Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Group 1

This is the discussion page for work group one in the verifiability mediation. Note: The previous guidelines for this page are no longer in effect. If you would like to add new threads, feel free. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 22:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Including draft 4 in the RfC
There seems to be a strong consensus for using draft 0 as our "status quo" draft, so that no longer requires discussion. What is not so clear is what we should do about draft 4. Draft 4 was popular among the people who voted in step 5, but is it popular enough that we should include it as a separate draft in the RfC? And if we do decide to include it, should we incorporate elements of draft 3 or of group 2 draft 8? Please discuss. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 22:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would have no objection to including something like Draft 4 in the RfC (in addition to Draft 0 as the status quo version, not instead of), although I don't feel strongly either way. I'd be happy to defer to Unscintillating and anyone else who might feel strongly as to whether to include it or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * [start of insert moved from
 * I agree with what Mr. Strad and North are saying. I also would note that this discussion shows some things that one needs to be careful about, in using an instant runoff system to analyze RfC results. And also, no one has really been "advertis[ing it] as a draft to enable community rejection". The community is already enabled to reject everything we propose, and nothing we can do here will change that fact. My concern is to give them as few reasons as humanly possible to want to do so. Anyway, if all we are going to see here is complaints about process, maybe we don't need an additional draft. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I haven't seen any clear support for including draft 4 in addition to draft 0, so it would make sense to leave it out. Last chance, everyone. :) —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine with me.   I just mentioned a possible second version in conjunction with my "we really need to include draft 0" comment, so that such wouldn't shut out any work that had been done here. North8000 (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * [end of insert]

Support for draft 0
Below is a table of results for heads-up contests. Except that 0 and 1 were preferred to 3, and 2 was preferred to 4, there really weren't any results. 0 did not get a majority of the ten participants against 1, 2, or 4. Unscintillating (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As to the question about draft 4, draft 4 was modeled after the RfC which received better than 60% approval vs. draft 0 here. Unscintillating (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that just looking at the votes draft 0 did not get any clear kind of a majority. I arrived at the conclusion that we should use it based on three factors: a) it received a significant amount of support in the voting, even if it wasn't a clear winner, b) draft 2 doesn't really count as a "status quo" version, and most importantly c) if we don't include something very similar to draft 0 in the RfC we will open ourselves up to procedural objections. Though most of the participants may not like draft 0, it seems pretty clear that we need to include it. We can certainly include draft 4 as well if there is enough support, so let's see what the others have to say about it. Also, I know that you are in favour of including draft 4, but are you in favour of including it in addition to draft 0? It isn't all that clear from your comments above. Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've not been clear, I'm still trying to understand what the results mean.
 * "doesn't really count as a status quo version" How does one tell the difference between the versions that "really" count and the ones that don't "really" count? (might be rhetorical)
 * It received a significant amount of support in the voting." I thought I just showed that it did not.  It was in a dead heat with 2, and the votes versus 1 and 4 appear to be too statistically close to have statistical significance.  By an equally reasonable weaker standard, all of the drafts received a significant amount of support.
 * Draft 0 has been advertised as a draft to enable community rejection, does that mean nothing in considering whether we should be considering it?
 * Draft 0 is the only draft here for which we have strong evidence, that for the VNT material, Wikipedia does not prefer this material, barely receiving more than 1/3 support at a major RfC on the topic.
 * "including something similar to Draft 0" That is exactly one of the issues, we should be talking about ways that we can solve the problems that we can solve with the tools that we have.  There needs to be someone willing to volunteer to create a "Right Version".


 * So I think that what is attracting my attention is the ruling that this so-called draft has "strong" consensus. Unscintillating (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I can see that I've been unclear here, so let me try to explain. When I said "significant support", I meant it in your second sense - in the sense that all of the drafts received a significant amount of support. "Significant" was probably a bad choice of word, because it has nuances that I didn't intend. A better word might have been "some" amount of support, or a "reasonable" amount of support. What I meant was, draft 0 wasn't rejected completely in the vote. When I said that there was a "strong" consensus, I didn't mean that most people like this draft, or voted for it in step 5 - you have clearly showed that that wasn't the case. I meant that people made very convincing arguments that we should include draft 0 in the RfC, or else open ourselves up to objections on procedural grounds. You have referred to including draft 0 as "enabling community rejection", but I think the exact opposite is true; if we don't include it, then the whole RfC could be rejected, and we could be set back weeks or months by being forced to reformulate our plans. I can see that people would like to include drafts that fix the various problems with the status quo, but that is not the point of this group. The point of this group is to agree on which version, warts and all, is the status quo version of the policy. There is nothing wrong at all with solving the problems with the policy - that is why we are here, after all - but those drafts should be submitted at a different group, not here. It looks like you're arguing that we shouldn't include a "status quo" draft at all, which would be quite a drastic departure from the way we have been doing things since the end of step three. If you want to go through with this line of reasoning, we should probably take the conversation to the main mediation page, as I think it is important enough that everyone should be able to comment on it. Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that a few folks (myself included) made the point that in order for the overall process to be viable and structurally sound, a choice with the true old previous status quo must be included, albeit not with any imprimatur that would allow another hijacking of the process. (For example, it can NOT be claimed to be the last stable version, the strongest claim to that would be the one with the tag)   I also argued for this group being allowed to create 2 versions, with that being one of them, and suggest that that still be considered if thee is an issue.  North8000 (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

[discussion about draft 4 moved to
 * Regarding the statement, "When I said that there was a "strong" consensus...I meant that people made very convincing arguments that we should include draft 0 in the RfC..." Draft 0 is not a functional RfC proposal...the rationale might read, "This is an historical diff, no one knows how it will be implemented."  Where are these "convincing arguments"?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As to a perception that I'm arguing "not to include a status quo draft", this does not comport with the reality that I have submitted two such documents. Unscintillating (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the sentence, "I can see that people would like to include drafts that fix the various problems with the status quo...", Olive stated in Draft 3, "If this version should be moved to another draft page just let me know." Unscintillating (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I can see that we could spend a long time arguing about the results of step five, and about what weight exactly the different arguments had. I don't think that would be a very productive use of our time though, so let's just have a new poll so that we can found out clearly what everyone thinks. I'll start it below. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we can "find out clearly what everyone thinks" by asking a "yes"/"no" question that doesn't answer any current issues. Here is what WP:CONSENSUS says, "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms."  Unscintillating (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll - including draft 0
There has been some controversy over the results of step five as they pertain to draft 0, and so I would like to get everybody's opinion on this question one more time, so that we can be sure of having a solid consensus on the matter. The question is a simple yes or no:


 * Should we include group 1 draft 0 in the RfC?

Please note that this question does not assume that only draft 0 would be included; draft 4, or another draft altogether, could still be included even if everyone answers "yes". —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes
Yes, it's essential that the old version be included as one of the choices. (as much as I dislike it)  This is essential for both fairness and to avoid hijacking. If folks want to create a tweaked version out of this group they should be free to do that as a second one. North8000 (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In spite of the framing of the question, I think Mr. Stradivarius wants a vote of confidence. Unscintillating (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. And I'm getting sick and tired of this endless discussion. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course.— S Marshall T/C 18:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Pesky  (talk ) 14:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Yes. Yes. What part of yes don't you understand, Unscintillating?Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll discussion

 * I have a feeling that the real issue isn't whether or not to include that draft, but rather, one editor's concern that the instant runoff analysis was flawed. I'm reminded of Pesky's interesting essay. It's like the real reasons for including a status quo option in the RfC derive from fuzzy logic, not from a dispassionate analysis of the numbers. And we might as well just admit that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that what Mr. Stratvarius said (while being a bit indirect) is that via a combination of the numbers and some compelling arguments (and so not just on the numbers alone) that they decided to put it in there.  (Which BTW I agree with) North8000 (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, North, that's what I meant. I wasn't going with the numbers alone. And Tryptofish, I think you're right that the real issue wasn't whether to include the draft or not - I misread the situation. That means that there's not much point in having this straw poll, as we all agree that we should include something like draft 0 in the RfC. (Even though we although we might disagree on the reasons for doing so, and on exactly how the RfC will be structured.) So, unless anyone has any more misgivings about using draft 0, I think we should concentrate on getting the other drafts finished - particularly group 3, which has a long way to go yet. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 00:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've moved this thread here from the "Yes" section. My first comment here was addressed to Unscintillating. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 00:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hang on a second, I thought you weren't in favour of including draft 0? Or have I been reading this completely wrong? — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 11:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it would be nice to know what we disagree about, if anything. Have you noticed that several days ago I posted a Draft 5?  It is Draft 0 in a form ready to take to RfC, and includes a rationale.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO the argument in favor of the version should not be included as a part of the version/draft. The fine points are getting confusing, but I'm saying that its very important the old version (let's say circa September 2011) be one of the choices.   Anything without that is a recipe for a train wreck.    As I understand it, this is Draft 0. North8000 (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I need to clarify something North, you literally want the entire text of Draft 0 to be presented at RfC without removing irrelevant material and without a rationale? Unscintillating (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, vaguely speaking, the old version (e.g. circa September 2011) should be presented as an option. Since there are no particulars yet on how the proposals would be structurally defined (e.g. "here are versions of the entire lead"  or "replace xxxx with yyyy" etc) at the moment there is no way to answer "whole lead?" type questions precisely at this point.    On the last question, these drafts are of text that would go into the lead. IMHO such should not not include reasons/arguments of why any particular draft is good/should be implemented. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Including rationales for the drafts is going to be a part of step 7. I thought it would be easier to reach an agreement on which drafts to include in the RfC if we left writing the rationales until later. (By "rationales" here, I mean the rationales for each draft that we would present to the community in the RfC, not the rationales we give for drafts we make in this mediation.) Unscintillating, would you be willing to include draft 0 with the understanding that we will write a rationale for it as part of step 7? — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 00:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * These things seem so obvious. Draft 0 is a diff dated 15 December 2011.  It is a diff, not an RfC-ready draft.  Most (all but one) of the sentences are unrelated to the VnT question at hand.  Turn on your left brain for a moment if that is what it takes, there is currently no literal RfC text to consider.  If the best face is not put on the draft from this Group, the community would have reason to object to our damning VnT with faint praise.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * D'oh! I thought it was my right brain that I had to turn off. ;) Even so, I hope you'll permit me one more left-brained question: In the "from" text in drafts 4-6, which version of WP:V is it exactly that is the "from" version? Do you mean the version that is protected at WP:V right now? I should probably get this clear before embarrassing myself further. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 14:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:V states, "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." The "From" text for Drafts 4-6 should be identical to the current policy page.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft 6
Draft 6, as the essential part of Draft 0, has been posted. It is also related to Draft 5, but as per discussion above, removes the rationale pending further discussion and Step 7. Unscintillating (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks OK for a Group One draft, to me. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 14:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to try to clarify: Draft 0 specifies the entire lead as it was, lets say 6 months ago. So it would undo subsequent changes elsewhere in the lead since then. Draft 6 defines a new lead by specifying a change in the current lead. Basically, it reverts the first sentence back to the old version (circa 6 months ago) and lets subsequent changes elsewhere in the lead stand.
 * As I said earlier, I'd be fine with also offering pretty much anything along these lines. But I'd like to make sure I understand a few things. First, is the change proposed in Draft 6 meant to be a change from what is at WP:V as of now? (I'm pretty sure that's the case, but I just want to make sure.) And second, is the proposal now to include Draft 6 in addition to Draft 0, but not Draft 4 or Draft 5? As I see it, I don't care much between Drafts 4, 5, and 6, but I think things would be getting out of hand if we include all three of those in the RfC, so we should probably pick just one of them. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If I have stated it correctly, I'd prefer #6, and feel that it would satisfy our process requirement for offering the old version. North8000 (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, then perhaps I was confused (as would be pretty much anyone else without a scorecard). That raises all manner of conundrums, then. On the one hand, I kind of agree with you (North) about preferring it personally. But on the other hand, there would be a process question of offering a status quo option that never actually existed on the page, and I can see all manner of objections from the community to that. How about offering both Draft 0 and Draft 6? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than insisting, for process reasons, that one of the version offered be the "old status quo" version, I really don't have any strong opinion, just trying to clarify the confusion. The question is, does "old status quote version" just have to be that on the main topic (VNT) or does it have to include the old stuff in other "unrelated" areas? I tend to think the former, but I guess that the latter is safer. North8000 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to know, but I'd lean towards taking the position of minimizing the risk of people complaining that the RfC is somehow not valid. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So can we agree that people have been considering proposing "old stuff in other 'unrelated' areas"? Unscintillating (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, "proposing old stuff" sounds like an oxymoron. :-)  But I think that the answer is "yes" any which way you mean the question.  However, I was talking about changes unrelated to VNT that have already been implemented in later sections in the lead during the last 6 months. North8000 (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

reformatting proposals

 * Note: as a matter of formatting and clarity, I'd suggest changing this draft by removing the explanatory material, and, instead, simply copying the rest of the lead from the current WP:V, with the revised material substituted at the beginning. In the RfC, no one is going to be able to make sense of one option that is formatted differently than all of the others. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I second this. It's a lot easier for me to understand what is going on if the draft consists of only the proposed text of the lede. I find it difficult to do the mental addition and subtraction of text, especially when it is not clear which version we are starting from. (I think I've worked it out now, though.) I imagine that editors commenting at the RfC would find it difficult too. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 02:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Our task at this RfC consists of two sentences in the current policy. Editors routinely work with diffs.  Adding to one familiar sentence with mostly or totally irrelevant surrounding material is a bit like the 1984 world in which people with good vision had to wear glasses to make their eyesight poor.  Here is another way to do it.  We could make a page like Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/WP:V and put the current policy page there.  Then one by one we could make the changes for each draft and revert the change.  The diff for the draft would then be in the history.  Then we would have the entire policy page context to present at RfC with a diff, not just the lede.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand.  But a consistent format for presenting them will be required.  I think that that will inevitably be to present the proposed text. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've made Draft "6.5". It's exactly the same as Draft 6 (unless I made a mistake, which is possible), but it's re-formatted per the above. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft 8
Draft 8 has a new feature to include a diff of the change that is proposed for the policy page. Unscintillating (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Huge difference between Draft 0 and Drafts 5, 6, 6.5
Difference between Draft 0 and Drafts 5, 6, 6.5. Drafts 5, 6, 6.5 include the words "because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion." Draft 0 does not contain any such words. It seems to me that this is huge difference, which is being glossed over with diplomatic double-talk.

I am still strongly of the view that Draft 0 should be included in the RfC. Agree with Tryptofish that it is important to minimize the risk that the RfC will be considered not valid. If there is a real argument for substituting Draft 5, 6, or 6.5, I would love to hear it. But it is not good enough to say that the later Drafts simply present Draft 0 in another way. They don't. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly happy with the thought of having one of the #5–8 drafts in the RfC, in addition to Draft 0, as I've said numerous times. But, frankly, I find it more trouble than it's worth to try to figure out what those drafts are, especially when a new one seems to be popping up each day without much of a rationale for why it might be better than the one from the day before. Until I actually assembled Draft "6.5", I didn't really have a clear understanding of what Draft 6 was. And we aren't going to include all of them, so I think someone (ie, Unscintillating) is going to have to tell us something along the lines of "Draft X is the best of these, and here is why it should be included". And, please!, don't just post them in the form of "change one sentence from this to this". The rest of us need to actually see the draft on the drafts page, formatted like all the other drafts. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope that you and Tryptofish both have discounted any appeals to emotion arguments. Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

the huge difference that is being glossed over
What is this "diplomatic double-talk"? Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Unscintillating, when you wrote:
 * Yeah, it would be nice to know what we disagree about, if anything. Have you noticed that several days ago I posted a Draft 5?  It is Draft 0 in a form ready to take to RfC, and includes a rationale.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You were covering up the real and important difference between Draft 0 and Draft 5. That was diplomatic double-talk, and I think you owe all of us an apology. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Unscintillating (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

real arguments
How do we know which are the real arguments? Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of hiding the changes you make to a draft, point them out, tell us why, and who knows? Maybe you'll persuade me they are good changes. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for thinking me worthy of using your time to make a personal attack. Nothing has changed that Draft 0 is a diff dated 15 December 2011, and that presenting Draft 0 in its current form as a raw historical diff at an RfC would have the appearance of contempt of process.  There is still no explanation why Mr. Strad asserted that there was "strong" consensus for Draft 0.  By the voting process used, Draft 0 had a 1 in 3 chance of being eliminated by a random draw.  After some discussion he explained that even though not numerically strong, that there were convincing arguments.  I asked Mr. Strad on 14 April 2012, "Where are these 'convincing arguments'?", but he has not answered.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Trying to sort out this confusion
I think that there is a consensus that proposals should be defined by the proposed text, not by some previous version combined with diffs. I think that there are strong arguments that the "old version" (e.g. draft 0) be included. If folks don't like draft 0, lots of folks here are ready to twist Mr. Stadvarious's arm to allow this group to put out a 2nd version. We're sort of a special case because procedurally Draft 0 really has to be in there. But if you want that, you're going to have to say specifically what you support/propose as that second version. North8000 (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it doesn't even sound to me like Mr. Strad would need any arm twisting. I think there is very wide consensus that editors in this process are, in fact, very friendly to offering a second draft option. The problem is that it's very difficult to understand what is being proposed. This has nothing to do with appealing to emotions (as suggested above). It's about the fact that we have consensus that the most useful way to view and evaluate a proposed draft is to be able to see, on the drafts page, the full text of the draft, formatted the same ways as all of the others. Not isolated sentences, not diffs, just the full text. Editors who continue to fail to understand that simple reality are going to find that the rest of us are not willing to waste time and effort compensating for that lack of understanding, and we will end up simply moving on with just Draft 0. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Draft 8 does everything that 6.5 does and does it better, it allows readers to focus on the lede as a whole if they choose, while keeping the focus on VnT. I have no idea why Tryptofish has been drawing attention to my work at this mediation in a negative light.  And when Mr. Strad says something, Tryptofish can't jump on board fast enough to mention what a great idea it is.  Tryptofish also has a problem of referring to himself as if he is a group, such as saying, "the rest of us", when he is speaking for himself.  Mr. Strad needs to take some responsibility for his handling of this episode.  Even if editors want to work on the lede, we still need to stay focused on the task at hand.  Please recall that the "under discussion" tag only applies to two sentences, and that anything beyond those two sentences is scope creep.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make a somewhat different request to Mr. Stradivarius. I think that I have actually been rather patient with the comments that have been directed at me, but enough is enough. I want this to stop. Please help resolve that. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating, I don't think that you are understanding what folks are saying. In short, they are saying that if you have an idea, people are wide open to it, just write it out in the normal format and tell us that it is the one you like/propose. Just do it!   (instead of all of the confusing sidebar and unusual format stuff)   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. If we use this "version plus diff" format in the RfC, we will probably see a backlash among the community for us not being clear about what we are proposing. If the "version plus diff" format is hard for mediation participants to understand, it will be even harder for people who aren't familiar with the debate. Unscintillating, would you be willing to convert all of your drafts to the "final version" format? That is, just the full text, without "from" and "to" versions? I think discussions here will go much smoother if you could do this for us. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 12:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above response is exemplified by the objective of having a "smooth" discussion. Here is another idea, allow the force of reason to work.  The force of reason does not depend on political cover, on "looking good", or on "going along to get along".  I've twice now asked the moderator for the "convincing arguments" by which Draft 0 was declared to have "strong" consensus.  As time goes on, and editors cannot apply the force of reason to support their viewpoint, but repeatedly use appeals to conformity, appeals to emotion, uncivil personal attacks, and in one case a defense of an "Easter egg" in Draft 0, one suspects that when these "convincing arguments" are revealed, they will be flawed.  Maybe not, and maybe they will be flawed but there are legitimate arguments to be made, but the path to reason is to expose the hidden arguments, not protect their being hidden.  BTW, North8000, I am still working on a response to your comment above, "normal" is what we did at the October RfC.  And again, we are not here to write ledes.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * After thinking about this some more, I have come to the conclusion that it would be best to talk about all of this as part of step 7. I think I have finally managed to turn on my left brain, as you told me to above, and I see that you are just trying to reduce the noise that comes from everything in the drafts that is unrelated to VnT. (It has only taken me what, a month?) How about we discuss in step 7 whether we can just strip all the parts unrelated to VnT from the drafts we have created, and present only the VnT part in the RfC? — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 14:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There were hundreds of editors that saw the "From" and "To" format at the last RfC. I'm not aware of even one objection.  As for keeping this mediation focused on the goal at hand, I'm in favor of that.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The October 5 RfC proposal format
The initial diff for the RfC proposal is here, and is dated 5 October 2011. The text below is extracted from Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53, with the closings and comments removed. It is worth mentioning that various elements of the proposal text were subject to editorial interaction. For example, the rationale was modified five times on the first day. The RFC template was the object of ongoing attention such that the issue went to half a dozen talk pages and ANI. One of the issues that came up was that because Blueboar had posted the RFC text, Blueboar became personally responsible for changes made to "his" talk page text. Another issue was that the format used here has software conflicts with the template used by the RfC bot. Unscintillating (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There was also an incident in which an editor changed the title of the RfC, which broke previous references to the RfC, and soon thereafter this editor posted links using the altered name on half a dozen talk pages. I don't think this was ever fully resolved.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

{|

Text and structure of the Oct/Nov RFC, entitled: "RFC - Compromise proposal re first sentence"
For reference, the text and structure of the Oct/Nov RFC was as follows:

RFC Proposal re first sentence
The proposal is in two parts... The other paragraphs in the lede will not change.
 * 1) change the opening paragraph:
 * 2) Insert a new section (as the first section after the lede, following the index box) to deal with the issue of truth/untruth...as follows:

Rationale
{| style="border:black solid 1px;font-size:95%;margin-left:10px"

Introduction
The first sentence of the policy currently reads: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."  There are concerns about this sentence, and particularly about the two words "not truth". In RfCs held in April and June, about 50% of editors responding supported change and about 50% opposed. After further discussion, with neither viewpoint gaining a solid WP:CONSENSUS, a working group formed to examine the concerns of those on both sides of the debate. The working group's deliberations can be found primarily at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence and its project page Verifiability/First sentence; although a few threads continued at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability.

Out of this working group has emerged the proposal above. It is seen as a compromise—one that addresses the core concerns of both sides. The proposal keeps the "verifiability, not truth" phrase in the policy, but moves it to its own section and clarifies it. It is hoped that both those who are content with the current wording and those who advocate change, to whatever degree, will support this measure as a compromise.

Main rationale presentation

 * Background: The concept that truth is not the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia was added for a specific reason - to support WP:NOR in saying that material should not be included unless there is a source that directly supports it.  At that time, we had a persistent problem with editors wishing to add unverifiable material purely because "it's true" (a rationale commonly used by editors trying to "prove" their pet fringe theory). However, as WP:V has changed over time, the sentence has been moved earlier and earlier in the policy, and it has lost some of its original context.  It has taken on meanings that were never part of its original intent.
 * Concern: The sentence can be misconstrued to mean that any material that appears in a source must be included...simply because it is verifiable.  This misinterpretation is in conflict with several other policy and guideline statements (especially the WP:Undue weight section of  WP:NPOV), but examples of this misinterpretation happening in practice have been provided.
 * How the proposal resolves this concern: The proposal adds an explanation that "while verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion", and it notes that other policies and guidelines can affect inclusion.
 * Concern: The sentence can be misconstrued to mean that we may not discuss the possibility that verifiable information is untrue (i.e., that the source may contain an error).  Specifically, this reading says that editors need not discuss the exclusion of material on the grounds of being not true, in the same way that editors need not discuss the inclusion of material on the grounds of being true.  That is, we must accept what a published source says simply because it is published, even if we have reason to believe that the material is inaccurate or that the source is less than reliable.
 * Counter concern: This was never the intent.  We often need to make judgment calls about the reliability of specific sources when it comes to specific information.  A source may be reliable for one statement, but unreliable for some other statement.  We also have to make judgment calls about the relative reliability of one source when compared to others.  As Jimbo Wales puts it, "We are not transcription monkeys."  We do want the information we present in Wikipedia to be accurate, as far as possible.  Further, as NPOV notes, we cannot omit significant viewpoints just because we disagree with them (or even because most sources disagree with them).  Sometimes we should discuss facts and opinions that may be untrue, because doing so gives the reader a complete picture of disagreement among the sources.
 * How the proposal resolves these concerns: The proposed language acknowledges that inclusion of potentially untrue information depends on context.  We cannot make a firm one-size-fits-all rule on this.  The proposal points out that the question of whether to include controversial and potentially untrue material is a complex one, that involves applying editorial judgment.  It points the reader to other policies and guidelines that may help.
 * Concern: Introducing the concept of "truth" in the lede is distracting and confusing, particularly for new editors.  The lede should focus purely on explaining what Wikipedia means by Verifiability without introducing secondary concepts.  To the extent that it is relevant for the policy to discuss the issue of truth/untruth, this belongs in the body of the policy.
 * How the proposal resolves the concern: The issue of truth is moved out of the lede and into its own separate section.

Conclusions: The goal of this proposal is not to change the meaning of the policy, but to clarify it and reduce the potential for real or feigned misunderstanding. The concepts behind the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" should remain part of the policy. But they are complex concepts that need to be better explained. Notice: A change was made to two sentences of the Introduction to the Rationale on the first day of the RfC. This change is documented here. Also note that there were three intermediate versions of these two sentences on the first day of the RfC.
 * }

Relisted at 03:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * }


 * I am assuming that this text was posted here as a historical reference (so people remember how the the Oct/Nov RFC was structured), and is not intended as a re-run of that RFC. Going on that assumption, I have changed the heading (to make the intend clearer), and removed the areas for comments and votes. Blueboar (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)