as to whether the opening paragraph of WP:V should or should not be revised in order to address concerns amongst many members of the community about possible misinterpretation of VnT."

Actually, this is a false statement since the previous RfC reached consensus that the opening paragraph should be revised according to the proposal. What happened was that the three closers incorrectly stated that it didn't, and because of this the proposal was not implemented. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a can of worms, isn't it! The passage to which you refer is part of a series of edits I made, and let me please say, more broadly, that I would very much like for everyone in this mediation to take a good hard look at it, and fix whatever I got wrong. That said, for this particular point, something tells me that it will go over rather poorly with the community as a whole if we begin our RfC by saying that the three admins got the last one wrong! I believe that we need to keep whatever we say about history as short as possible, and also to avoid anything that will create needless distractions. But you may be right that any mention of consensus with regard to that last RfC will itself be a distraction. How about this instead: "A previous RfC in October–December 2011 did not result in any revision of the opening paragraph of WP:V in order to address concerns amongst members of the community about possible misinterpretation of VnT." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Or, probably better: "A previous RfC in October–December 2011, as to whether the opening paragraph of WP:V should or should not be revised in order to address concerns amongst members of the community about possible misinterpretation of VnT, was closed as no consensus." I'm going to make that change now, but please do not regard that edit as anything like final. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's probably about the best way to say it. My way of describing what happened would be far less gracious/diplomatic. North8000 (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I added "controversial". --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And I reverted you. As North said, many of us, including me, have issues with the way things went last time. But here's the thing: what we should want for this new RfC is for those shenanigans not to happen again. If we go waving red meat in the faces of people who disagree with us, it may feel good for the moment, but the end result will be a repeat of what happened before. I feel very strongly that we need to be uncontroversial in the way that we introduce the new RfC, so as not to give anyone any reason to distract from what we are actually asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see you feel strongly about it, and I probably feel just as strongly, but I won't edit war.  To simply say it was closed as no consensus is giving the impression that there was no consensus for the change.  In fact, it was first closed as reaching consensus.  Your version is essentially choosing to side with those that believe there was no consensus.  To say it was controversial is very accurate and is not choosing sides.


 * My concern is that your version is setting things up for criticism of the existence of this RfC, for example in terms of WP:stick, with an argument like, "Why is everyone's time being wasted with another RfC when a similar proposal didn't reach consensus in the last large RfC." That would be the argument and that would favor Option B of this RfC, i.e. the old version that was retained after the last RfC because of allegedly no consensus for change. Something is needed in the intro to preclude the impression that there was clearly no consensus in the last RfC. Since you didn't like what I put in, could you suggest something else? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If we want to emphasise the controversial nature of the previous RfC, the best way would probably be the same way we do things like this in articles, i.e. outlining the actual history in more detail. For example, we could say that the previous RfC was commented on by over 300 users, closed as "support change", the close was reverted, and it was later closed as "no consensus" by three admins - the first multiple-admin close on the English Wikipedia. (At least, I'm not aware of any earlier multi-admin closes.) However, this would go against Tryptofish's desire to mention as little history as possible. Maybe a way to satisfy Tryptofish and also satisfy Bob's concerns about WP:STICK arguments, etc., could be to focus on how the current RfC is different from the Oct-Dec 2011 one. For example, we could re-jig the intro text to emphasise that while the previous RfC only had one possible draft to comment on, this one has a range of choices, and that this RfC differs from the previous one in that it also seeks to find editors' general opinions about if/how VnT should be used in the policy lede. Does this sound reasonable/workable to you both? — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 11:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My short answer is yes, that's reasonable! My big concern is that we not say anything that will upset other people, or give them reasons to argue with what we said. I think a brief (WP:KISS) description of how this RfC is different than the previous one (and therefore not just repeating the same thing) is a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Vote
In the RfC intro is the paragraph,
 * "This RfC is a discussion, not a vote. You are strongly encouraged to provide informative and detailed comments that will help achieve consensus."

It is a discussion and a vote. To say it is not a vote deprecates the significance of the number of editors supporting or opposing. It also justifies closers ruling one way or the other with little consideration of the number of editors supporting or opposing, which is basically what happened at the last RfC. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are proposing, in effect, a rewrite of WP:VOTE and WP:CONSENSUS. Please, let's just stick to WP:V for now. And also please note that some participants in the mediation would rather not have an RfC with drafts to start, so encouraging discussion is a good way to respect the spirit of those concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm not suggesting here a rewrite of anything but your sentence, "This RfC is a discussion, not a vote", for the reasons I mentioned, which you ignored. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "ignored" is a strong word to use here, and it would probably be more accurate to use "disagreed with" instead. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Tryptofish.) My understanding of the "discussion, not a vote" phrase is that it tries to make users aware that the process at work here is not a simple, majority vote, and that the closer will take the arguments made into account, not simply the number of editors who "voted" one way or another. Furthermore, my understanding of WP:Consensus is that editor numbers should be taken into account, just not to the detriment of the arguments made. In the policy page it says that "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view"; however it also says that "The goal in a consensus-building discussion is to reach a compromise which angers as few as possible." So calling it a discussion and not a vote does not necessarily mean that numbers do not matter, just that they matter less than they would in a straight vote. Having said this, I think we can compromise on this - how about saying "This RfC is a discussion, not a majority vote", or some other qualification of the word "vote"? — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. How about: "This RfC is a discussion, not simply a vote"? I'm saying that as a compromise, but I also want to point out that, once we put this in front of the whole community, even that compromise will elicit numerous complaints of "Polls are evil!!! I object to anything that's a vote!" The phrase "discussion, not a vote" is really just boilerplate (see, for example WP:DEM), and I'm actually surprised to see it becoming controversial here. And I also want to point out that S Marshall has been arguing for going even farther in the direction of not-vote for our RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply don't raise the issue in the first place, i.e.
 * " This RfC is a discussion, not a vote. You are strongly encouraged to provide informative and detailed comments that will help achieve consensus."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm unconvinced. How about:
 * "This RfC is a discussion, not a vote. You are strongly encouraged to provide informative and detailed comments that will help achieve consensus."
 * I see nothing at all wrong with it. Obviously, you and I are at an impasse, and it would probably be best if more participants would weigh in. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "I see nothing at all wrong with it." — Tryptofish still hasn't addressed the points in my original message. Also, the link Tryptofish gave, not a vote, is a link to a page with a dispute banner.
 * Again, Tryptofish's first sentence basically says numbers aren't meaningful, i.e. "not a vote", only discussion is meaningful. This means that the determination of whether or not there is a consensus can ignore numbers and make a judgement that can in principle depend solely on a subjective interpretation of discussion, to determine whether or not there is consensus. This isn't the way Wikipedia works. Numbers are important and are used in conjunction with discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, Tryptofish's first sentence basically says numbers aren't meaningful, i.e. "not a vote", only discussion is meaningful. This means that the determination of whether or not there is a consensus can ignore numbers and make a judgement that can in principle depend solely on a subjective interpretation of discussion, to determine whether or not there is consensus. This isn't the way Wikipedia works. Numbers are important and are used in conjunction with discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If we're looking for policies about voting, then we have WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. We also have the long-standing essays on meta Don't vote on everything and Polls are evil. Still, I don't think either of you are actually arguing that the number of editors in support of any given point does not matter. You both seem to be in agreement that numbers do actually make a difference - correct me if I'm wrong here. I have to agree with Tryptofish, though, that the phrase "not a vote" is firmly embedded into Wikipedian culture, and I have never seen it be controversial before. Maybe this is based on a misreading of Consensus? That page doesn't say that editor numbers don't matter, just that they shouldn't be used in substitute of reasoned argument. I still think we could clear this little disagreement up relatively peacefully by just tweaking the wording a little bit, though. How about using something similar to the wording in Not a ballot, for example? — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bob, I apologize if it sounded like I wasn't being responsive to you. In my mind, I think I have been responsive, but I just really, strongly disagree with you. I'll go back now and try to respond very specifically. You argue that my preferred wording means that the numbers of editors supporting or opposing does not matter. That actually is not the case. The policy on consensus does indeed take numbers into consideration, and that has always been the practice. The issue is when editors simply append "26. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)" to a list, as opposed to saying "26. I support/oppose this because of X, Y, and Z. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)". What we say at the top of the RfC page is not so much a philosophical stance, as it is a guidance to the respondents about how they can best provide useful input and have their views heard. Based on everything I've heard participants say in this mediation, I really don't think we want people just putting numbered endorsements on the RfC page, but rather, we want informative comments.


 * Imagine if three of the drafts get very little support, and two do get a lot of support. Let's say those two both have 50 opposes, and one of them has 301 supports, while the other has 302 supports. Do we really think the second one, and not the first, has consensus and that's that? Of course not! It will matter very much how the respondents made their comments, whether they backed up their !votes with explanations that held up logically and factually after further comments came in. If the 302nd support was just a "mee too!", it shouldn't count nearly as much as an oppose that gave thoughtful reasons that were subsequently supported by many other users and never really refuted.


 * You argue that you think that last time the closers ignored the numbers. Whatever we do or do not think happened last time, it's water under the bridge. What happens in the new RfC is what matters now. Get respondents to give thoughtful responses, and a clear consensus will be impossible to ignore or hide.


 * The more I think about this, the more I see no reason to water down the "not a vote" language. If anything, I'd rather strengthen it by adding more language, saying that votes without explanations will be counted less. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously we want thoughtful comments... but when you are the 157th person to express support (or opposition), it gets hard to come up with something thoughtful to say that has not already been said multiple times already. As for discounting "me too" and "yeah... what he said" comments... if such comments are referring to a thoughtful comment that was made previously, then having lots and lots of those short "me too"s will speak volumes about what the community consensus actually is.  In other words, while this isn't a simple "majority wins" vote... numbers do matter. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course numbers matter! That doesn't make it wrong to say that it's not a vote. And in an RfC where we're asking people to add themselves to sections with numbered comments, it's self-evident that numbers are going to be part of the analysis. You've actually just given an example of where judgment is called for in evaluating "me too" votes, looking at them in context. That's exactly the point: we don't just count them mathematically, but we evaluate the strength of the arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, we don't necessarily need to add the further language I said at the end of my longer comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Last time what went awry was about a 10 link chain of events, the most egregious of which I'd call hijacking. The second closers declaring "no consensus" was not one of the egregious ones, but was a link in that chain. I think that we're working on preventing the other links from occurring. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What IS much more likely to go awry this time will be if people just pick their favorite to comment on, in which case similar proposals will kill each other. The remedy is to emphasize that persons should feel free to comment on many of the choices, and also to pick more than one as their "top rated" ones. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd have no objection to adding something like that. (And, again, this is one more reason why it's a discussion, not a vote.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC location and page protection
The result was to use protection/transclusion. This was a close call, and as I said below, both sides have good arguments. As I couldn't really see any policy-based reason to favour one argument over the other, I based this close purely on the numbers who commented and the strength of their opinions. Those were: Not the widest of margins, to be sure, but I felt it was enough to make the decision. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 11:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For protection/transclusion: 1 strong support, 3 medium supports
 * Against protection/transclusion: 1 strong support, 1 medium support, 1 weak support

Now that the basic structure of the RfC has been settled, it's time to focus on the last few specific things we need to do before we put the RfC up live. One thing that we haven't worked out yet is where to actually put the RfC. We could put it at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, like the previous RfC, or it could have its own page entirely, maybe at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/2012 RfC or Requests for comment/Verifiability policy lede 2012. The location of the RfC ties in with the issue of whether we should fully protect the RfC page and only allow comments on transcluded subpages. If we have the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability then it won't be possible to use protection in this was, as doing that would disable comments on aspects of the policy other than the lede for the duration of the discussion. However, the opinion has been expressed that leaving the whole RfC editable would be more in line with the open spirit of Wikipedia. What does everyone think about this? Can you think of other arguments for or against protection or having the RfC at WT:V? And can you think of any other possible titles that we might use? — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2012 RFC is a good title because it's descriptive and neutral. The natural place to have an RFC is on the talk page of the subject to be commented about, and the natural way to run a discussion on Wikipedia is to keep it open and editable by anyone, because this is the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit.  The "locked subpages transcluded" smacks of distrust, and creates a wholly different atmosphere for the discussion.— S Marshall  T/C 10:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Something I forgot to mention earlier: a compromise solution could be to have the discussion on Verifiability, but to host the drafts themselves on a subpage, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/2012 RfC drafts. We could ask an admin to protect the drafts subpage, and transclude it onto the main RfC page. This wouldn't address S Marshall's criticism that transcluding locked subpages could be seen as distrustful, but it would allow editors to edit most of the RfC page directly. The technical disadvantage of this is that users could change the text that specifies which page is transcluded, meaning that in theory they could show an entirely different page instead of the drafts. In practice, though, I think this eventuality would be less likely than well-meaning users merely wishing to "tweak" a proposal before too many others comment on it. Just something else for everyone to consider. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Like S Marshall, I think that calling it "2012 RfC" is a good way to go; I don't think it matters whether it's a designated new page, or a subpage of WT:V. Obviously, one of the places to advertise it would be WT:V, but I wouldn't actually hold any of the RfC there. And I feel very strongly that we do need to use the protection-transclusion system. It doesn't prevent anyone from editing the places where they express their opinions, only preventing them from changing: (a) the instructions and introduction, (b) the drafts, (c) the general questions, and (d) the overall format. It only prevents people from, well, messing with the format. I cannot see how that would create an atmosphere of distrust. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. But just think what would happen if, several days into the RfC, one individual suddenly decides to start rewriting the drafts according to that one person's idiosyncratic whims. Then, other community members start opposing that draft because of the bogus wording. Then, a revert war breaks out. Then, people start claiming that the RfC is no longer valid and needs to be shut down. It would be a mess, and that would result in a bad atmosphere. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else have good arguments for or against this? At the moment we seem to be stuck on this point, and I'd rather other people comment than try and wade in myself. (I'm sure the water's lovely, though.) — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 13:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - to try and get more input about this I've sent out a talk page message to all the active mediation participants who haven't commented on it yet. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that we should agree on and then clearly communicate which pages / areas should and should not be edited.  If somebody messes with one, just revert them; if a bigger problem arises, then protect it. That follows the Wikipedia way. We should arrange it (separation, transclusion or whatever) so that the latter can be done if necessary.  This is just my recommendation; the other mentioned possibilities are also fine with me.  North8000 (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that would mean transcluding the comments onto the main RfC page from a subpage, even if we didn't choose to protect the main page at all. I think the argument against this would be that if we transclude the comments in such a way that we can protect the drafts part at any time, it means that we are already showing that we suspect disruption might occur. And if we suspect that disruption might occur, we may as well just protect the drafts page to start with. I can see good arguments for doing things one way or the other, but not so much for only going halfway. If you had to choose either one or the other, which would you go for? — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 17:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO few people will equate transclusion to expecting disruption. If I came along I would just think that it was a way to keep a large complex RFC organized and avoid edits in the wrong areas by misunderstanding/confusion. But answering your question, if forced to pic between those two,   its a near-tossup, but I'd probably go with unprotected / not transcluded, with very clear instructions on what areas should not be edited. North8000 (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply! If I could bother you one more time, when you say "very clear instructions", where were you thinking those instructions should be placed? In the text of the main RfC, maybe, or in an HTML comment that can only be seen when editing the page? What would be the most effective way of alerting editors to the fact that they shouldn't edit a particular area of the RfC text? — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 19:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly instructions at the top, and shade the "do not edit" area. I'm just giving my suggeation; all of the ideas and thought in this section sound fine to me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've seen RfCs go wrong because of further edits to the draft and explanation. So I would think protecting the basic structure of the RfC would be a good thing.  I'm not worried about people feeling mistrusted.  If I were worried about that, I'd oppose the headers on talk pages that warn people to behave.  I do value openness per Marshall, but I don't think a little transclusion to keep things in order actually goes against that.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  18:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Generally RfCs should not be edited since doing so can create confusion. But it is important the wording is clear, unambiguous and neutral which isn't always the case and which in certain instances has led editors to adjust wording an action which I can understand and agree with. In this instance we can make sure the wording is appropriate before the RfC opens. Most editors will respect a clearly worded request not to edit the RfC, and those who don't want to abide by the boundaries which are in place to benefit all editors should probably be asked move on to something else. I know this sounds harsh but I've been involved in several RfCs that  were pretty horrendous. I hope this one can be peaceful with a useful outcome.(olive (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC))


 * I think we need to make it incredibly clear why the drafts / questions shouldn't be edited. But I'm not sure that just "making it clear" is actually enough.  I can't actually see that having the drafts and questions protected and transcluded would constitute a problem; we could explain that it's been done that way to avoid any unintentional / inadvertent changes while the RfC is in progress, to avoid causing confusion, as it's likely that an awful lot of people may wish to comment.  Having thought it through, I think that's actually the better move. So long as there's an explanation of why it's done that way (to avoid mistakes), I think folks would be okay with that.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 04:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and made an example of what the RfC would look like if we use transclusion and protection for the comments. This is just to spur on the conversation, as we still seem to be pretty evenly split on which choice to make, and we could still use some more input. For convenience, here is a permanent link to the draft RfC page with the transclusion scheme, and here is the comments subpage. Let me know your thoughts. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already expressed my arguments of course, but I think it looks good. One thing occurs to me, though. The way you have it now, there is one "click here to edit" for Part 1 and another for Part 2. Given how many people may be trying to edit at the same time, and the resulting tendency for edit conflicts, I wonder (not sure) whether it might be better to have individual "click here to edit"s for each of the draft options in Part 1, and for each of the views in Part 2. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Marshall's naming scheme, but honestly I have to say I do not have a preference re page protection. Mangoe (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no reason any change to a draft text should be urgent. These texts can safely be protected. The comments on them should be as organized and as easily editable as can be achieved. In nonmediawiki systems, that would be addressed by allowing appendonly permission only, but semiprotected comment subpages ought to be close enough for this purpose. Avoiding editconflicts should be eased by tryptofish's suggestion of seperate subpages for comments to each proposed alternative. Time to stop navelgazing and put the question. LeadSongDog come howl!  03:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up question
As a follow-up question, what is the decision about what the page will be called? (I mean, whether or not it will be connected to WT:V.) It's a smaller point, and I personally don't care about it, but I just figure we should know. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's make it Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/2012 RfC. I suppose I didn't mention it in the close because no-one really disagreed. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Advertising
On the draft page, it says that the RfC will be advertised at: "WT:V, WT:NPOV, WT:NOR, WP:Village pump (proposals), WP:Centralized discussion, WP:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines, WP:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals, and through a Watchlist notice." Does anyone have suggestions for other places we might advertise the RfC, or disagree with any of the above suggestions? — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 11:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I made that list, but I really think it's important that everyone think hard about whether there's anything more to add to it. Remember, the shenanigans last time began with claims that the previous RfC wasn't widely enough advertised. This time, we need to make such claims utterly impossible. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sure that, no matter what we do, there will be some people who don't find out about the RFC and will complain (In other words, they will complain that because they didn't find out about it, it could not have been "advertized well enough".)
 * However, we can limit such complaints if we include a list of links (in the RFC itself) to any page where we actually have advertized it. It can be as simple as a line that states: "Notice of this RFC has been left at, , and ".  Then, when someone does complain, we can simply point them to that line and say... "Surely all these notices qualify as wide advertizement.  Sorry you didn't see any of them." Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, and actually, that list is at the top of the draft RfC page already. Particularly since you bore the brunt of those complaints last time, I really hope that you will look very critically at that list, and rack your brain for anything else that could be added to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. But I would also like to note that those complaints were a part of the hijacking process.  If we see hijacking again, we need to also be playing offense, not just defense. North8000 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * North, I think one of the best offenses (with a nod to Mr. Strad's caution below) is to act ahead of time to make absolutely sure that anyone who might be disruptive will simply have no recourse to even begin. All I'm really saying is that we need to advertise the bleep out of this, so that anyone who says it wasn't advertised enough will look downright silly. I'm just trying to close all the loopholes. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are very right on that. North8000 (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I agree with your use of "hijacking", "offense", and "defense" here. I can appreciate that you might have been annoyed by the concerns raised by other editors about the last RfC, but I would be very wary of labelling the act of raising those concerns as "hijacking". This reminds me of the very good advice found on WP:GLUE: it would be much better to keep the RfC process as open and transparent as possible, treat any concerns that are raised entirely seriously, and assume that the editors raising them are acting in the best of faith. This is simultaneously the best way to avoid falling into the trap of assuming other editors have bad intentions when they do not, and the best way to deal with the very small minority of occasions when they do. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 13:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are soooooooo diplomatic! :-) I'm going to have to disagree with on this one, but such is a sidebar anyway. And once one has seen it happen, there is no more "assuming" as the "A" in AGF for those particular editors, it is replaced by knowing.   Even Jimbo weighed in and said that the first close was proper and that what happened afterwards wasn't. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Finalising the statements in part two
Currently in the RfC draft, editors are asked to indicate whether they endorse, oppose, or are neutral about, the following statements: Would any editors like to change any of these statements, or add any more? — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 11:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "I think the phrase 'verifiability, not truth' needs to be part of the lede."
 * 2) "I don't think the phrase 'verifiability, not truth' needs to be in the lede itself, but it should be mentioned elsewhere on the policy page."
 * 3) "I don't see any need for the phrase 'verifiability, not truth' to be mentioned on the policy page."
 * 4) "I would like the lede to say more than it currently does about the distinction between perceived truth and verifiability."
 * 5) "If the lede includes the phrase 'verifiability, not truth', then I would like it to clarify that this phrase means only that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion."
 * 6) "I would like the lede to mention 'verifiable but inaccurate' material."
 * 7) "I would like the lede to be just about verifiability, I don't think it needs to mention 'truth' at all."
 * 8) "I support a large-scale restructuring/rationalisation/simplification of Wikipedia's policies, such as WP:ATT."
 * IMO in each case "VNT" should be referred to as a "phrase" rather then as "words".  "Words" makes the question ambiguous, it could be construed as talking about excluding each of those individual words.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I could see people wanting to exclude individual words ... such as omitting the words "not truth" but retaining the word "Verifiability" (so the sentence would read: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability."). Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is consistent with my point. Which is that as currently worded, the statements could be read as saying that all of those words should be excluded.  E.G. exclude the word "verifiability".   What we're REALLY asking about is either that particular (VNT) phrase, or about the words "not truth".   North8000 (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would say that what we are really really talking about is the entire sentence: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth." We are asking whether that whole sentence should be retained or removed... or added to, or moved, or re-written, or... etc... and if so how?  Blueboar (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is true. What should we do about that?  Either way, we don't want anythign that could be taken as excluding the word "verifiability" from the lead. North8000 (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to changing "words" to "phrase", but I also don't feel strongly either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just amended the RfC draft so that the questions refer to "the phrase 'verifiability, not truth' ", as North suggested... Regarding Blueboar's point about the sentence: "The threshold for inclusion... " That entire sentence is already in the RfC draft, in Option B of Part 1, so people will be able to support it or oppose it there. But maybe the statements in Part Two could also include a statement like: "I think the word 'threshold' needs to be part of the lede." It could come second in the list, immediately after "I think the phrase 'verifiability, not truth' needs to be part of the lede." Does that seem like a good idea? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that looks good. And yes, I would be in favor of adding that additional "view". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just added in the additional "view" re "threshold", and renumbered the others... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, and again it looks good. I recently added a bit about North's concern about the need to encourage support for more than one option, and I added Village Pump (policy) to the advertising list. I really hope that everyone in this mediation will start looking very closely at the draft RfC page, particularly with a view to whether we have remembered to close all of the loopholes that might, otherwise, lead to the RfC running into trouble. Let's close them loopholes! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

More general questions?
I have been wondering whether it would be good idea to include a few more general questions before asking about how people would like to formulate policy. I would like to know what the mainstream position is within the community about some questions underlying this dispute. What is the correct approach to verifiable inaccurate material? How can such material be identified? Does NOR apply only to inclusion of material? I'm not sure these are the best formulations or the central questions, but my understanding is that there actually are slightly different readings of the classical VNT sentence. It may be useful to clarify which reading is most widely supported before asking whether one should clarify that sentence in a certain way. What do you think, should one directly ask at least one such question? Regards, Vesal (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Vesal. We've actually pretty much decided what we're going to include in the upcoming RfC in terms of general questions and drafts, and we've had a lot of debate about it over the last few months. There will always be room to debate these things in the RfC itself, but we can't really go back over things that we have already decided as part of the mediation process, as otherwise the process would take far too long. (And it has taken since February already.) Probably the best thing to do would be to wait for the RfC and leave your comments there. We are just putting the final finishing touches to it, so it won't be long now. Sorry to shut down the conversation like this, but I hope you can understand where I am coming from. Best regards — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of how long this has been dragging on, but I'm not asking for any serious rethinking or restructuring of the RFC. I only asked whether among these supposedly general questions above, you may want to also include one or two question about underlying issues. I doubt you will get another chance to conduct a large scale RFC about VNT again, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you spent about 4 months and 4 work-groups on the drafts, and roughly one week and one-two threads on these general questions... Still, it may be okay, some of these questions will undoubtedly trigger discussions about underlying issues. Overall, I think you've done a very good job. Vesal (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see what you're getting at now - thank you for the clarification. I'll leave the decision on this to the other mediation participants, as I don't really mind one way or the other. It may be that the others are receptive to this, or it may be that they would rather focus on resolving the VnT issue without getting too much into general debates. I think it would be very helpful, though, if you could provide some examples of the kind of questions you were thinking about. If you give us some specific wording to comment on it will make our job here easier. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 13:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question 5 is actually very close to what I have in mind, but it asks about whether one would want to see a clarification... I was thinking of separately asking how people interpret VNT:
 * "I think VNT means that truth is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. It doesn't mean anything more than that: it has no bearing on whether verifiable, but inaccurate, information should be excluded from articles."
 * "I think that VNT means that what editors think is true or false should never influence Wikipedia content. It applies just as much to exclusion of material as it does to inclusion."
 * I'm also not sure this is a good idea, but there is one scenario when asking this is would be very useful: what if the community is evenly split on this question? Vesal (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't feel too strongly about this either way. I guess it's a matter of whether these additional points might complicate things without really giving us anything with which to work, because it isn't clear to me how they would provide guidance about how to write the policy page, more like an academic question about people's views. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the issue raised by Vesal is an important one to discuss. Another way you could express a view on this topic in the RFC, would be by commenting on what Option D says: "content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors." This is (in a sense) somewhere between the two interpretations of VnT mentioned by Vesal... The wording in fact emerged from a quite a lively discussion about this general topic within the mediation. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There are places in the RFC where one can express one's opinion on what VNT is supposed to mean, but the closers will have a very hard time assessing which interpretation of VNT is more widely held. What bothers me is perhaps that question five is assuming a certain interpretation, so one could want to oppose it either because one finds a clarification unnecessary (but one agrees with the clarification), or because one disagrees with the clarification. I suggest replacing question 5 with the questions: This last question is somewhat superfluous, but it does clarify the previous question: what does it mean that VNT means "only" xyz; what else could it mean? Well, the next question suggests a reading of VNT that means something more. This is the alleged "misunderstanding" of VNT, and it would be good to know how many, and if any experienced editors, subscribe to this view. Regards, Vesal (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) If the lede includes the phrase 'verifiability, not truth', then it is essential that the meaning of this phrase is made unambiguously clear. (Pesky wants to ask something like this anyway...)
 * 2) If the phrase is clarified, it should be made explicit that VNT means only that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, and truth is not a substitute for meeting this requirement.
 * 3) If the phrase is clarified, it should be made explicit that VNT means not only that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, but also that editor's assessment of truth and falsehood should influence neither inclusion nor exclusion of material in Wikipedia articles.
 * As I said earlier, I don't feel very strongly about this, one way or the other. But I can see objections to the specific wording you suggest. I would think that everyone would always want policy language to be "unambiguously clear". After all, there is very little constituency that would admit to favoring ambiguously unclear language! On the other hand, it might be good to change those three questions to these two:


 * 1) "If the lede includes the phrase 'verifiability, not truth', it should be made explicit that VNT means only that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, and truth is not a substitute for meeting this requirement."
 * 2) "If the lede includes the phrase 'verifiability, not truth', it should be made explicit that VNT means not only that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, but also that editor's assessment of truth and falsehood should influence neither inclusion nor exclusion of material in Wikipedia articles."
 * I'd have no objection to doing something like that. There may also be another way of posing a question about support for wording that is accessible to all users, but I haven't been able to think of a way of formulating it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re the proposed question 2 above... The only word that bothers me is the word "influence"... No matter how the policy is going to be worded, surely it can never stop an editor being influenced by his or her own judgement, for instance when deciding on what questions to seek out additional verifiable sources? Isn't the real issue here whether the deciding factor in a content decision should be verifiable info or something else? How would Vesal or other people feel about using the word "determine" instead of "influence"?  So it would read as follows
 * 2. "If the lede includes the phrase 'verifiability, not truth', it should be made explicit that VNT means not only that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, but also that an editor's assessment of truth and falsehood should neither determine inclusion nor exclusion of material in Wikipedia articles." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, determine is a much better word. Vesal (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The questions involving "but also that editor's assessment of.....falsehood should influence neither inclusion nor exclusion of material in Wikipedia articles. " are about created a really huge bad new policy which exists nowhere except in (mis-)interpretation of VNT. And introduced in a somewhat stealthy and biased way (blended into things that wp:ver does say.) If we're going to jump the tracks and start proposing controversial huge new policies, we need to handle this not like the above, but in a thorough neutral way. Better yet, don't start doing that here. I feel strongly about this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * North8000, but this precisely the point of asking it. You feel very strongly that this is a misinterpretation, but there are those who say this it the correct interpretation, and even those who deny this misinterpretation even exists ("VNT ain't broke"). Wouldn't it be useful to know how wide-spread this (mis-)interpretation is? Vesal (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We're already asking it in question #5. And in the proposed new questions, it is posed in a very problematic way.  If we did wish to deal with it directly, then I think it should deal with it directly, clearly separated from the wp:ver requirement-for-inclusion, and in a way that makes this very clear.  Would take 2-3 well written sentences. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe. When I first read question five (#6 in the current draft), I did not understand what it was getting at. What does it mean that this phrase "means only", as opposed to meaning what? Of course, once people start to support/oppose this question, it might become clear, or it might be a mess. The problem with only asking this question is that it can also be opposed because "VNT ain't broke", and you will not know if this person agrees or disagrees with the clarification, only that they think such clarification is not needed... You don't worry about this? If you don't worry, I will also let it rests. Regards, Vesal (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Answering your first question, the "as opposed to meaning what?" is that verifiability is also a force or mandate for inclusion. Basically, the opposite of the full logical meaning of the following statement "Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a force or mandate for inclusion." Once that requirement is met, wp:ver steps aside and leaves the ball game to otehr policies (such as wp:npov) and mechanisms.  And IMHO it is one of the most important questions that underlies this whole effort.  It is also very complex & difficult to explain in a way that really does so for people who are not logicians.  Regarding versions that retain VNT,  (hopefully there will be 3, the current status quo, the old status quo, and version 2) the one that is not a "status quo" one also covers this.  And this is to rule out an interpretation which is at best a small minority interpretation (I've been calling them the "5%" and which many folks say doesn't exist.     Bottom line,  I think that we should either rely on the items which I described in this paragraph to the question,  or else do the difficult work to present this question separately and clearly.  Either is fine with me, if folks prefer the latter, I'd be happy to work on it. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this area may need a little more attention. You've said you feel strongly about this, North. Probably others do as well. I must say that I don't fully share your understanding of VnT. Perhaps that puts me in that 5% of misinterpreters, I don't know. But I don't think it is quite right to speak of wp:ver "stepping aside" and wp:npov "kicking in". After all, wp:npov is about acknowledging and balancing a range of views expressed in verifiable sources. If wp:ver steps aside, then wp:npov falls over! For reasons like this, I think the view in Question 6 (formerly Question 5) is likely to get more opposition in the RFC than you may expect. Please don't complain about "hijacking" if that happens... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Answering your last thought first, such would bear no relation to what I called hijacking, so this raises zero concern there. And I probably was confusing about what I said I felt strongly about.  The only thing above that I said I'm strongly opposed to is posing it in an unclear or (accidentally) stealthy manner. It's fine with me to pose the question in a clear manner. North8000 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I agree that Vesal's wording was unclear, in that the suggested question was too long and convoluted. Another thing is that Vesal has agreed (further up in this thread) that "determine" would be a better word than "influence" in this context. So how about wording the question like this?
 * "If the lede includes the phrase 'verifiability, not truth', then I would like it to explain that this means WP's content is determined by previously published information, rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As no-one has objected to my above version of the suggested question, I've just added it into the draft.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Last question, WP:ATT
I'm thinking that the last question might be too confusing, unclear, compounded and non-germane. Even if the thought is good. What is it really asking? And half of it could be taken as weighing in on wp:att, but what would that exactly mean? The particular linked version? Or the common meaning of wp:att for those who remember (which is combining wp:ver and wp:nor). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's there because WP:ATT actually gained consensus and was briefly implemented. (It was only overturned by a unilateral revert by Jimbo).  Editors may prefer the WP:ATT approach to having several separate policies.  It's meant as a place where those who opposed change in the last RFC because the change didn't go far enough can register their view, or for those who feel that WP:V as currently written is so bad that the best way is to nuke it from orbit (it's the only way to be sure).— S Marshall  T/C 07:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As you just described it I think that it is a good question. (I.E.a general: "do you want major changes?") But do you think that using wp:att in it might tend to exclude (e.g. "I don't even know what wp:att is, so I guess I'm not qualified to answer that question") or confuse people? The most recent bigger wp:att discussion was I think 2-3 years ago and was just about low-key combining wp:ver & wp:nor. North8000 (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very open to suggestions about how to improve the question!— S Marshall T/C 09:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How 'bout:
 * I support a large-scale restructuring/rationalization/simplification of Wikipedia's policies or
 * I support a large-scale restructuring,rationalization,simplification and combining of wp:verifiability and wp:nor
 * North8000 (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a correction to S Marshall's history of what happened with WP:ATT... There was a clear consensus for it among the policy wonks (ie those of us who regularly work on policy pages), but no clear consensus among the community as a whole. When it was implemented, Jimbo did challenge it (strongly), but he did not "unilaterally overturn" it. It was only overturned after a huge community wide RFC/Poll (with hundreds of comments) was held to determine whether there really was a consensus or not (the results were fairly evenly split between "support" and "opposed" ... sound familiar?) Blueboar (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

An added statement?
Apologies for my (almost) absence over the past couple of weeks; this was due to my mother's death and funeral taking priority over WikiWork.

I have another statement (for the strong oppose, oppose, neutral, support, strong support options) which I think is very important to add. This is from the WP:AUTIE POV, but applies to other editors as well. Here it is:


 * I think that it is important that our policies should be immediately and unambiguously clear to all our editors, including those for whom English is a second language, and those who are on the Autism spectrum. Any statement which may cause confusion, or a "jolt" to the thinking processes, should be clarified with a full explanation in order to avoid misinterpretation and / or mistakes in applying policy which cause avoidable stress and argument, and unnecessarily waste editors' time and resources.

Can this please be added? As it stands, many parts of our policies are (quite unnecessarily) Native-English-speaker-centric, neurotypical-centric, and college-education-level centric. This is the cause of a lot of problems which could be completely removed with a bit more thought. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Our condolences. Good thought overall (although the autism mention seems overly-specific from the zillions of possibilities covered by your comment). But, are you referring to VNT when you say this?   If so, I think we should be clearer on that because that is what this particular process is about.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with both.— S Marshall T/C 22:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In general terms, this should really apply to all our policies and guidelines (not going to happen in a hurry, heh! But that's the idea). In specific terms, it's with reference to VnT here. I expect that if we inserted "(for example, "Verifiability, not truth")" after "... the thinking processes" that would make it better. I'd like to keep the autism mention in there if at all possible, because we have a lot of Aspie and Autie people Wikipedia is a real honey-trap for such folks (including me!) Maybe it would be better to have the Wikilink for Autism spectrum go to the essay (like this) instead? It makes it more applicable to Auties-in-Residence at Wikipedia, with a bit more insight as to why this is important, for anyone who clicks the link. (And thanks for the condolences, guys. It feels very strange not being a full-time carer for my mother any more; more spare time and freedom, less sense of purpose.)  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 04:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re:your last sentence, thanks for sharing that. Went through that with my mom myself recently.  The best to you in what you are going through.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I came here casually, and I apologise in advance if the following is OT or otherwise unhelpful: I agree that "anything-proof" clarity is important in Wikipedia policies, given the peculiarities of a forum communication environment, coupled with the sorts of issues Pesky's referring to. Not to mention defence against POV-pushing etc... Legitimate misinterpretations, whether accidental or deliberate, aggravate many situations on Wikipedia, imo. For me, verifiability (as distinct from "truth") would be a rather different proposition from verifiability, not truth. I think some rewording along those lines might provide another way of encouraging readers to consider the underlying concept rather than wed a simplistic (imo) slogan. 2c,—MistyMorn (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Closers
Currently on the draft page, it says "Upon closing, all user comments will be read carefully, and consensus will be determined by a panel of three uninvolved administrators: (name), (name), and (name)." Are we really going to be in a position to name the closers before the RfC starts? I thought that it might be a better idea to ask at WP:AN maybe a week before the RfC is due to close. We can always add the names to the RfC after they've been decided. What do others think about this? — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is a good idea to pre-appoint closers, just in case we are accused of selecting those likely to favour some particular point of view.— S Marshall T/C 14:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome back to another episode of the S Marshall versus Tryptofish debates! I was the person who drafted the proposed language on the RfC page, and I'm not only in favor of doing it that way, but I would even go one step further. I'd suggest we ask the same three admins as last time to close it. If one or more of them declines, then we would solicit the remaining positions at WP:AN. I like the concept of stating at the beginning who will close it. I like the concept of it being three people instead of a single individual. I like the concept of the closers being uninvolved in the preparation of the RfC or in this mediation. And I like the concept of making it the same three people who closed it last time, if they are willing. All of those preferences of mine are based upon my desire to, as I've said above, "close all the loopholes". I'm trying to think of the best ways to make anyone who wants to shut down or discredit the RfC look like they don't have a leg to stand on. And as I asked S Marshall the last time he and I discussed this issue on this talk page: who do you think should close it – you? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Tryptofish here... With a demonstratedly contentious issue like this, I think it would be more likely that someone will complain that "the closer was biased" if we don't pre-appoint neutral closers ahead of time. If the three who closed the last RFC whether are willing to do so again, I would have no problem with that. Blueboar (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me too. I think if it's at all possible, the ideal would be to have the same three closers.  This pre-empts any complaints of close-rigging which might otherwise raise their nasty heads above the water.  If it's the same three as last time, and the result is different, it's unlikely that anyone would mutter about any possible "rigging" of the result.  Except for the people who will do that anyway, and suggest that one or more of the closers has been "nobbled" ... ;P  Whatever we do, someone's going to be unhappy with it.  Tryptofish's reasoning above seems very sound, to me.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello all - I have asked WormTT, RegentsPark and HJ Mitchell if they would be willing to close the RfC. Also, as it seems to me that we shouldn't just decide how the RfC gets closed by ourselves, I've started a discussion about it at Village pump (policy). — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a good idea.— S Marshall T/C 22:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it is a very bad idea. To start with, the only legitimate closer was Sarek of Vulcan and they are not even mentioned.  Next the other three are all now involved.  Third, anybody even innocently associated with that travesty series of events that began with the reversion of the proper close would be like throwing gasoline on a fire.  North8000 (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the previous 3 closers are suitable per a previous message of mine at WT:V.

In a discussion on Jimbo's talk page, one of the closers of the large RfC re the first sentence made the following comment, "As one of the closing admins, I did look at the numbers first of all and thought it was a clear situation. Indeed, when I first saw HJ's conclusions, I voiced my concern that a no consensus was not the right decision. But after reading the votes - a very large proportion of the supporters either supported with provisos or stated that they didn't like it, but vaguely preferred it to what we currently have." (diff for this comment and link to whole section of Jimbo's talk page that contains this comment)

So I decided to check this and went through all of the support votes. The following tables divide the 276 support votes into three categories: 1) Definite support,  225;    2) Support and wanting more change, 26;    3) Support with reservations, 25. (Feel free to check or spot check the tables.) This result shows that the comment of the closing administrator is not true regarding, "a very large proportion of the supporters either supported with provisos or stated that they didn't like it, but vaguely preferred it to what we currently have."

The following 3 tables divide the 276 support comments into 3 categories of 225, 26 and 25 respectively. The last column on the right of each table has cumulative totals for that table.

1) Definite support:

2) Support and wanting more change:

3) Support with reservations:

--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. So far, I don't see how 3 impartial competent closers can be assembled for the RfC. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bob... may I suggest that you do a similar break down of the opposed comments? Analyzing only one side of a question will skew the result of any analysis. Blueboar (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry, it looks like my post at the village pump was a bit hasty. As we have significant disagreement about who should close it, it's probably best to start the RfC without mentioning the closers at all - we can always debate it as the RfC is in progress. I'll make a note about this at the village pump as well. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 04:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's a problem in the system that won't go away, i.e. the power of just 3 editors who are closers to nullify a consensus of hundreds of editors, as occurred in the last RfC. But this isn't the only problem. You have 5 options. What is needed for consensus in this case? Frankly, I don't see how this RfC is going anywhere except towards the reinstatement of the VnT version of Dec 2011.  I think that before an  RfC of this type can be held in a meaningful way, policies and guidelines have to be written to guide the presentation and adjudication for RfC's of this type.  I think I've contributed about as much as I can under the circumstances, so I'll probably let you folks just continue without me. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you've been contributing a LOT, including through this last post. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, so now we're not going to have closers announced at the beginning??? I object very strongly! Mr. Stradivarius, you cannot determine consensus simply by blowing whichever way the wind blows. There is a complete imbalance between the arguments in this thread between those that argue for three closers named from the start, and those who are simply making a WP:IDONTLIKEIT gripe about what happened last time. Yes, I know that Sarek made the right call last time. I've said so, repeatedly. You can look back and see me say it. But that isn't the point. The point is how to get a good outcome this time, that will be accepted by the community. Does anyone really think that if we just postpone the decision now, that everything will be peaceful when we do get around to selecting closer(s)? Leave it open at the start, and there will be attempts to game it while the RfC is in progress. Ask Sarek to do it (didn't he resign after the last time?), and large numbers of people will complain. Better to get it settled from the beginning. And let me point out something more. The problems with the last RfC were not the fault of the closers. It was the fault of the persons responsible for re-opening it after Sarek closed it. Once the three closers came in, they had to deal with what existed already, what had been created by the re-opening. I know that it is a parlor game amongst WP:V aficionados to demonize the three closers, but they actually acted reasonably under the circumstances. Their arguments were actually reasonable. Go the way this discussion now seems to be going, and I predict the new RfC will get messed up the same as the last one did. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments: Blueboar's dead right in that we need a similar analysis of the oppose comments. Following on from that, it may be worthwhile to put a link to both analyses into the new RfC, so that people actually have some hard objective facts in front of them, as opposed to mis-rememberings of their own, any internal bias caused by those, or accurate memories of other people's inaccurate memories or analyses. I'm also in agreement (again!) with Tryptofish about the fact that by the time we had the three-closers situation, the RfC had (been) mutated into a different monster altogether, with its purpose and intent and suchlike having been misrepresented (or simply misinterpreted) giving it a wholly different "feel".  It had turned into a pig of a thing to try to close, which bore little more than a passing similarity to what it had been before it was viewed predominantly through shit-coloured spectacles.  I, too, think that what they did was reasonable in respect of the New Monster which had been created, though it wouldn't have been reasonable in respect of the original unadulterated animal.  Our biggest challenge here is to take whatever steps we can to remove the shit-coloured spectacles from the viewers, and ensure that they see The New Animal in its genuine light, with a truly objective analysis of the comments from all sides on the last one.  There's little more effective than verifiable facts to dispel inaccurate memories and myths.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 09:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Heheheeee! I've just noticed an absolutely delicious irony here!  What we'll end up with is an exemplary situation of "Verifiability, not ..." personally-rememberd-or-reported "Truth"!  People will have their own "personal truth" in respect of the last RfC.  We need to give them verifiable facts, backed with citations (links) to the Real Verifiable Truth tables about what actually happened last time ;P  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 09:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that we may be mis-remembering stuff even more quickly, like on (this) the same page 1-2 days after it happened. NOBODY accused the three closers of acting improperly. About the roughest thing said by anybody was by me, and that was (bolding/italics added) "Third, anybody even innocently associated with that travesty series of events that began with the reversion of the proper close would be like throwing gasoline on a fire." And I think that BobK basically just said that one of them made errors. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've looked at all the arguments here again. Sorry Tryptofish, but I don't think the arguments against having the same three closers as last time can be so easily dismissed as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In particular, I think we need to pay attention to the argument that the three closers from last time should now be considered involved. I have no doubt whatsoever that they would do an excellent and impartial job of closing the RfC; however, to make the close watertight we need to make sure that the community see them as being impartial. If we have objections on this point already, then it seems fair enough to assume that we will also have objections about it when the time to close the RfC comes round. RegentsPark also said that this could be a problem, so I think it would be wise to listen to their advice. Having thought about it, I don't think we have to give up the idea of naming closers in advance, though. How about this: we start a discussion on WP:AN to find three neutral admins with no previous involvement in the debate, and we name them in the RfC before it starts. This way we can prevent both the criticism of the admins being involved, and the criticism that we selected admins based on our preferences. Does this sound like a way forward that we can all live with? — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 11:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still not thrilled about pre-appointing closers, but self-selected closers rather than ones we have appointed is an idea I can live with. We need to find three administrators in good standing, ideally those who did not !vote in the last RFC, but if we have to use ones who !voted then there should be no more than one from each column.  I also want to say how happy I am with Pesky's phrase earlier.  "Shit-coloured spectacles": I'll be re-using that.  :)— S Marshall  T/C 11:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is quite a nice turn of phrase, I agree! — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 12:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A note for everyone - RegentsPark, Worm That Turned, and HJ Mitchell have all indicated that they would be willing to close the RfC this time around. (Though this might be rendered moot, judging by the direction the discussion is heading in.) — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 12:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What we really need is low key uninvolved admins or highly experienced & respected editors who have no known opinion on this and are good methodical analysts. The kind of people who would absolutely not touch this with a ten foot pole.  :-) North8000 (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I accept as valid the argument that the previous three closers are now what could be regarded by some members of the community as "involved". That does make sense. I think that Mr. Strad's idea of naming in advance three uninvolved admins asked to volunteer from WP:AN is a good solution, and I support it. (Although if any of the three from before happens to volunteer, or for that matter if Sarek does, they should at least be given the courtesy of consideration.) But I really continue to think that it's very important to have the three settled on before the RfC begins. I hope that we can at least agree on that. (I also hope that we can actually get three new volunteers, per North's comment.) And I've got to say that I absolutely love Pesky's analysis! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've made a call for uninvoloved admins at the administrators' noticeboard here. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 15:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we now officially have three admins who have volunteered to help with the close at the AN thread I linked above. Does anyone have any objections with going with these three? If not, I think it's about time we get this RfC started. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 15:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it's time to put up a draft of the actual RFC so that we can finalize it. Including what questions are we going to as about the questions. North8000 (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * North, we've had Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/RfC draft for a couple of weeks now, if that's what you mean. And Mr. Strad, I say thanks to those three administrators, and let's get this party started! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't realize that it was all pulled together into one place.   I'd like a tweak in the wording that encourages (not just allows) people to comment on multiple drafts, including supporting as many as they like. And #7 is misleading / confusing (a vague platitude which combines what is widely accepted with a radical new proposal in stealthy wording and asks for a comment on the combination of the two.) in a very dangerous way and should be clarified.  With those important changes, IMHO we'd be ready to roll. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Format
Hi. This has likely has been discussed but just looking at it from the outside. It would be easier if the discussion sections for each proposal were directly under each of the draft sections, instead of all the drafts first and then all the discussions. Just sayin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Change in direction
As I pointed out, there are fundamental problems with proceeding. Was this mediation prompted by a dispute about the "under discussion" tag that is currently in WP:V? Perhaps an RfC on not placing "under discussion" tags at WP:V would get consensus and settle that dispute.

In any case, instead of pursuing an RfC on 5 options that has no chance of reaching consensus on any of them, the ideas from all the discussions here could be used to suggest incremental edits at WP:V. The current state at the protected Verifiability policy page of first making edit requests at WT:V and getting consensus, before an admin would implement it, could be continued for desired policy stability. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The "under discussion" tag was put there because there was a lively ongoing controversy about the wording of the lede. Until the underlying controversy has been resolved, what is the point of seeking consensus about the tag? Regarding the RFC, I don't see why you are so sure that none of the 5 options will get a consensus? And what about the list of general questions -- even if none of the 5 options does get consensus, some of the questions very likely will... Whatever the result, the RFC will bring more people into the discussion, and generate more ideas that could be used to suggest incremental edits. How can this be a bad idea? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Final call for draft alterations
As we have now found three previously uninvolved admins who are willing to close the RfC, I can see no further barriers to us putting it up live. I'm going to copy the draft over to the RfC location, and change the wikicode so that it will work in the actual RfC location. For now, I will leave the draft notice on, and leave it without an RfC template. Please check over the links, check that all the drafts are showing the correct content, and check that all the other little details are displaying/working correctly. Unless anything urgent turns up, I will remove the draft notice, put up an RfC template, and ask for the main RfC page to be protected, at 10:00 am on Thursday June 28 (UTC). I would also like you to use this time to iron out any small issues with wording that remain, such as brought up at the end of the "closers" section by North8000. If you need more time, then of course I will consider it, but I think two days should be enough. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 13:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe we should make 2 important changes:
 * Tweak the wording so that it that encourages (not just allows) people to comment on multiple drafts, including supporting as many as they like.
 * Major clarification in the wording of #7. I never realized that it got into a real draft. It is misleading / confusing.  A vague platitude which asks people to comment on a "bundle" which is a combination of the universally accepted aspects of wp:ver combined with a radical new proposal introduced in a vague and (inadvertently) stealthy way.
 * North8000 (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure whether to just suggest here or to edit the draft as a BRD proposal. North8000 (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say just go ahead and change the part about encouraging comment on multiple drafts, as it sounds like a fairly obvious change to me. I also suggest adding your proposed changes to question 7 per WP:BRD - the discussion will probably be more efficient that way. I'll notify everyone about the final call as well, just to make sure that they are aware of it. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I put 'em in. See what y'all think. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note - I have moved the draft page to Verifiability/2012 RfC and the comments page to Verifiability/2012 RfC/Comments. I moved it rather than copying it in the end, as that just seemed easier, and I couldn't see a particular reason to split the page history. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * North made a change to View 7, and I have (for the moment!) reverted it, in hopes that we can figure out a better way to say it. The existing wording is about something that makes sense to me: clarification that VnT means that personal opinion about truth doesn't matter, and thus, that VnT isn't saying that we are transcription monkeys yada yada yada. That, to me, makes sense as something to ask. I have tried to understand North's comment above about a bundle, a radical new proposal, and a stealthy way of sneaking it in – and I have no clue at all as to what any of that is referring to. And the proposed new language, about "a strong influence or mandate" that is somehow bigger than a "requirement" similarly leaves me baffled. North, I'm receptive to changing the question to address what concerns you, but I'm totally at a loss as to what you are talking about. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do need to say that I consider question #7 as currently worded to be a very serious problem. Structurally, it is asking people to comment on the bundling of two items, one of which is a motherhood and apple pie statement, the other is a radical new proposal:
 * The motherhood and apple pie statement is that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion
 * The radical new proposal is that WP:VER says editors can't ever make a decision to leave sourced material out.   The verifiability is more than a requirement for inclusion, it is a force or a mandate for inclusion.   If we're going to float this radical new policy here, fine, but in the question, don't combine it with a motherhood-and-apple statement and ask them to comment on the bundle, or camouflage it.  And the current draft wording does both of those.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's a rather dramatic way of putting it, but I can see where North8000 is coming from and there's an extent to which I agree. Could we just find language that addresses this concern before starting the RFC, please.— S Marshall  T/C 17:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I think (maybe) that I see now what you mean. I just made a change to it. Does that change satisfy your concern? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I started on a longer complex answer but decided on a short one. Yes, that takes care of my concern. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good! :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It strikes me that the Discussion not Vote caveat still needs a bit more emphasis, perhaps by bolding. Also, some editors will inevitably ignore that caveat and !vote anyhow. Should such be reverted, struck through, or simply let be? Other than that, no issues.LeadSongDog come howl!  15:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I felt that way too, but we had a (rather frustrating, for me) discussion in which there were objections to saying "not vote" at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Its simpler to give people instructions like "no vote" in the beginning rather than deal with insulted editors later whose votes have been struck or deleted. Make things simple! Bolding is fine. (olive (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC))
 * I agree. I've added some bold, so please everyone check whether that's better, or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Another question: At present, there are two hatnotes at the top of the RfC page: the first, about it still being a draft, and the second, about watchlisting. I assume the first will be deleted once we go live. I wonder, though, whether we really need the second. Is it enough to just have the last paragraph of the introduction, without the hatnote? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the draft notice will be removed before the RfC goes live, and I would also be fine with removing the watchlisting note at the top. I only put it there because I was copying what they did at the pending changes RfC, but there's no real reason we have to copy what they did. There is also the fact that the structure for this RfC is simpler than for the pending changes RfC, as that one had three subpages and this one has one. Does anyone else have a preference about this? If not, I'll remove it. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  (have a chat) 03:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions #6 and #7
I'm reverting the changes to Question #7 for further discussion. North, if you didn't realize that #7 had gone into the draft, that was your own oversight, because it was raised for discussion on this talk page before it went in. It is in the thread "More general questions" (subsection of "Finalizing the statements in part 2"). Tryptofish's addition is a valiant attempt at compromise, but it makes #7 much too long and convoluted. There needs to be an alternative to the view presented in #6. And it needs to be a simple statement, not a book. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Now #7 is back to what I would consider to have the huge problems described above. I think that my previous version which Tryptofish reverted was such a clear statement. But I was also OK with what Trypotofish subsequently created.  But now it's back to having big problems. North8000 (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What I find hard to understand is how you think a single fairly short sentence can be both a vague platitude and a radically new policy. Would you like to explain which part of the wording is vague, and which part is radical? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To get to the heart of this quickly, let me parse logically what I think that wp:ver does and should say in this area. Then I'll ask if and how you disagree with me and if so, devise question that clarifies people's sentiments with respect to that area of disagreement.
 * WP:ver says that verifiability is A condition for inclusion of material.  And emphasizes this by saying that nothing (such truth, personal knowledge etc.) is a substitute for meeting this requirement
 * Once/ provided that this requirement is met, wp:ver becomes silent on the topic of whether or not that material actually gets included. It leaves it to all other mechanisms of Wikipedia (other policies, RFC's, discussions/decisions/discretion by editors) to determine whether or not the material actually goes in.) For example, they are usually (but not always) free could decide that it is so boring, unrelated or outdated that it would be better to leave it out of the article.  So, meeting verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not by itself a force / reason / mandate for inclusion.


 * Now, do you disagree with me on any of that? And, if so could you pose a question that covers only the area of disagreement? North8000 (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have to say that I do disagree with some of that. I disagree with the part where you say that "wp:ver becomes silent"....


 * I agree that other policies play a part in the content decision, for instance NPOV. However, NPOV is all about how to present competing claims found in published (verifiable) sources. When trying to do so, we may refer back to WP:VER to establish what a verifiable source actually is. At that point, WP:VER is not silent. In the context of NPOV, the fact that an assertion is verifiable will often be a decisive argument in favor of acknowledging it, even if some editors consider that the assertion is not true.


 * You've asked me to pose a question that covers "only the area of disagreement". Does that mean you will only be happy with a question that has been purged of any element you might agree with? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is exactly what I want. I want clarity in the question and a single-topic neutrally worded question, I'm NOT looking for agreement with me. BTW, re-stating that wp:npov determines content is a violation of both :-). North8000 (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You still haven't explained specifically what you object to in the current wording of question #7. Are you saying it lacks clarity? Are you saying it is not single-topic? Are you saying it is not neutrally worded? If so, why? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, all three, and it has all three problems in a major way. I think that I already covered the lack of clarity and multiple topics in the same question. And such a blend itself is non-neutral. But the other non-neutral wording is substituting the straw man term "personal beliefs or experiences" for what is essentially all decision making by editors. North8000 (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a solution, albeit at the cost of lengthening the RfC a bit more, would be to make the list of views/questions an even dozen. By this, I mean to leave #7 as Kalidasa has reverted it, but insert a new #8 (bringing the total number to 12). The new 8 would be something like what I had tried to add in response to North's concern: "If the lede includes the phrase 'verifiability, not truth', then I would like it to explain that this does not mean that material must always be included so long as it is verifiable." As far as I can tell, that would address everyone's concerns, and would have the added virtue of breaking down the issues so that they don't get mixed together. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That would help via making the overall situation fuzzier and thus less dangerous. Long story short, I'm assuming that Kalidasa 777 is the main proponent (and possibly author) of #7 as-is.  If so, I think that the best way to clear this up is to ask Kalidasa 777 to say what their specific main intended point is for #7. Sincerely,  North8000 (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's your position, I would instead prefer to leave the questions as they are now, and consider this a wrap. I think #7 is perfectly workable as it is, not posing any risk of the sky falling, and its only shortcoming is that it leaves out the issue of "having" to add content simply because it's verifiable. Keeping in mind that these "views" do not lead directly to any change in policy wording, North or anyone else who wants to can say in their RfC comments whatever they want about what they consider to be hidden big issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Tryptofish's #8 is a very good idea. As North has agreed that that would help, I've just added this point into the draft. Regarding the rest of your posting, North, it was Vesal, not Kalidasa, who initially suggested there should be a question offering an alternative view to the one in Question #6. Vesal's arguments are on this page, in the thread "More general questions". I've already explained why I agree with Vesal's general point, and why I thought Vesal's initial wording could be improved. As Tryptofish said, these "views" do not lead directly to any change in policy wording. So why don't we save our discussion about the merits and demerits of both #6 and #7 for the RFC itself, and see what everyone else thinks then? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * North raised a specific objection to the phrase "personal beliefs or experiences", as non-neutral and a strawman. I'm not sure I'd agree, but it is a bit wordy, anyway, for a question about a general principle. So I've just replaced that phrase with the single word "beliefs". Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello all. I've been watching this thread with interest, and it looks like you have just about worked out your differences on this point. However, I want to make sure that North8000 is willing to accept the proposed solution before we actually go ahead with the RfC. This means I'll be extending the deadline for a short while until we hear back from him. If North thinks that we need more time to discuss this, then I can maybe give you another day or two. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * # 7 is basically nice sounding vague statement which will get support. So the results of it could be interpreted in zillions of different ways that range from reaffirming what everybody has already accepted to  a refutation to the response to #6  to a mandate for creation of radical new policy or a statement of existence of a radical policy that isn't written anywhere except as an interpretation of VNT.  (basically that editors can never decide to leave out sourced content).  The good news is that it is vague enough that opponents of the latter readings could successfully assert "it was too vague to read that into it"   One alternative would be to "fix it".  This would be to be a single topic, clear, neutrally worded question which asks exactly what it's creator/proponents intended.  This would take engagement of those folks on this particular discussion  (which we do not have) and several days to deal with this logically complex area. The alternative would be to simply delete the question.  Given all of this, I've decided that I have no objection with proceeding with the RFC even if my least favored choice (#7 present and as-is) were in place. And the other 2 preferred possibilities are unlikely, so I say "Let's roll!" with it as-is.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone! It looks good to me, too. I'd say remove the hatnotes, do the advertising, and we're ready to party! I'm about to be on an airplane for most of the day, but I wish everyone all the best, and I'm very proud to have worked with all of you. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Should we rough out up front what we are asking the closers to do just to avoid this jumping the tracks?
Here are a few possibilities, good and bad: North8000 (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Decide if one of the drafts has a consensus?  Good, but unlikely
 * 2) IF one of the drafts has consensus, decide that it should go into wp:ver?  Good
 * 3) Add a pre-ordained caveat to #2 that the decision is on the main treatment of VNT and "threshold", it does not prevent work on minor unrelated items? Good
 * 4) Decide if one of the drafts has much stronger support than the others? Good
 * 5) Decide that a draft that has much stronger support than the others (but not a consensus) goes into wp:ver. Maybe good, maybe bad
 * 6) Decide if any particular thoughts / direction have a consensus? Good
 * 7) Decide if any particular thoughts have strong support, even if not a consensus?  Good
 * 8) Decide on changes to wp:ver (from the current) even if there is no clear answer from the RFC? . BAD BAD BAD BAD idea
 * My reaction is that I agree with what you consider to be good or bad. To some extent, I think that we ask the three closers, all of them experienced and trusted users, to already know what "consensus" does and does not mean. Please take a look at what the paragraph about the closers in the current draft says about what will happen at closure, and see whether you feel that it says enough. My personal opinion is that it does say enough, but I'm open to changing my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, the only thing that it says in this area is: "consensus will be determined by a panel of three uninvolved administrators". I doubt that any of them have dealt with such a large and complex RFC and even if they did they would probably appreciate this guidance.  I think that in the unlikely event that there is a consensus for any one draft, things will be pretty simple and clear. If not, not, which is much more likely.  #8 would be the real jump-the-tracks train wreck which I think we should preclude. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It also talks about all the comments being carefully read, etc., and these are three administrators whom I entirely trust not to mess things up. I guess I'd lean against putting detailed instructions to closers on the RfC page itself. But I'd have no objection to Mr. Strad informally inviting the three admins to look at this discussion thread, here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm with Tryptofish. Let's not give the closers parameters.  Let's let them analyse the discussion in their own way and reach their own conclusions.  I mean, the situation appears to be that there's broad support for Blueboar's compromise and a significant majority in favour, but we're (allegedly) not quite over the bar to make an actual change.  So we're trying to break the question down into smaller pieces and figure out what if anything can achieve consensus.  There's quite a broad spread of possible outcomes, and I think we need to give the closers wide latitude.  I also think it isn't up to us to control what conclusions the closers are allowed to reach, and any attempt to do so would be quite cheeky.— S Marshall  T/C 18:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So I guess that the short answer of what we're asking them to do is to determine what, if anything, has a consensus. Which is basically what the RFC says, as Tryptofish pointed out.  Which I guess would keep #8 from happening. So I'm cool with that.


 * But are we asking them to determine anything even if there is no consensus? And if so, is that a blank check to modify wp:ver to something that has no consensus? North8000 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that your question answers itself. Determining consensus has never meant ignoring consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I never mentioned anything about doing anything against consensus, and never had that concern. Either way, I just brought it up as a possible base to be covered (no strong opinion that we do so) and with you and S. Marshall thinking it's not a good idea, I think we should  skip it. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure enough. But let me repeat what I said above: that I'd have no objection to Mr. Strad informally inviting the three admins to look at this discussion thread, here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hint taken. :) I've left a note on the three admins' talk pages thanking them for their offer of help, and mentioning the discussion here. I don't think we should expect them to contribute here just because they have agreed to help close the RfC, but if any of them are willing, you might see a comment or two from them in the next day or so. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  (have a chat) 05:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My own two currency subunits:
 * I think it's clear from the outset that a possible result is that there is no consensus. I don't think anyone would expect us to simply go out and do "something" in this case – and I certainly wouldn't – but it's likely in that situation that we'd distil the arguments, try to factor out what could reach consensus, and recommend a new RFC with new parameters in the closing comments.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's entirely reasonable, Coren. And I want to say a very big thank-you to you, Jc37, and Sandstein, for stepping up to do this! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Coren's said it fairly well. This of course doesn't preclude determining what may actually have consensus, even if it's not within some proscribed outline. As I think most here know, consensus is a discussion, not a vote, and so things don't always result in the end the way we think they might when the discussion begins. - jc37 15:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Pesky's question
I have just added Pesky's question to the RfC draft, as there wasn't any objection above, and it looked like it was in danger of being forgotten. If anyone thinks this is a bad idea, please let me know. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  (have a chat) 06:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just amended what is said in the intro re ten general questions to eleven general questions, to take account of this further one... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good addition from Pesky. Good thought to add it. We are reminded that for all readers,  we  always have to make our policies clearly articulated and easy to understand while being intelligent and appropriately comprehensive. (olive (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC))

And they're off!
The RfC has officially started. Thank you all very much for bearing with me through all of this! I have one more favour to ask, though - could someone help me to add the advertisements to all the different pages listed in the RfC instructions? (I should have been in bed hours ago, and I have work tomorrow.) — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 16:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Verifiability/2012 RfC
 * p.s. I asked ItsZippy, who helped me with the page protection for the RfC, to remove the mention of WP:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals from the instructions. I really should have noticed this sooner, but as I understand it this category is for new proposals, but this RfC isn't a new proposal, it's an alteration to an existing proposal policy. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 16:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I posted the simple page ones. To be safe I just re-posted Mr. Stradivarius's post from the wp:ver talk page.    The others would take me a while to learn sure-fire so as to not make a mistake. If someone coudl be me to it on those that would be ideal. North8000 (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I made some efforts but there are a couple of items/issues. What is the wording for the advertisement?  Mr. Stradavarius should make that up so that nobody can claim neutrality issues. Second, I'm not versed enough in those technically specialized venues to do it right-the-first-time-on-a-timely-basis.  Need someone who is better than me to do that. North8000 (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi North. I'm not sure I understand. Aren't we just adding a note on the other policy pages letting editors know about the RfC. Something like that is easily worded since its just an invitation. Sorry if I'm missing something.. :O| (olive (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC))
 * The RFC says "The RfC has been advertised at WT:V, WT:NPOV, WT:NOR, WP:Village pump (proposals), WP:Village pump (policy), WP:Centralized discussion, WP:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines, WP:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals, and through a Watchlist notice."   The last 4 items require a technical procedure to post them, not just a posting. North8000 (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks North. I definitely was missing something.(olive (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC))
 * It looks to me like Mr. Strad is back now, so it's OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to go missing at an important time! I've re-worded the adverts on WT:NPOV, WT:NOR, WP:Village pump (proposals), and WP:Village pump (policy), as some of the editors there might not have been aware of this mediation. I've also added the notice to WP:CENT. The watchlist notice might take a bit longer, as we have to get consensus on the wording before we can add it. Hopefully that should take care of everything for now. Let me know if there's anything I've missed. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  (have a chat) 02:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who feels like thanking Mr Strad for bringing the process to this point. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Big GrannyHugz to Mr Strad for some excellent work, and for a consistently good-hearted approach in dealing with all of us! <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The same from me.   I put more on Mr. Stradivarius's talk page. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Big applause from me too, as well as big applause for everyone who took part here. I just got back online after losing Internet access due to a pooped modem, and I see that there aren't that many comments on the RfC yet, so I guess the watchlist notice is what we really need now. Mr. Strad, if you would like us to comment at the watchlinst notice discussing page, in order to move it along, please let us know here in this talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you everyone for the kind words! I'm running out of responses to them, so please forgive me if I start to repeat myself. ;) I will try and take all the praise to heart. But in my opinion you are all just as deserving of praise for your hard work in putting the RfC together. Thank you for all your efforts over the last four months. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 02:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And by the way, you might all be interested in a discussion I just started at the RfC talk page about reinstating the notice at the top of the page that links to the comments subpage. (There's a related one at the administrators' noticeboard as well.) — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 02:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the policy talk pages should get another notice that is more visible and direct. Like a RFC template or something. Right now there is just text; most of them where I just copied Mr. Stradavarius's text in, in response to their request for help. North8000 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it's really important that we get the watchlist notice up and running, and I'm a little disappointed with the people who run it that things haven't been moving. Please let me suggest that everyone in this mediation please go to MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details, and post a comment there, expressing support for the notice. And if you haven't done so already, please also go to WP:AN and add a note in the "Watchlist notice" part, asking that an admin act on it promptly. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, I think we'll have to make it simple by saying exactly what we want (the exact wording) and why, and then put such on an action page like wp:an or wp:ani. 10:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs)
 * It's up now, and will be showing for 10 days, courtesy of MSGJ. Time to celebrate with your beverage of choice. :) (And it's a good job I checked - I was halfway through writing a post at WP:AN outlining the history of the VnT dispute when I noticed.) So I think we are finally done with the advertising side of things. I've noticed a new influx of comments already, so let's keep an eye on the RfC pages. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good news indeed! I see that the decision is to have the notice for 10 days, which I think is about as long as the typical practice allows. (There is always resistance to having a notice stay on everyone's watchlists for a full month.) In the interests of the most possible participation and the fewest possible complaints, I'd like to suggest that we make a repeat request, near the end of the RfC. Maybe a notice could run again for something like the last seven days of the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Closing the mediation
We have finally finished setting up the RfC and all its trappings - thank you all very much for your efforts. You have all put an enormous amount of work into this, and that deserves some serious recognition. You've done a great job. Now, technically this mediation was due to finish after the RfC ended, with a step nine where we break down the results. However, circumstances have changed a little. Actually, this may be the last mediation that ever happens at MedCab. I didn't want to reveal this while we were still working on the RfC, but plans to close MedCab down and mark it as historical have been under way for a while now. This is all tied in with a planned large-scale restructuring of the dispute resolution system on Wikipedia, and you can expect to see some interesting developments on this front in the next few months.

To cut a long story short, this mediation has been holding up some of those plans, and to get things moving I'm going to close the mediation down now, rather than wait for the end of the RfC. But don't worry - we will still go through step nine as we would have done had it been hosted here. All this means is that we will hold the discussion at the RfC talk page, rather than here. I hope that no-one minds too much about the change of venue, and I'm open to other suggestions if anyone thinks somewhere else may be better. I'll still be keeping a close eye on the RfC, and you can always message me on my talk page with any questions. Thanks again for all your time and patience. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 15:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are doing an excellent job and there's a long way to go. Given that there is no indication that you want out, please keep running this, wherever you choose and whatever you choose to call it.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, can we continue the discussion down at the pub, please? <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 21:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, we seem to have new friends!
When it comes up, Template:Spa is useful for the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We should probably consider whether to indent those !votes.— S Marshall T/C 22:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't indent, not necessary. The tag tells the closers all that they need to know, and in fact, there is really no reason not to at least read what they said. Besides, it isn't a vote. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. :-)  What do you think about User:Crystalfile's contribution?  I haven't tagged it but have considered doing so.— S Marshall  T/C 23:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, don't tag them. Doing so would be a clear case of WP:BITE. They have an edit history over various pages going back before the RfC, and they commented after the watchlist notice went up. There's nothing wrong there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the earlier post (at the beginning of this section) I think it's a bit more than an SPA situation; they are obviously not new to Wikipedia. And have developed very strong views of the policy and potential changes during their one page one day editing history. :-) But so far there doesn't seem to be a rash of these. North8000 (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There has been some discussion on that user's talk and on Coren's, and my advice would be to take it at face value. But you can clearly see that the closing admins are paying attention. And, believe me, I'm watching real closely at the places where I have personal hunches. But, for the moment, let's please WP:AGF, and take comfort that we aren't seeing anything that would actually disrupt the RfC process. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

In the past, whenever there have been borderline spa comments, I've typically commented to just note them, and the closers will assess as appropriate. So we can just let them... Oh wait (looks at the top of the RFC again) when did I become a "them"? lol (goes and crawls back under my lurker stone... - jc37 18:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Above all else, participants should be careful to avoid turning this into personal disputes by challenging commenters. I'm also keeping a close eyes on things to make sure the process itself proceeds as smoothly as possible (this includes keeping an eye out for socking), so it would be best if everyone avoided singling out editors.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Responding to other people's comments is what makes it into a discussion. If we don't respond, then what we have is a vote.— S Marshall  T/C 10:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I may not have been clear there. I meant, of course, challenging the legitimacy of them commenting – not the substance of the discussion, of course.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, I increasingly think that the editor whose !votes precipitated this discussion is turning out to be completely legitimate (based on their subsequent edits), and just happened to see the watchlist notice. I think it's important that all of us be careful not to assume bad faith, in part because unfair accusations may actually end up being used as grounds to challenge the legitimacy of the RfC and its results. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the subsequent edits reinforced some of the concerns, but lets not worry too much about one account's posts. North8000 (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Some observations
I realise the RfC is far from over, and I'm far from a neutral party so I'm not best placed to judge the emerging consensus on the RfC page--but equally, I think it's not premature to say that we can see the future shape of WP:V emerging. I know I pushed hard for View 11 to be included, and I see that on the percentages users might seem to be in favour of a large-scale revamp of policies, but the relatively low participation in View 11 implies that there's not much actual appetite for this approach. We're still going to have WP:V in roughly its present form (as well as WP:NOR and WP:NOT). With regard to WP:V's future lede, I see Option D as the emerging winner. I'm disappointed to see that views 4 and 10 are inconclusive, so I'll take that to mean that there's no consensus in favour of cutting VnT out of the policy completely. The emerging consensus at View 1 instructs us to remove it from the lede. Since there's no other obvious place to put VnT, I propose that we could revert back to Blueboar's compromise, putting VnT as a separate paragraph directly below the Option D lede. The result looks like this... subject to the rest of the discussion and the closers' views, what do we all think? Workable?— S Marshall T/C 22:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I should say that although this draft is in my userspace, you are of course all welcome to edit it if you wish.— S Marshall T/C 22:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I realize and appreciate that you are saying all of this in good faith, but please remember that we have three very capable people who are actually going to figure out what the consensus really is. I'm not going to attempt now an alternative interpretation of my own, but I will make one observation. There's a reason that Wikipedia says that consensus is a discussion, not a vote. It's a very big mistake for anyone in this mediation process to look at the RfC and say simply that whatever gets the most votes has consensus. That said, I actually agree with you, at least in part, that there really hasn't yet been a consensus about what to do with VnT. Instead, there seems to be a sort of bimodal distribution of opinion. One "mode" is those users who like VnT; the other is those who don't. That doesn't mean that either one has a consensus. I don't see (yet!) either of those "sides" really persuading the other. But it does mean that we in this mediation would all do well to be thinking about ways that we can help the community bridge those two poles. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, Tryptofish, I'm not sure how I managed to give you that impression! I certainly don't think "whatever gets the most votes has consensus", and I don't really know how you got that idea from what I said.  What I said was "we can see the future shape of WP:V emerging" and "with regard to [the] future lede, I see Option D as the emerging winner".  I'm amazed to discover that you agree with parts of my post but not (apparently) that part, and intrigued to hear about your reasoning!— S Marshall  T/C 17:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then let me apologize if I read something into what you said, that you actually didn't say! Please think of it, if you will, as more general advice to everyone here. Being the egotist that I guess I am, I'm pleased that you're intrigued. I'll disappoint you by saying merely that I think I am likely to change at least one of my !votes later, towards the end of the RfC, but I'm going to wait until closer to the end before doing so. Assuming my thinking continues the way it is going now, I'll be trying to do what I said in my comment just above: trying to provide a way to bridge the two poles of opinion that seem to continue to exist in the community. But it's too early now for me to tell you the specifics, sorry! And it's too early for any of us to try to anticipate the outcome of the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I'm just calling it like I see it, and from my (admittedly biased) starting point I see a clear winner emerging.  Which is giving me a very pleasant glimmer of hope that this RfC might finally lead to a decision rather than another fudge.  Of course, we've been here before when Sarek closed the last RfC... I'm very conscious the outcome can still surprise us.  I'm just looking for people to collaborate on a workable draft that fits into the shape this RfC's drawing. Incidentally with hindsight I think view 3 isn't going to be much help to the closers; people are opposing it for diametrically opposite reasons.— S Marshall  T/C 18:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about a surprising outcome, at least not too much, because there's less likelihood of surprise if one's expectations are accurate to begin with. As for the reasons going into View 3, or any of the views, that's why we read comments instead of counting votes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do want to wish you the very best of luck with your effort to bridge the gap between the two poles. :-)— S Marshall  T/C 21:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If, amongst us all, we can work on a really effective and creative and non-upsetting way of bridging that enormous gap, it will most probably be one of the best things that each of us, as individuals, has ever managed to do. It's not impossible, and it's a goal very much worth striving for. A huge challenge; I've always found that the best way to look at huge challenges is to try hard to avoid thinking "That can't be done!", and work from "OK, if someone held a gun to my head and said it had to be done, no matter what, then how might it be possible to do it?" <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 04:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This situation may have evolved. I say let it run it's course and see what the closers say.  North8000 (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Publicity
Today, the watchlist notice ended. I'd like to lobby us for requesting a repeat posting of the watchlist notice for maybe 7 days at the end of the RfC. As we've already discussed, it's a good idea to advertise all we can. Let no one have a valid reason to say that they didn't know about it! Also, one user asked at the RfC talk page about having one of those top-of-page banners like the ones used for fundraising. Personally, I think that would be excessive, but I figure I'd point it out here, in case anyone else wants to argue for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd support a simple approach and just advertise as much as we can. This is a major policy and extensive community input will help ensure we have in place a policy a majority of users can use and  support comfortably. I don't see a down side to advertising. But I could be missing something?(olive (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC))
 * In terms of the banner specifically, I guess the downside is that those banners tend to annoy a lot of people. More generally, yes, I think we need to err on the side of advertising too much, which is why, at least, I really want to repeat the watchlist notice. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Has this RfC gotten any less publicity than the previous RfC that attracted hundreds of respondents? Note that the previous RfC was asking for comments on only one proposed version, compared to the present RfC which is asking for comments on 5 versions and  12 views. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've wondered about that. There were a lot more participants last time, even though there was more publicity this time. I also have suspected that the complexity of the present RfC has discouraged some users from participating at all. But are we missing something?? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is also such a thing as discussion fatigue, which should not be neglected. To be honest, though, a RfC with a limited but considered discussion is often worth more than one with a wide participation made mostly of "per X". In other words, I wouldn't worry about it now, and the usual inrush of comments as a discussion nears a close is likely to alleviate those concerns anyways.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I pray that the expected inrush is a balanced one, and not all one-sided! <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 04:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it IS more complex to contribute than the last one. This one requires starting with 5 minutes of reading and then taking 10 minutes to give answers on thoughtful range of options and questions. That will tend to reduce the participants to people willing to do that. A good thing.  But we still must be watchful of / discount a "burst" of a type that would indicate off-wiki direction/canvassing. North8000 (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's time!
I just realized that the RfC is going to close in four days! We really need to have the watchlist notice re-posted ASAP, including saying what the close date is, in my opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just had a quick look, and the RfC has reached 340k of discussion, and has 110 distinct contributors. I don't think people will really be able to claim that there was a lack of participation with those numbers. But sure, we can ask for another watchlist notice. :) Do you want to do the honours this time? If you post the request I'll express my support. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 08:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it's good either way. The way that it's designed it's vetts for people willing to spend at least a few minutes on thoughtful reading and commenting, and it already got 110 of those. North8000 (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't feel right about taking it on to do myself, which is why I offered that Mr. Strad should do it. But, given your express permission here, I'll do it right now. In return, please both of you (Mr. Strad and North), as well as anyone else, please go to MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details once I have had time to post the request, and endorse the request -- please! While I'm at it, I'll take a look at Village Pump, policy, and assuming the previous notice has been archived, I'll put a reminder there too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. I fully agree that we can all hold our heads high in terms of the good level of participation that has already taken place! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Please endorse. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I endorsed. North8000 (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone!
I want to say a very big congratulations to everyone who worked on this! A job well done, and we should all be proud! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And thanks to Mr. Stadivarious for the completeness of the mediation, more complex than other mediations I've been part of, but also more complete, and to the closers for an excellent summary and clearly defined outcome.  (olive (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC))
 * I should add that it's quote noteworthy that the closing statement strongly praised the process leading to the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a zillion people are to be thanked for their efforts and participation. North8000 (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations are in order all round I think. Thanks for helping to make this happen! — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 04:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Breakdown of the results
In the mediation agenda I included a step nine - a breakdown of the RfC results. However, everyone seems really quite pleased with the results, so I'm not sure it's actually necessary. Maybe it will be enough for everyone to take a month or so to let the results soak in, and then tentatively discuss the issues the closers raised on the verifiability talk page? If people would like my help in deciding how to approach future discussions, though, I would be more than willing to give it. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 04:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Congratulations North8000 (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think we all need to just sit back and digest our champagne. After a reasonable interval, it would be very helpful if we could discuss here whether further discussions should be started, but there's absolutely nothing urgent about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)