Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:04, 15 September 2005 editSlimVirgin (talk \| contribs)172,064 edits →magical policy?← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:26, 15 September 2005 edit undoFuelWagon (talk \| contribs)5,956 edits →magical policy?Next edit →
Line 637:		Line 637:

	:Your edits aren't good English, though not as long-winded as before. The word "may" in my version meant that an RfC might (but might not) be the first step toward arbitration. That's what the word means, and this is the English Misplaced Pages, so we have to rely on readers being able to read English. You've been revert warring about this for months, opposed by several editors. I've tweaked the edit to make your concerns even more explicit; now please leave it alone. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)		:Your edits aren't good English, though not as long-winded as before. The word "may" in my version meant that an RfC might (but might not) be the first step toward arbitration. That's what the word means, and this is the English Misplaced Pages, so we have to rely on readers being able to read English. You've been revert warring about this for months, opposed by several editors. I've tweaked the edit to make your concerns even more explicit; now please leave it alone. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

			::I know my English just fine. Speaking of language, your use of "although" mirrors the use of . ''"Text like "A asserts Y. However, according to B, Z." implies that the latter assertion is truer or better than the former one. Avoid this construction in favor of simply stating: "A asserts Y. Others, including B, believe Z.","'' ] 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

			::I reported simple facts of policy, you've rewritten them into "Although A, B ''may'' lead to Z", which does the same thing that "however" does: imply that the latter is truer or better than the former. Policy should be reported as simple facts without couching it in although/however language to weaken the facts you don't like. ] 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

			::Also, your "don't take lightly" addition has no policy to back it up and could be considered original research and/or your personal POV. Even if some policy does point to this admonition, this particular admonishment is essentially useless since it gives no objective guidance as to when to file or not to file a user Rfc. It boils down to telling the user: "be afraid". ] 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:26, 15 September 2005

For talk on why this page was created see: Misplaced Pages talk:Dispute resolution#Requests for comment and Archive 1.

More archives:

RFC has been split!

The RFCs on article content had been split a while ago among nine topic areas. These have now been moved to subpages. This will allow experts in a certain area to keep that subpage on their watchlist, and contribute to what they know best. There is also a central page that transcludes them all. Please comment here, and tell us if you think the current subject areas are too narrow, broad, overlapping, confusing, or if any are missing. R adiant _>|< 08:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

"Requests for comment/All" does not indicate the topics. Maurreen (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem... the {{RFCheader}} uses the PAGENAME string, so it doesn't work on /All. It should have a parameter instead. I'll fix it tomorrow if nobody else has by then. R adiant _>|< 19:18, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Also, on the one hand, we can now categorize the topic sections. But on the other hand, it splits the people RFCs and users must now go to multiple pages to start the RFC. Maurreen (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It's one extra click for people filing an RFC. On the other hand, it now allows people to watchlist the section(s) they are interested in; that wasn't feasible before. More comments welcome, of course; I was just being bold but would like to hear what people think. Or we could always try it out for a week or two and see if it's useful or awkward. R adiant _>|< 19:17, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Damn. A bunch more pages I need to find to add to my watchlist. --Carnildo 04:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Splitting up

I disagree with all the splitting up and subpages. This page used to be simple -- one page. Now it's scattered. Maurreen (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

People that prefer the old layout can still use Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/All. The splitting allows people versed in a subject area to watchlist that particular area and keep track of developments. Radiant_>|< 11:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- The old format allowed for easy watchlisting, while /All doesn't. --Carnildo 19:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  - Only if you're interested in every single issue, which most people aren't (and even then, you could watchlist all subpages; they're not that high-traffic, and many people have 100+ pages watchlisted anyway). However, you could use Special:Recentchanges. R adiant _>|< 08:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Or we could return things to the way they were. Maurreen (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

So, how should we resolve this, have an RFC about the RFC page? Maurreen (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

A meta-RfC. Yes. Fun for logicians, and reasonable for other Wikipedians. Robert McClenon 18:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the problem is. The RFC page was getting rather large, and like several other pages that had grown large in the past, has been split. Basically, this provides extra options for users, with no loss of earlier options: people who had RFC watchlisted can now simply watchlist the subpages (yes, I know there's eight of them, but most watchlists are so large anyway that people won't notice the difference). People who wish to visit a single page with all requests together can still do so, at the /all page. I've had a couple of good reactions, and most people simply adapt, watchlist what they're interested in, and keep going. The complaints here seem mostly based on conservatism - but by its very nature, the wiki evolves. R adiant _>|< 08:28, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

This seems unnecessarily complex. Articles are placed on RfC in the hope they will receive immediate attention; it is counterproductive to split the list into subpages which will divide that attention. Additionally, typical disputes mainly concern editorial issues, not the specific field of study of the articles in question. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 11:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment on a disambig page

I'm looking for second opinions on a rewrite of ABC (talk). Where should I go to request comment? --Smack (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest here. R adiant _>|< 07:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Kemal Ataturk

Article on Kemal Ataturk is blatantly POV, especially the "criticism" section. Words like "evil" are used to describe Armenians. Section ends with "Long live Ataturk!"

Added to appropriate section. R adiant _>|< 09:00, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Added category

I added a category for language and linguistics, since I know there have been heated disputes about it before and I simply could not see this fitting in any other category. My hope is that it won't actually be used and can be deleted later on, but I doubt it. A lot of people have a lot of opinions about language and not all of them are either well-informed or civil.

Peter 22:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Where is Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Article title disputes?

I see some discussion about deleting it, but no decision was made. Yet it is gone. Do the missing RFCs have to be replaced. Or do I look around until I find out where the dispute on Cricket (sport) vs Cricket (insect) was placed? Nereocystis 23:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

In general, renaming issues go in the appropriate section (e.g. renaming of a historical figure goes in history). In this case, I'd add it to both sports and science, since it is one of those rare cases where it concerns both. R adiant _>|< 09:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

How does your computer show this?

Over at the Misplaced Pages:Hindi language user tag project, which is a sort of a sub-project of the Babel project, myself and a few other editors who happen to be Indian are engaged in a discussion about how others on Wiki might view the Hindi language tags on their computers. This view can vary, depending on whether or not a given Wiki user is using several correct variables, such as correct operating system, correct language script pack, etc. etc..

Side comment: there is of course no one "correct" operating system! I'd say, "This view can vary depending on several variables, such as which browser and operating system a given Wiki user is using, and on which fonts or language script packages are installed, how the various locale or language variables are set, etc.". Steve Summit (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

So, the question is;

"Could you please comment on whether or not you see all question marks in the Hindi language tags, or if you might see special Hindi script characters instead in the vari-colored Hindi language tag boxes on the right side at the Misplaced Pages:Hindi language user tag project?"

If your system is compatible, you will see hindi language characters in the boxes. If not, you will see a series of question marks, something like this "यह सभ्य हिन्दी भाषा में प्रारंभिक कक्षा का प्रदान कर सकते हैं।" in the boxes. As many comments from as many different users as possible over the next few days would be most helpful for this, as such comments will give us a much better sense of how well (or poorly) the Hindi language tags are working for other Wiki users in general. Please leave your observation comments on the actual project talk page in the observations section of that page.

Thanks,

Scott P. 23:52:33, 2005-08-20 (UTC)

Anonymous IP certification

Should an anonymous IP count towards the 2 user threshold for certification of an RfC? Since we generally don't count IP votes on RfA or VfD votes, it doesn't seem like we should allow them to certify. Specifically, I'm referring to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User:Robert McClenon, where the creator and first certifier was User:24.147.97.230. I think it would set a bad precedent and possibly encourage abusive sockpuppets to allow RfCs to be certified by one (or more) anonymous IPs. Carbonite | Talk 00:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Several anon IP addresses are very well known as specific editors. So the answer is, it depends. Anons can vote on VfD, btw. SchmuckyTheCat 02:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I find it dubious, at best. I'm not sure what policy is regarding an RFC. I did find this, though. "In some votes, guidelines require you to be a registered user for it to be considered." FuelWagon 05:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It is somewhat dubious, yes. It depends on the edit history of the IP in question. Please see Misplaced Pages:Suffrage. R adiant _>|< 09:36, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

On the one hand, to the extent that Misplaced Pages is "bound by precedent", it would indeed make a bad precedent to permit anonymous certification, precisely because it would encourage abusive sockpuppets. On the other hand, since Misplaced Pages is not "bound by precedent", it is not really important whether the RfC is considered to be "properly certified". I did raise the issue of whether it has been properly certified in my Response. The RfC is a revenge RfC aimed at retaliation against my filing of a previous RfC against the anonymous editor. The endorsing signatures in support of the anonymous editor on both RfCs are almost entirely those of admittedly first-time users who have created accounts for the purpose of supporting the anonymous editor. It does not matter much whether the RfC is "properly certified" because a user conduct RfC, as I understand, serves two purposes. The first is as a means for obtaining community input about a user's conduct that might enable him to change his behavior. There has so far been no such constructive input, only new accounts supporting the anonymous editor, and frustrated Wikipedians saying that this anonymous editor is out of control. The second purpose of an RfC is as a preliminary step toward arbitration. When the response to my RfC about the anonymous editor was belligerent, I filed an RfAr. I trust that when the ArbCom does accept the case, which largely does involve whether there is sockpuppet abuse, they will have the sound judgment to distinguish between real and unreal editors. Robert McClenon 11:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal = Vandalism?

Erwin Walsh, someone I opened a RFC on, deleted the link to the RFC from the RFC main page. The evidence is found here. I don't know if it counts as vandalism or not. Acetic Acid 20:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The deletion was accompanied by an edit summary saying "48 hours". That meant that there had not been a second signature to the RfC within 48 hours after you posted it. I checked the times, and it was slightly more than 48 hours. I think that Erwin Walsh was guilty of poor judgment in deleting the RfC on his own conduct, but that it was not vandalism. Robert McClenon 20:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Be serious now. He wants nothing to do with that RfC. Hence why he keeps removing the notification of it from his talk page. He attacked the validity of the RfC on the talk page. You're being a bit too lenient with him. Acetic Acid 21:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The RFC was created on August 20 05:30 (UTC), with Acetic Acid's signature. Gorgonzilla added his signature certifying on August 21 14:05 . That's well within 48 hours. Mr. Walsh in fact struck out Acetic Acid's signature from the RFC , apparently believing (from what I read on the talk page) that Acetic Acid was in "no position" to certify the RFC. He then removed the RFC from the main page , tagged it for speedy deletion and a short while after removed all modifications to the RFC with edit summary "test" , without, however, restoring the RFC link on the main page. A puzzling sequence of edits to say the least. JRM · Talk 21:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

In looking at the additional diffs, it does appear that there has been conduct that is either vandalism or similar to vandalism. I still do not understant what the original issue was (as I noted in an outside opinion to the RfC). However, I would suggest that a revised RfC be refiled, including the diffs cited by JRM. The deletion of the RfC link itself is not the conclusive evidence. Robert McClenon 22:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This was a simple misunderstanding, and is obviously not vandalism since I undid the edit. WP:AGF Erwin

First step toward arbitration

FuelWagon, it may be the first step toward arbitration, which is true and is what I wrote. SlimVirgin 23:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it "may" be, but an RFC is not a causal link to arbitration. I know of at least one RFC that was filed specifically because the person thought, in part, that he needed to do an RFC before he could get into arbitration. I had posted a comment that said somethign to the effect of

"An RFC is a method of dispute resolution unto itself. Do not fill out an RFC as an "arbitration application", rather use it as an opportunity to resolve the dispute at hand".

Except that comment got reverted. The "RFC 'may' become Arbitration" setence is not clear. It actually makes the linkage more confusing, not more clear. And a version of it was quoted at least by one RFC filer to mean he needed to file an RFC before he could get into arbitration. That's not the sort of behaviour I want to encourage around RFC's. FuelWagon 00:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear, and the last time we had this discussion, other editors agreed. The arbcom often asks for an RfC before accepting a case, so it's definitely true that an RfC may be the first step toward arbitration. It's important to have a statement making clear this is a serious step because of the number of frivolous RfCs that are posted. SlimVirgin 00:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, uninvited company removed the two bullets you just reinserted and his removal was supported by a couple of editors and opposed by no one.. So, I don't think "consensus" can be declared here. As for the number of "frivolous" RFC's, yes, they are a problem, but I would assert that the editors who are making a problem out of them are doing so specifically because they think an RFC will punish the target in some way and/or get them into arbitration. you're sentence only encourages that behaviour by implying a link where none exists. And a version of your sentence was quoted by one editor who filed what I woudl call a bad-faith RFC as the very reason he filed it: to get to arbitration. If you want to reduce these sorts of bad-faith RFC's, then tell bad-faith editors taht an RFC is a mechanism for dispute resolution unto itself and should be used as such, tell them to NOT file an RFC as an "arbitration application". don't imply a linkage. Explicitely break the linkage and tell them to not relate to an RFC as a means to get into arbitration. The mentality of bad-faith RFC's seems to be "If I get enough of my friends to vote my way on this RFC, then the arbitration committee will simply rule in my favor and ban the other user." Implying a linkage only encourages this mentality. If a bad faith editor goes to teh RFC page and sees "An RFC may be the first step to arbitration", they'll think, "yeah, that's exactly what I need". If they go to the RFC page and see "An RFC is a method of dispute resolution unto itself, use it as such." That should short circuit some of the bad RFC's. If it also says "Do not file an RFC as an "arbitration application"", that should actually derail a few editors from filing a bad-faith RFC. I agree the problem exists. I'm saying this sentence makes the problem worse. FuelWagon 00:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Filing an RfC as the first step toward arbitration is not doing it in bad faith. It's quite normal to do that and in fact is one of the purposes of an RfC. And we did have a consensus before to leave my edit as it was. I can ask the same editors again whether they still support it, but I hope you won't ask me to. SlimVirgin 00:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

It was only the requirement of diffs that TUC objected to, because dispute resolution may have taken place by e-mail, so I've removed that, and stated the provision of diffs as preferable but not required. SlimVirgin 00:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Your insistence on the "cure" doesn't make sense to me given the "disease" you claim to wish to fix. Your adamancy that it be your specific language, and that you'll call in the troops if it isn't, occurs to me as strange for a wiki. I agree that the problem of bad-faith RFC's exist. I just happen to think your "cure" will only encourage the trolls looking for something to beat over the head of another editor. "Oh look, an easy way to arbitration." Are you telling me you find no other wording acceptable? Are you telling me that you'll jump right over any possible negotiation and go straight to a poll for your wording? I had suggested the sentence: "Do not fill out an RFC as an 'arbitration application'. An RFC is a method of dispute resolution unto itself. Use it as such". And you're telling me this doesn't work in any way? It may not discourage a bad-faith editor looking to punish someone, but it won't encourage them the way "An RFC may be the first step to arbitration" shows them a way to trounce another editor. As for "good-faith" editors filing an RFC as step-one to arbitration, I dispute that interpretation. An RFC should be used as a dispute resolution mechanism in and of itself. If any editor files an RFC solely to get into arbitration, they are misuing the RFC system and should be honest about their intentions and simply go straight to arbitration. The thing that separates "good faith" RFC's from "Bad faith" RFC's is simply whether or not the editor is using it to resolve a dispute or whether they are using it in preparation for something else. No good-faith editor should relate to an RFC as simply a "formality" before getting to arbitration. for a good faith editor, an RFC is step one to arbitration the way flossing is step one to oral surgery. Good faith editors should relate to an RFC as preventitive, not punitive, so your sentence is not needed for good faith editors. But for bad-faith editors, your sentence is like waving a red-cape in front of an angry bull. They're already steamed and looking for something to charge, and you just gave them a target to aim for: arbitration, and a means to get there: RFC. If the sentence really is intended to wave off an editor from filing a bad faith RFC, I think something like "Do not fill out an RFC as an 'arbitration application'. An RFC is a method of dispute resolution unto itself. Use it as such" will do a much better job of difusing the sitation, rather than inciting the bull to charge. FuelWagon 01:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say I'd call in the troops, simply that I could ask the editors who agreed with me before when they still do. The fact is that the arbcom does sometimes (or even often) ask for, or look for, an RfC before they will accept a case, so it is sometimes or often a first step toward arbitration. And sometimes it isn't. Hence the words may be. I honestly don't see a problem with it. But the important parts of the edit for me are (a) that it's clear two certifiers have to show evidence of their separate attempts to resolve the same dispute (because lots of RfCs are filed without this and end up having to be deleted, but not before causing trouble for all concerned); and (b) that editors understand they should not post an RfC lightly.

However, I also think it's important to point out that the link to arbitration may exist, so that editors are aware of it. Just because an RfC is posted by someone who doesn't want to go to arbitration, that doesn't mean the RfC evidence won't later be used in arbitration by someone else. We can't always control the consequences of our actions on a wiki. SlimVirgin 01:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe there needs to be a policy for deleting RFC's at some point. I already proposed the idea that an RFC should be disallowed from arbitration as one possibility, but you're now addressing a different problem. I'm talking about a bad faith editor looking for a way to punish another editor. And in that situation, that an RFC hangs around for a long time is even more incentive for punishment. Here's the story:

An editor has just been involved in a revert war with someone else. A couple of other editors get involved, and the only thing that keeps the article from churning ad infinitum is the 3RR policy. There are two possible responses: George acting in good faith wants a way to resolve the dispute. Pete acting in bad faith wants a way to punish his opponents. Both George and Pete go to the RFC page. They see one of two alternatives:

(1)"An RFC may be the first step toward arbitration, which can bring punitive actions against an editor. It is therefore not a step to be taken lightly."

(2)"Do not fill out an RFC as an 'arbitration application'. An RFC is a method of dispute resolution unto itself. Use it as such"

Good-faith George doesn't care if it's (1) or (2). He's looking for a good-faith way to resolve the dispute. Punitive Pete is looking for a way to punish the editors who opposed his changes to the article. If Pete sees (1), he sees "step one to arbitration" and sees a way to get what he wants. A bad-faith, punitive RFC is filed. If Pete sees (2), he isn't offered a path to punishment, and is offered a way to resolve the problem non-violently. He may still be so steamed that he files an RFC anyway. but at least he was admonished to cool off and to use the RFC for finding a resolution, rather than getting to arbitration. Anyway, that's how I see it. real world calls. FuelWagon 01:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point, but the fact remains that the arbcom does ask for RfCs as a first step toward arbitration. I was involved in taking a case through arbcom last year, and before I filed it, I was advised that I might be asked to post an RfC first in order to use it as evidence. In the end, I didn't have to, but the suggestion was made by more than one member of the arbcom, and is quite common. If you want to change that, it can't be done on this page, but will have to be taken up with them, or elsewhere (village pump, mailing list, for example).

Regarding deleting them after a period, I agree with you, but there was a wide-ranging discussion about this some months ago, and there was a strong consensus to keep them without time limit, so long as they'd been properly certified. SlimVirgin 01:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

If arbcom asks for an RFC, then there is no need to warn the user that an RFC "may be the first step to arbitration", because they already went to arbitration and were asked to go back and get an RFC. What you're actually doing with this warning is discouraging good faith editors from filing an RFC because as you said "We can't always control the consequences of our actions". Your warning "It is therefore not a step to be taken lightly" will discourage good-faith George from filing a reasonable RFC because only a good-faith editor would heed a warning to "not take it lightly". But your warning will do nothing against punitive-Pete who is specifically looking for "consequences", specifically looking for a way to punish another editor. And the fact that if he gets one of his buddies to certify his RFC, then it will stay around forever is only more incentive for him. If Pete can get enough RFC's agaisnt an editor, then he can push it to arbitration and attempt to get his opponent banned. Your warning encourages bad-faith RFC's and discourages legitimate RFC's. I am trying to encourage good faith editors to use an RFC as a way to resolve a dispute and I'm trying to discourage bad faith editors from filing an RFC as an application to get into arbitration. Bad faith editors don't want an RFC to resolve anything. They want to make their case, get a bunch of signatures, and push into arbitration where punishment can be metted out. FuelWagon 14:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to compromise. FuelWagon 13:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I also appreciate your honest and forthright edit summaries regarding this matter as well. "Restoring deleted material" is probably the best and most accurate representation of this discussion. FuelWagon 13:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, FuelWagon, that what you want to add just isn't accurate. RfCs are regarded as potentially a first step toward arbitration by most, if not all, editors who file them. Perhaps they ought not to be, but they are. They're also so regarded by the arbcom to the best of my knowledge. If you want to add to the edits I've made to the page, by all means do so (so long as they're not contradictory), but please don't delete what I've written. As an admin, I'm involved in deleting frivolous RfCs where no one has bothered to follow the rules for filing them, and there are too many. I therefore want to make sure that people know early on that an RfC is a serious step, not to be taken lightly. SlimVirgin 14:04, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Outside View by McClenon

FuelWagon: You have a point, but I respectfully suggest that you take a break from arguing it. You and SlimVirgin are both on the side of trying to maintain reasoned discussion. Please do not waste so much time arguing with her about terminology.

It is my own opinion that an RfC has either or both of two purposes. It can be a method of seeking outside comments (as its name implies) as a means of dispute resolution in itself, especially with good-faith editors. It can also be a step toward arbitration, especially against bad-faith editors. It is also a method of determining whether the subject is a good-faith editor or bad-faith editor.

I disagree that SlimVirgin's warning encourages bad-faith RfCs. There will be bad-faith RfCs anyway. Also, bad-faith editors do not only file RfCs in order to get into arbitration. They also file bad-faith RfCs in order to intimidate and threaten.

I suggest that my own situation should be a case in point. I trust that FuelWagon and SlimVirgin will agree that the RfCs that I recently posted were filed in good faith, and that a bad-faith RfC was then filed against me. The value of SlimVirgin's warning is to good-faith editors who are afraid of confrontation. It says, in essence, "Think before you post. You might make the subject of the RfC angry, and here is why." Her warning would not have discouraged me from filing, and it would not have encouraged the bad-faith filing against me, which would have happened anyway. It is a statement to the faint-hearted not to cross this step. Robert McClenon 12:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's clear that SlimVirgin finds her warning to be non-negotiable. I've tried different wording in an attempt to satisfy her concerns. She reverts to her original wording. And her edit summaries clearly indicate this is non-negotiable. No mention of a dispute over wording, no mention of attempting to resolve anything. Just "restoring deleted material". Nice teamwork there. I appreciate the wiki-spirit that SlimVirgin consistently inspires. FuelWagon 14:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

As for the idea of warning good-faith editors of a possible angry reaction to an RFC, that's different than "don't take it lightly". "don't take it lightly" is saying don't do it, and gives no real reason other than a vague reference to "step one to mediation". If you want to warn good faith editors they may get an angry reaction to their RFC, tell them that. Telling a good faith editor "don't take it lightly" is like warning someone "danger ahead" on a roadsign. Should they stop? should they keep going? Is the bridge out? is traffic reduced to one lane? Is it simply road crews working on the shoulders? "danger ahead" says nothing to the driver that helps them make a decision to continue or not, to slow down, to maintain speed, or to turn around. FuelWagon 14:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I've mentioned this before, but SlimVirgin simply "restores deleted material". No variations. No attempts to find some wording to deal with this concern. no negotiations. No attempts at resolution. nothing. Standard stonewalling procedures. FuelWagon 14:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

There are two different warnings here. one for good faith editors to warn them of possible angry reaction to their RFC. one for bad faith editors to warn them to not relate to an RFC as paperwork, as case-building wikilawyering in preparation for arbitration. And apparently, SlimVirgin has decided which warning is important and how it should be worded. I love wikipedia. FuelWagon 14:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Since she has effectively made this non-negotiable, I'll take your advice and "take a break" from it. FuelWagon 14:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'll try one last alternative. I'll leave Slim's non-negotiable warning in place, and I'll add my own. Her reaction will indicate where this is going. FuelWagon 14:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't start the ad hominem comments again, FW. I can live with your addition, I think. Two things: first, an RfC filed in good faith may also be a first step toward arbitration, as it's a prior step in the dispute-resolution process, so I slightly reworded what you wrote to allow for that. Going to the arbcom isn't a sign of bad faith, and nor is filing an RfC for that purpose. Secondly, this sentence: "It is intended to be a way to resolve disputes between editors. Use it as such." When you say "it is intended," who do you mean intends it this way? I know that since I've been editing, I haven't see any disputes resolved using an RfC. On the contrary, I've only seen them cause bad feeling. Well, I suppose you could count editors leaving as resolving the dispute, and I've seen RfCs that have caused that, but I don't think that's quite what you meant. SlimVirgin 15:23, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

My comments have been directed solely at your behaviour around this. If there was a personal attack on your character, let me know. As for your recent edit, please don't call something a "copyedit" in the edit summary unless you're correcting grammar and spelling. You have a tendency to downplay your changes in your edit summaries. "restoring deleted material" is a nice way of casting yourself as fighting a vandal. FuelWagon 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

As to your continued insistence on saying that an RFC "may" be step one to arbitration, you conveniently ignore the intent of a good-faith editor filing a good-faith RFC. That isn't the point of my warning. My point is that even if someone files an RFC in complete good faith, and even if that will eventually turn out to resolve the problem and be the end of teh issue, some people will react to the initial filing of the RFC as punitive. That was the point I was tryign to make in rewording your warning, but you've made it clear you will accept no other wording. 'Now you go and edit my warning, after I left yours in place. So, it seems to me that you really intend for this to be non-negotiable. it is your warning, and no other wording is allowed. You already have your warning that says an RFC may be step one to arbitration. I dispute the accuracy of your warning, but rather than continue to fight it, I'm wiling to leave your warning in place, and simply put my own warning up. You on the other hand, have insisted that your warning remain unchanged, and are now take it upon yourself to change my wording. So, I'm left with the continued impression that you view this as non-negotiable. FuelWagon 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, I've explained this more than once, and I don't know what other words to use. An editor may file an RfC not intending it as a first step toward arbitration. But afterwards, another editor might come along and use it as a first step toward arbitration. Because the arbcom DOES accept RfCs as first steps, and this is a wiki, so whatever you intend with an RfC, is not necessarily what will end up happening to it. It is therefore true that every single RfC, regardless of the intentions of the certifiers, MAY be a first step toward arbitration. I don't know why you're trying to pretend otherwise. I can only assume for personal reasons because of the RfC you filed. But your personal views can't outweigh the cold, hard facts. SlimVirgin 15:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

"It is therefore true that every single RfC ... MAY be a first step toward arbitration." Fine. I dispute that claim, but I'm not so hard headed that I'll insist on changing the wording to your warning to say otherwise. You perceive it to be a problem, and your warning deals with the percieved problem. You've got your warning. I don't know why you can't be happy with that. I'm actually trying to deal with something else. The wording is different because it's addressing a different problem than yours. FuelWagon 18:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand what FuelWagon is saying. What problem is he addressing? Robert McClenon 18:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Good Faith and Bad Faith

I think that I either do not understand or do not agree with FuelWagon's concept of good-faith and bad-faith RfCs. If FuelWagon is implying that filing an RfC as a preparation for filing an RfAr is bad faith, then I strongly disagree. If a user is disrupting Misplaced Pages, and previous efforts to reason with the user do not work, then requesting arbitration may be necessary. Is that bad faith, or is that respect for due process? On the contrary, I would characterize a user conduct RfC as being in bad faith if the originator knows that he has no intention of going on to the RfAr stage, and is only filing the RfC in order to harass.

As SlimVirgin observes, filing a user conduct RfC probably will cause hard feeling. It is not a friendly action to take. It should only be done when friendly methods of dealing with an editor, such as discussion on article talk pages, have been ineffective. In an ideal world, a user conduct RfC might be a way to resolve disputes. In an ideal world, we would not have disruptive editors who cause disputes that need to be resolved.

It is not clear to me what FuelWagon is trying to say. I think I understand what SlimVirgin is saying. "Do not file a user conduct RfC unless you understand that it is typically a step toward arbitration," or "Filing a user conduct RfC will typically cause hard feelings. Do it only if it is your judgment that the benefit to Misplaced Pages outweighs the harm of the hard feelings."

I do not understand FuelWagon's concepts of good faith and bad faith. Robert McClenon 18:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"If FuelWagon is implying that filing an RfC as a preparation for filing an RfAr is bad faith" No. That isn't what I'm implying. If an editor files an RFC and has no intention of using it to resolve anything, then that is a bad faith RFC. An RFC is a method of dispute resolution unto itself. It should be used as such. The bad-faith RFC's I've seen were filed by people who completely avoided any attempt to resolve the issue with an RFC. I've commented on RFC's and had editors go "Oh, well, yeah, maybe I did have a part in creating this problem." and then the problem is solved. I've commented on other RFC's and the person who created it would get aggressive and say "No! It's HIS fault! This isn't about ME! I am RIGHT! He is WRONG! And you are WRONG for saying I am wrong." That's a bad-faith RFC. The person filing it simply wants to "convict" the other side of some policy violation and wants to completely ignore any violations they may have committed in the process. There is a difference between

(1) filing an RFC, hoping it resolves a problem, and if it doesn't, going on to arbitration and

(2) filing an RFC, getting the blanks filled in, ignoring any and all comments (or attacking them), being unwilling to allow the RFC process to resolve anything so that you can then request arbitration.

An RFC is part of the dispute resolution process, it isn't paperwork to be filled out and ignored and then move on to arbitration. I don't know how else to explain this. FuelWagon 18:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a good way of putting it and it isn't consistent with the view of it being the first step toward arbitration (with the hope of there being no second step). So I added it to page. But I disagree with this: "If an RfC is filed in good faith, the editor filing it would be attempting to resolve a dispute by airing differences and inviting outside comments. But even an RFC filed in good faith may be viewed by some to be the first step toward arbitration and punitive measures, so be aware of the possible reaction you may receive, and make that part of your decision as to whether to file or not." It's unclear, and arguably false because of the good faith/bad faith presumptions (and we're not mind readers), and also because it says "may be viewed" as though this would be a minority view. SlimVirgin 19:44, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm also confused and FuelWagon has been making this point for weeks, yet I still don't get it. An RfC is like putting someone in the stocks. In my view, it's a horrible process, and I would only do it to POV warriors and trolls who couldn't be blocked for disruption. I've never seen good come from an RfC. That's just my perception.

Neverthless, an RfC is a recognized step in the dispute-resolution process, widely seen as the step to take before arbitration. If the RfC alone will sort it out, then fine. But if you want to go to the arbcom, you usually have to precede it with mediation or an RfC, and the mediation committee is stalled, so an RfC is currently just about the only option.

Therefore, there is no bad faith implied in using an RfC in that way. And as Robert points out, it could be argued that an RfC that is NOT intended as a first step toward RfAr is the bad-faith one, because it's unnecessary.

FuelWagon shouldn't say anything on the RfC page that implies otherwise, because it would amount to his personal view — original research and wishful thinking — and not consistent with the way other editors, admins, and the arbcom perceive and use the RfC process. SlimVirgin 18:33, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the real problem is that you are still holding onto that RFC I filed against you a couple of months ago as a "bad faith" RFC and you are holding it as a grudge against me even now. That is why you relate to this as non-negotiable. And as long as you refuse to see that there was any merit at all in that RFC, you're going to cast me as the bad-guy here, and tell everyone I'm doing "original research", "wishful thinking", "pretending", making "ad hominem attacks again", and whatever else you've come up with. You are too invested in this for any discussion to come to any sort of useful outcome. I'm wrong and you're right, and that's the end of the conversation. You want to get some honesty in this conversation, stop pretending this is all about some warning on the RFC page I put up today or a week ago, and get some honesty about how much of this is about you begrudging me for filing an RFC against you a couple months ago. Until then, we're just going to keep dancing around the real issues. FuelWagon 19:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No, that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that you're trying to insert what you feel ought to be the case, instead of describing what is in fact the case. You were the one who started changing the contents of this page after your failed RfC (and no credible editor, other than you, saw the merit in that RfC, so perhaps it is you who needs to learn from it). From memory, Jayjg, Jpgordon, Mel, and I opposed your edits. And now Robert is also questioning them. And yet you continue. SlimVirgin 19:17, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please. My RFC was supported by 4 other editors. Ed Poor even gave it partial support initially, but then he retracted it, probably after some other admins contacted him privately. One person who endorsed it was a neuroscientist, an editor who pointed out several neurological-related errors in your edit, but rather than acknowledge any errors on your part, you actually argued against an expert and then accused him of having a nasty tone. Neuroscientist was as credible as they come. So, do you want to retract the "no credible editor, other than you, saw the merit in that RfC" statement? I'll cue the chirping crickets now. I'd let this stay buried, but if you're gonna start rewriting history, then I'll be damned if I'll let you lie about some good editors who left wikipedia in disgust. You either bury this hatchet or you tell the truth about it. FuelWagon 21:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Response below. SlimVirgin 22:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, please explain to me (on my talk page) why you filed a user conduct RfC against SlimVirgin. If you filed a "good faith" RfC against her in order to try to reason with her, then I understand what is happening. If you did that, and did not think that she was disrupting Misplaced Pages, then you simply made a mistake based on failure to understand how the rest of the Misplaced Pages community views user conduct RfCs. Why not read your own user page, and apologize for having done something that you did not mean to be aggressive, but was viewed as such? Robert McClenon 19:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, in reality an RfC is often a necessary step before a RfAr. The Arbitration Committee insists that people try to work out problems in other ways before filing an RfAr, and that generally means an RfC. Ideally the RfC resolves the problem, but often it does not, and an RfAr is then a logical next step. This is simply the reality of how the dispute resolutions mechanisms at Misplaced Pages work. Jayjg 00:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, I point out the difference between the two following approaches: (1) filing an RFC, hoping it resolves a problem, and if it doesn't, going on to arbitration and (2) filing an RFC, getting the blanks filled in, ignoring any and all comments (or attacking them), being unwilling to allow the RFC process to resolve anything so that you can then request arbitration. I mentioned this above. FuelWagon 03:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon|FuelWagon does have a valid point that an RfC is not being properly used if the originator is not interested in listening to the comments (as the name of the process indicates). My point is that there are at least two different types of bad-faith RfCs. There are the ones that FuelWagon mentions in which the originator is only filling out paperwork with the intention of going to arbitration. Then there are the ones in which the originator has no intention of going to arbitration. Perhaps they are both similar in that they are both being used simply as blunt instruments to try to intimidate another editor, since the ArbCom is not likely to accept an RfAr if it is clear that the originator is not trying to resolve the dispute. However, what SlimVirgin is trying to caution about is another type of RfC, which is a user conduct RfC that is posted without a recognition that it will be seen as confrontational, when an article RfC would be more appropriate. A user conduct RfC is seen by the Misplaced Pages community as more serious than an article content RfC.

There is a consensus among the Misplaced Pages community that a user conduct RfC is viewed as a serious action, and is seen as a step toward arbitration. FuelWagon may disagree, but there is a consensus on this point. Could FuelWagon simply accept that he is in a minority? A user conduct RfC is an empty threat and thus bad faith if there is no intention to go to arbitration if necessary.

There do appear to be mutual hard feelings between FuelWagon and SlimVirgin. At the same time, they are both on the same side of trying to maintain civility and develop an encyclopedia, and of agreeing that occasionally disruptive editors must be dealt with by the RfC and RfAr processes. Can we move on and agree that SlimVirgin's caution is not so much "non-negotiable" as the summary of consensus? Robert McClenon 11:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"There is a consensus among the Misplaced Pages community that a user conduct RfC is viewed as a serious action, and is seen as a step toward arbitration. FuelWagon may disagree, but there is a consensus on this point." Perhaps you could point me to a vote that shows people overwhelmingly support the idea that a user rfc should be considered "serious action". I know of no vote and I have anectodtal evidence to the contrary.

"this ... requirement for diffs ... has the effect of stifling discussion. People will discuss things they're upset about, either here, or at the village pump, or the administrator's noticeboard, or on the mailing list. Let's continue to have RFC be a suitable forum for somewhat less formal discussion, and leave the diffs and evidence-gathering to RFAr where it is more appropriate."

"RfCs should be an occasion to get input on something - not an obligatory step on the way to arbcomming people"

"RfC is just a chance for both parties to outline their problems and to get third party views. Although it can be as formal as you like, an RfC can be something as simple as a single sentence outline of the dispute on WP:RFC."

SlimVirgin expressed her view of the RFC process:

"An RfC is like putting someone in the stocks. In my view, it's a horrible process, and I would only do it to POV warriors and trolls who couldn't be blocked for disruption. I've never seen good come from an RfC."

Given the disparate views on RFC's, I question the notion that SlimVirgin's caution is strictly a summary of consensus. It could just as much be a function of her personal view that no good ever came from an RFC. FuelWagon 14:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Two comments

First, it is clear enough to me that there are now long hard feelings between FuelWagon and SlimVirgin because he filed a user conduct RfC against her. Obviously, she and many other Wikipedians thought that he was attacking her. I think that he was, but he disagrees. I agree with her effort to post a warning that posting a user conduct RfC will be seen as hostile. She is trying to avoid a misunderstanding like the one that already exists between him and her, by saying that such an RfC will be seen as hostile. She is right in saying that it will be seen as hostile. If FuelWagon disagrees, then the fact of this exchange is proof enough.

So why is FuelWagon eager to allow similar misunderstood filings? Why does he not want to spare others the hostility that he caused without meaning to do it? I think that SlimVirgin is trying to do future users a favor, and say, "Please be wary before posting a user conduct RfC. It is a serious measure."

I think that FuelWagon was in part a victim of the fact that the posted rules are in complete disagreement with the usual understanding of how dispute resolution should be done. He did what the rules said, and not what the understanding was. There was a genuine cognitive disconnect. The posted rules were wrong.

In retrospect, FuelWagon should have posted an article RfC rather than a user conduct RfC. He had no way of knowing this, since he only read the rules, and did not read the minds of the community. This was always really a content issue more than a conduct issue. One of the limitations of a wiki is that there is no obvious fast way to handle content issues quickly. Robert McClenon 00:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Crisis Thoughts

Second, I invite other editors to read my statement on what needs to be done to improve Misplaced Pages: User: Robert McClenon/Crisis. I do not know whether this is the right way to provide views, but I decided to be bold without disrupting any existing space. Robert McClenon 00:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Deleted RFC posted in user subspace

(copied from above) SlimVirgin, the real problem is that you are still holding onto that RFC I filed against you a couple of months ago as a "bad faith" RFC and you are holding it as a grudge against me even now. That is why you relate to this as non-negotiable. And as long as you refuse to see that there was any merit at all in that RFC, you're going to cast me as the bad-guy here, and tell everyone I'm doing "original research", "wishful thinking", "pretending", making "ad hominem attacks again", and whatever else you've come up with. You are too invested in this for any discussion to come to any sort of useful outcome. I'm wrong and you're right, and that's the end of the conversation. You want to get some honesty in this conversation, stop pretending this is all about some warning on the RFC page I put up today or a week ago, and get some honesty about how much of this is about you begrudging me for filing an RFC against you a couple months ago. Until then, we're just going to keep dancing around the real issues. FuelWagon 19:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd normally say this issue doesn't belong here, as it's about a dispute between us, but now it seems you've cut and pasted the deleted RFC into your user subspace, so perhaps it does belong here after all. Suffice to say your RFC was not supported, or it would not have been deleted, and as for one of the editors saying he was a neuroscientist, I'd say, first, you only had his word for it, secondly, he said on a talk page that he was 25, and third, even if he was an expert, they carry no extra weight at Misplaced Pages, particularly in determining NPOV, which is what our dispute was about.

I'm sorry to see you haven't let this go. I accepted your apology in the belief the issue was over. SlimVirgin 22:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't even MENTIONED the RFC since I withdrew it until you started questioning the credibility of anyone and everyone who supported it. I withdrew my certification just so it would be deleted. It already had two signatures and I could have left it stick around. You want it to be over? you get that you just insulted the credibility of everyone who supported my RFC, you get that qualifies as a personal attack, you retract the statement, and you apologize. Don't blame this on me. You're the one who's bringing back the dead. FuelWagon 22:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Just so you get the history right, the first time my RFC was mentioned was here, when you posted " don't know why you're trying to pretend otherwise. I can only assume for personal reasons because of the RfC you filed." I didn't bring this up. You did. It's YOU who never let this go. You want to hold onto it, that's fine by me. But don't go accusing me of doing something now, because of something that you are holding onto. I was trying to change the RFC warnings to make the better. It had nothing to do with my RFC from way back. You brought it up. Don't blame me. You haven't let it go. Don't blame me. FuelWagon 22:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

And don't go insulting the credibility of some good editors just because they're no longer around to defend themselves. Duckecho and Neuroscientist were hard working contributers to that article. They signed the RFC, and you just said no credible editor signed the RFC. So, you're the one who keeps bringing it up. FuelWagon 22:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Read what you've written. I was on this page objecting to your editing of Wikpedia:Requests for comment, which is why this page exists. But you then raised the RFC. You wrote: "SlimVirgin, the real problem is that you are still holding onto that RFC I filed against you a couple of months ago as a "bad faith" RFC and you are holding it as a grudge against me even now ..."

You've now pasted a deleted RFC into your user page, even though it's supposed to be deleted.

All I can do is assure you that my attitude to this page isn't connected to the RfC of yours in particular, but instead is motivated by the overall number of frivolous and damaging RfCs I've seen. Also, there's no one else on this page who supports the edits you wanted to make, either now or the last time they were discussed. SlimVirgin 23:00, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

And please don't change my header. SlimVirgin 23:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I thought this was a wiki. Now it's "your" header? lol FuelWagon 23:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Then how did you know

"my attitude to this page isn't connected to the RfC of yours in particular" Oh, really? Then how did you know that I just recently pasted a deleted RFC into my user namespace? The only way would be for you to be monitoring my user contributions. I've made no public reference to those pages. it wouldn't show up on any article watchlist. But soon after I created the page, you were off asking another editor about policy regarding deleted RFC's in a user namespace, and you've made sure to announce it here with your subsection title, insisting that I don't change it. Are you saying you just happened to be on the RFC page and saw me add this recent warning? OK, fine. you've got this page on your watchlist. But how did you know about an addition to my userspace? Not connected in any way to an RFC I filed against you? None at all? Just browsing recent contributions by random editors? FuelWagon 23:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I knew about it because I looked at your contribs yesterday, as it seemed clear you'd started up again, and your usual thing is to write to lots of people about it, so I looked to see whether you'd been doing that.

I'm requesting as a gesture of goodwill that you delete that page from your user space. You have every right to keep a copy on your computer, but there's no need or reason to keep it online. It was deleted, not moved or userfied. I also agree with Rob that it's not appropriate to discuss our dispute on this page, though it's appropriate to discuss your keeping a copy of the RfC. If you want to discuss the dispute, please suggest somewhere else. SlimVirgin 01:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

" it seemed clear you'd started up again" Oh, it seemed clear did it? That I had started up again, did I? I appreciate all the "good will" that comes with the implied accusation that I'm guilty of "starting up" something "again". So, just to help clarify what really happened here, I added an entry to the "for your review" piece below. See, it went like this: you mentioned my RFC against you, I post it in my user space. So as for your accusation that I had "started up" something, and that I had done it "again", it's all false. Do you realize that on this page alone, you've accused me of "ad hominem" attacks , that I'm "pretending" and only doing it for "personal reasons because of the RFC" I filed , that everyone who supported my RFC was not "credible" , and that "it seemed clear" I had "started up again", which comes not only with an assertion of guilt, but an implication of previous guilt. You want to retract these accusations? no? well, I uploaded the RFC partly so there would be a objective record of what really happened so I could defend myself from your accuastions. You brought up the RFC, not me. As for the people who supported it being "credible", there were four other people, and they happened to be my friends. We were working our asses off on the Terri Schiavo article when you came along and bulldozed your way through it. Two of them left wikipedia in disgust after that. One of them specifically blamed you. So, I'd appreciate it if you left my friends' "credibility" out the picture since they can't defend themselves from your accusations. And after all this, you have the nerve to ask me for a show of good will? I've done nothing to break it. Don't look for a sign of good will when you've shown me and my friends none. FuelWagon 03:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, this seems to be a personal issue you have with SlimVirgin; I don't really think continuing it here is appropriate, since it is unrelated to this article. Frankly, I don't see the value in continuing it anywhere else either, but that's just my personal opinion. Jayjg 04:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

There's so many various headings on this I don't know which one this comment should go on, so feel free to move it to the right one, somebody. All I wish to point out is that SlimVirgin's claim that no other credible editors supported this RfC is not the case. I supported it (and I'm not just credible, I'm incredible, baby), as I thought a Request for Comment meant a formal request for some comments on an issue that required resolving. Obviously, it actually means 'request for huge two month bitch fest with no end in sight'. I wish this would all just go away now. Proto t c 08:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

for your review

There seems to be some confusion as to the history of this recent discussion. I've posted the following diffs for your review.

15:58, 24 August 2005 SlimVirgin writes: "because of the RfC you filed."

19:06, 24 August 2005 FuelWagon writes: "you are still holding onto that RFC I filed against you"

21:21, 24 August 2005 FuelWagon pastes RFC into his personal userspace.

It seems fairly straightforward to me. FuelWagon 23:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Two Comments

There does seem to be residual hard feeling between FuelWagon and SlimVirgin, and it is wasting Wiki space that would be better spent on improving the dispute resolution process. If the two of them still have hard feelings, why not request mediation to at least agree to express those hard feelings somewhere else?

Second, I restated what SlimVirgin said was the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community, that a user conduct RfC is a serious allegation that will lead to hard feelings and is commonly considered a step toward arbitration. FuelWagon disagreed as to whether this is a consensus. Is a quickpoll in order? Robert McClenon 00:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal

If anm article doesn't get endorsed in 48 hours it must be removed. Reinserting it looks really dodgy, as in trying to manipulate the system, SqueakBox 00:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but since the unendorsed RFC have a tendendcy to be deleted, removing them is best left to admins. R adiant _>|< 14:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

That is not policy, and putting a delete template on an article is not the same as deleting it, SqueakBox 23:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I never said that was policy, it's just a suggestion from me. R adiant _>|< 08:12, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

This fits none of the categories, but it's important

Talk:Barbara Schwarz has become the site of a flamewar over the article in question; a number of suspected sockpuppets have popped up and are not only defending the article's subject, but verbally eviscerating anyone, such as Texture or Tilman Hausherr, who tries to edit new information into it. User:Lily Firered and some anonymous user who signs all his posts "A Mormon" are largely at fault for the hostile atmosphere, and I think we need some new blood to take a look at what's going on in there. I haven't participated in any editing on that page in over a month myself, and I don't think I can resolve this conflict alone. - 206.114.20.121 18:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

RFC on RFC page -- subpages

Given that above, three people voiced a preference for a unified RFC page, and only one person stated a preference for the subpages, I have returned Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment to the pre-subpage format.

I ask for any disagreement about the page to be resolved through discussion and consensus. Maurreen (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't care about the other splits, but I believe that it is important to split out the front matter, because of the difficulty in tracking changes to the policy otherwise. I recently spent over an hour looking at diffs to try to figure out when a particular wording change was made. Such changes are getting lost, and are ending up in the page without consensus simply because no one is aware of them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand your reasoning better now and agree in principle with a subpage for the instructions. It's easy to miss those changes. I would like to suggest a different name than "front matter". "Procedures" might be more clear. Maurreen (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what we call it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

You have never actually stated what your problem is, actually. Please do so. Note that 1) on the village pump, several more people supported the change; and 2) the change actually offers more options without removing any of the existing ones. R adiant _>|< 22:36, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I said on 14 August: "This page used to be simple -- one page. Now it's scattered." That is a reason for my disagreement, regardless of how meaningful you do or don't find it. I see little value gained, but more effort to track RFCs as a whole and to list them. Maurreen (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I vote with Maureen: I like the combined article display. Put the way-too-lengthy instructions and intro on a separate page where we can all ignore them. If necessary make separate pages for RFC articles and RFC users, but please don't separate the articles into separate pages again. Thanks. alteripse 04:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Maureen. I read this page (and many others, such as RfA, FAC, Peer Review, etc.) via diffs. It's a lot easier to do so when things are on a single page. --Carnildo 06:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

In response to all three of you - there still is a single page that lists everything - Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/All. That functionality wasn't lost. If people don't like its layout or the template for each section, that would be trivial to change. Radiant_>|< 08:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- "/All" is absolutely worthless for me. As I said, I read RfC via diffs. Transclusion, as is done in "/All", doesn't generate diffs. --Carnildo 04:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, yes. In that case you'd have to watchlist ten pages instead of one. Sorry to ask but is that really so inconvenient? It also makes the chance smaller that you'll miss an issue because two were added shortly after one another. And many people want to watchlist part of the RFCs but not all of them (e.g. not the user disputes, or maybe only anything about history). Radiant_>|< 09:16, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
    - It takes about 30 seconds to check out all the changes in the past day on the unified page. It takes the same 30 seconds to check out the changes on each split subpage, for a total time of five minutes or more to check out all of RfC. And with subpages, there's the possibility that I'll miss watchlisting a subpage entirely. --Carnildo 19:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
      - Thank you; I agree completely with Carnildo. Septentrionalis 19:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Radiant. This format seems neater. In fact, it's actually what alteripse would like: the instructions are all on a separate page (WP:RFC), and the article RFcs are all on one page (Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/All).—Encephalon | 08:20:13, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

Interestingly, there is a thread at the Village Pump where Maurreen suggests precisely that processes like RFC be split into several areas by topic, and it gets some support there too. I'm not sure why she would oppose it here when she proposes the same thing over there. R adiant _>|< 17:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I think we all agree more than we disagree, guys. I could be wrong, but it looks to me like the present format satisfies most of the demands of various editors, and where it doesn't, it's probable that some adjustments can be made to meet them. Best wishes to everyone,—Encephalon | 01:20:00, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

Split version is better. - brenneman 22:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I prefer the split version too. I want to at least have a look at all user RfCs, whereas content RfCs (though important) are something I'll work on time permitting. --fvw * 03:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Given that opinion is roughly evenly divided betweeen which version is preferred, I propose a compromise.

Have just a few subpages, such as:
1. Article-specific issues -- Math, natural science and technology
2. Article-specific issues -- Social sciences (history, politics, geography and the like)
3. Article-specific issues -- Culture (essentially, article-specific issues that don't belong in either of the other two)
4. Misplaced Pages convention and user issues
The subpages would appear on WP:RFC in a manner similar to how subpages/logs/whatever appear at WP:CFD. Maurreen (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It would certainly be possible to combine some of the subpages, but before you propose that I'd suggest you look at their respective length. For instance, we defininitely need a separate page for religion, and one for history/geography, given the broadness of those fields. Note that the split by topic area was not something I created; it was already widely accepted before the topics were moved to subpages. As to your second point, what you propose is precisely what /All is. RFC presently works like the village pump, the reference desk and the main VFD page - in other words, exactly like other processes that grew beyond their original context. R adiant _>|< 08:19, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to meet you halfway. I am open to other suggestions on meeting halfway.

There would still be subpages, just fewer of them. When the topics were initially split, they were still all contained on the RFC page.

"/All" is not precisely what I propose. It is not, in my view, enough like the other pages you mention. The current RFC page contains instructions and pointers elswhere. "/All" contains the RFCs but no instructions and no tabble of contents. WP:CFD does not split the listings, discussions, table of contents, and instructions. Maurreen (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

So where are my RFCs?

Given that the page has now been split again, and my RFCs are no longer listed on the RFC page, would someone at least tell me where they are? Maurreen (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:CS. R adiant _>|< 08:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

If I wanted to hold a survey, I would do so. Maurreen (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

As I've pointed out several times already, WP:CS is a misnomer since it contains a lot of things that aren't surveys. R adiant _>|< 10:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Boldness should be tempered -- splitting, etc.

Regardless of the merits or not of subpages and any other changes, these is are to be decided by the community. There is obvious disagreement.

It is not for any individual to decide what subpages are appropriate, nor that certain RFCs are to be moved to Misplaced Pages:Current surveys, etc.

In my view, the mature and courteous thing to do, is to use the version of the RFC page that had been relatively stable for at least a year, UNTIL there is consensus to do otherwise. Thank you. Maurreen (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You asked for comments here. You proposed a split of things by topic area on the village pump. In both cases, support was shown for the split up version. The new version has more functionality than the old version, as indicated by the discussion above. So do not bypass a discussion that you started yourself. R adiant _>|< 10:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

For one thing, I did not suggest dividing just RFCs by separate page.
I am not bypassing. We can have the discussion just as well, either way.
Support has been shown for both versions. No consensus has been shown for your preferred version.
I waited almost two weeks between opening the discussion and unifying the page. In that time, three people disagreed with one. Maurreen (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The intent is the same, and splitting RFCs (or for that matter, splitting the refdesk) would be a useful step towards what you actually propose.
Yes, you did. You started a discussion, ignored the response, and changed to the version you prefer in spite of the fact that response was not quite in support of that.
Like I said before, one does not vote on changes. Go and read Misplaced Pages:Conlangs/Straw_poll for an example. You ask for opinions and address the objections. That has, in fact, been done.
No, you did not. You started this discussion on 18:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC), and the one on the village pump on 08:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC). You broke the RFC page in an attempted reversion on 02:55, August 28, 2005.
You're being needlessly bureaucratic. Please don't. I have answered your concerns but you have never answered mine. You tend to simply ignore whatever I say and repeat your previous arguments. That's not productive. R adiant _>|< 09:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Radiant:

2. and 4. You opened the discussion on 7 August. You bypassed discussion by deciding to make the change without discussing first.

3. Please read Misplaced Pages:Consensus.

5. Saying that I am "being needlessly bureaucratic" and your repititive WP:NOT statements are not productive. What concerns of yours do you feel that I have not addressed? Maurreen (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Del unilateral rule

The following was on the RFC page as a hidden comment. I do not agree, and as far as I know, only one person supports it. So I removed it.

Yes, policy issues should go on "current surveys" to keep them all in a centralized place. "Surveys" is actually a misnomer, over half of its content isn't actually a survey. A request to rename is in place. Maurreen (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Why on earth do you oppose keeping all policy-related debates in a single place? R adiant _>|< 08:30, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

"Requests for comment" and "Current surveys" are clear, simple and straightforward deliniations. I see no problem with that. I see no need to change. Maurreen (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that they overlap substantially, and have done so for a long time. Many requests for comment take the form of a survey, and many surveys are in fact requesting comment. Also, some things listed on RFC were not in fact requesting any comment, and several things listed on RS were not in fact surveys. That has also been true for a long time.
Thus, we had two pages with essentially the same goal. That is redundant, and bureaucratic. That essentially means that everything posted on one should also be posted on the other - but people tend to forget that. It also means that everyone watching one should also watch the other - but people tend to forget that too. The end result is that some people will arbitrarily be unaware of some discussion, despite the fact that they wish to be. That is confusing and undesirable.
It is not generally possible to amend everybody's behavior to match the original intent of a page. It is on the other hand easy to rename a page to match with what people actually use it for, to facilitate it for new users. R adiant _>|< 15:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Given that we disagree, it makes sense to me to continue longstanding practice until there is a consensus to do otherwise. Maurreen (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Given that longstanding practice is bureaucratic, redundant and confusing as I just pointed out, and given that you haven't given any argument to contradict that, I fail to see how you have a point. R adiant _>|< 15:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

My point is that none of this is for you to decide. It is not for me to decide. It is not for any individual to decide.

Also, you appear to be the only person objecting to this aspect of longstanding practice.

I see no point in going back and forth between the two of us.

Let the community decide. Maurreen (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is for you to decide. You are in charge of the entire wiki, Maurreen, you can make any change you want, whenever you want! Well... almost. At the same time, Radiant is also in charge, and well, so am I, so when you do make a change and we disagree, it might then be wise to discuss. :-) See WP:HEC for a useful framework for this.

Anyway, since you're in charge and therefore very important, I'd like to hear why you disagree with Radiant (who is also in charge and therefore also very important), and we can try to sort out what to do to your mutual satisfaction. (This is called "Finding consensus through negotiation and agreement") Kim Bruning 16:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I've been looking for -- both an intermediary and recognition that we're all equal here. Essentially, Radiant and I disagree on whether there is a problem with longstanding practice. In my view, it would be a positive gesture if Radiant would remove the rule, and then we could more easily discuss ways to satisfy both of us. Oh, and I had just listed this at Misplaced Pages:Third opinion. Maurreen (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, WP:HEC says you can feel free to remove it yourself, if it's really making you unhappy. In the mean time, what's your issue with it? Kim Bruning 16:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can remove it, and I probably will. And then Radiant can put it back, and probably will. And we can continue our revert war.

He shouldn't actually. Has he done so earlier? If so we might need to talk to him a bit. Kim Bruning

My issue -- If someone wants to request comments, I see no reason why they shouldn't do so at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. That is clear, simple and straightforward.

Okay. That's clear. Kim Bruning

Radiant has not demonstrated that "longstanding practice is bureaucratic, redundant and confusing". I respect that Radiant believes this. I do not. I do not see that anyone else believes it. Maurreen (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, why do you disagree? Kim Bruning 17:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Right, earlier I avoided reading so I'd get an objective view of the situation, but now I've done so. You two HAVE been revertwarring, and there's a lot of discussion here as well about the topic. Hmmm. Well stop reverting, the both of you. Goodness. Kim Bruning 17:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if this comes accross the wrong way, but I don't know how many ways I can say this or how to say it more clearly. Listing all requests for comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment is easy. Having some hidden rule that says certain requests must go another page adds complexity for zero benefit that I can see. Radiant claims to reduce confusion. In my view, Radiant is adding confusion. Maurreen (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, first off, there are two different issues here. I've removed the so-called unilateral rule now (which isn't a rule really, it's actually a description about how things work). But the recent revert s were about certain edits by Maurreen that broke the RFC page and confused the progress.
The point is that Maurreen is holding to the literal definitions of "requests for comment" and "current surveys". However, while a dictionary can certainly tell them apart, on Misplaced Pages they're extremely interrelated. Many requests for comment employ a survey. Most surveys are requesting comment. So they should both be listed on one place. I don't care what place that is, but there used to be three different spots. And that's confusing. R adiant _>|< 08:40, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for removing it. I appreciate that. Maurreen (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so Radiant has been busy reorganising stuff again! (He seems to like doing that.) Typically, so long as it's just a refactor, that's not a big deal. I understand that something went wrong here?

Hmm, could either of you paste the contested text below, so we can take a look at it, and see why it's so contested? Kim Bruning 13:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is the contested text: Yes, policy issues should go on "current surveys" to keep them all in a centralized place. "Surveys" is actually a misnomer, over half of its content isn't actually a survey. A request to rename is in place. Maurreen (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Compromise proposal: RFCs and surveys

Radiant or anyone: What do you think of dividing all requests for input (RFCs, surveys, whatever) among two types, article-specific issues and all other issues? Maurreen (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

My RFC

I just noticed I still have an RFC on me which wasn't formatted or certified, I assume it should be deleted? --fvw * 01:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC) moved from subpage. R adiant _>|< 10:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Radiant_>|< 10:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted. R adiant _>|< 10:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

certification withdrawn

Will an admin please delete the RFC against Bensaccount? Two editors have withdrawn certification to allow it be deleted. Thanks. FuelWagon 21:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

This looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you, and I'm concerned that you're using these, and the subsequent withdrawal of certification, as a way of controlling content. This RfC wasn't properly certified in the first place, in my view, because two of the certifiers are supposed to supply evidence of unsuccessful attempts to resolve the dispute — not evidence of the dispute itself, but of attempts to resolve it. Most of the diffs supplied show you engaging in the dispute. The others (one from Robert and one from Parker Whittle) aren't really appropriate, because Robert wasn't a certifer, and because both diffs show comments about the dispute, not dispute resolution. An attempt to resolve it would be, for example, an agreement to search for a compromise, which was rejected by the other party. I encourage you in future to think twice before filing another RfC on someone, and to search harder for ways to resolve disputes between yourself and other editors, before proceeding to this stage. SlimVirgin 22:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Since you have publicly announced that you can no longer assume any good faith of me, you will see every action I do as evil. You've got evil-tinted glasses on and, surprise, you see evil every time you look my way. Therefore, I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain myself to you. But as long as you've got those dark-tinted glasses on, feel free to stay away from me. I encourage you to stop combing through my user contributions and worry about your own contributions. Your advice misses the mark because you can't even see what you're looking at. Leave me alone. FuelWagon 00:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

To anyone else who is curious, Bensaccount was writing according to the scientific point of view on articles like Intelligent Design. He was inserting edits that stated as fact that ID was unscientific, illogical, and other POV statements. I tried multiple times on teh talk pages to get him to follow NPOV policy which says to report the scientific view as the scientific view, not as fact. As for SlimVirgin's accusation that I was attempting to control "content", I personally don't believe in ID, and I personally agreed with the stuff that Bensaccount was saying, but it was inappropriate content for the article. I basically was writign for the enemy in trying to give Intelligent Design a fair shake and report on it within NPOV policy. FuelWagon 00:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

A request for a truce

SlimVirgin, FuelWagon: Can both of you please get over it? Please be civil and refrain from these innuendos. Terri Schiavo died in April. It is now September.

First, when SV says that FW was trying to use an RfC to control content, if she means that FW had written the Bensaccount request for comments due to a content dispute, that is just mistaken. The Creation Science article was very out of control. FW was heroically trying to restore reason and civility (which is not easy for an editor who has lapses in civility, but he was doing it very well). As he says, he was trying to "write for the enemy", and to present a wrong-headed point of view as the point of view that is permitted in a pluralistic society. There were serious breaches of POV and civility, as well as personal attacks, on both sides. Bensaccount was by far the worst of the POV pushers, and was trying to get Misplaced Pages to say that Creation Science was known to be a pseudo-science. FW tried to reason with Bensaccount, and did not write the RfC until all other efforts at dispute resolution failed. Any suggestion that he was too quick to write it is mistaken.

I do not know why he has now requested that it be deleted. Since it appears that it has been deleted, it is difficult for me to find it and research its history as to why two of the certifying signatures have been cancelled. The mistake appears to have been not filing the RfC, but withdrawing it. If I had certified the RfC, rather than only endorsing it, I would take strong offense at having it then deleted. (I only endorsed it because I did not try to resolve the dispute, but I did observe it and I was in complete agreement with FW's summary.)

I don't know what the rules are about withdrawing a user conduct RfC or a signature to a user conduct RfC. I know that I recently made the mistake of offering to withdraw my signature to an RfC, and I have learned that that is a mistake. While it can be intended to be a gesture of reasonableness, once a user conduct RfC has become necessary, any willingness to compromise is likely to be seen as a sign of weakness by a troll, POV warrior, or puppet-master.

Rather than withdrawing the RfC, couldn't an update have been included stating that there had been agreement? Why did two of the certifiers withdraw their signatures?

SV: FW was not using a user conduct RfC to control content. That is not an accurate or reasonable summary of what happened. I do not know why he withdrew the RfC. The withdrawal gives the appearance that he was bullied into submission by a sock army.

SV, FW: Can the two of you please either take your simmering resentment of each other to mediation, or open an exchange-of-insults talk page? Robert McClenon 11:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Robert, I have emailed you a copy of the RFC before it was deleted. It includes my comments explaining why I withdrew my certification. FuelWagon 15:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC) As to whether or not Bensaccount would take my withdrawal of certification as a "sign of weakness", I was willing to extend him enough good faith to let him demonstrate his reaction rather than me predict what he would do. FuelWagon 15:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Undeleting temporarily

Robert, you've misunderstood the situation, but you're right that it's not appropriate here. Regarding the RfC, I agree that it's a bad idea to certify one then withdraw the signature (unless it was signed because of a factual error or misreading of the situation). If the RfC was properly certified within 48 hours, and the dispute was then resolved, it should be archived, not deleted. However, I didn't see separate attempts by two certifiers to resolve the dispute. If I've misread the diffs, I'd be happy to undelete it. I'm going to do that now so you can read it if you want to, and if you feel it shouldn't be deleted again, please let me know. Cheers, SlimVirgin 13:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

It is possible that I may have misunderstood the situation. If so, perhaps an explanation would be useful. Robert McClenon 15:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

By all means feel free to e-mail me, Robert. As for the RfC, I'm getting a little confused about which page to discuss it on, as Pwhittle is on Ben's RfC talk page, and you're here, so perhaps you could coordinate and decide whether you'd all like it to be deleted or not. I've restored it in the meantime so you can read it. Cheers, SlimVirgin 16:32, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

The RfC talk page is a better place to discuss the RfC. I will go there. Robert McClenon 16:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue about this RfC illustrates a point that SlimVirgin has made previously, that there are serious problems with the RfC process, and with dispute resolution in general. I have my own thoughts on what needs to be done. Since I was not sure where to post them, I created a user subpage and talk subpage, where there has been some discussion. I welcome other suggestions as to where to move this discussion to. Robert McClenon 16:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the RfC problems tie in with the whole dispute resolution process. There's additional tension at the moment because (so far as I know) the mediation committee isn't functioning, or not fully, and the backlog is leading to more RfCs and arbcom cases than normal, so everyone's getting ratty. But even when the process is working as intended, the RfC end of things is problematic. There was a debate a few months ago about how hostile they always are, and someone created Wikiquette alerts as a pre-RfC stage, but I don't know how effective they are.

I'd say that, perhaps rather than discussing these things on a subpage, this page might be more appropriate, or a subpage of this one. That's just a suggestion though; it's up to you. Thank you for starting the debate wherever it is, because it's much needed. SlimVirgin 16:57, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

"I didn't see separate attempts by two certifiers to resolve the dispute. If I've misread the diffs" Given I'm one of the certifiers, and given your declaration that you will assume no good faith on my part, you do not have the right to make that call here. You are publicly campaigning against me, trying to convince the world of how evil I am. And now you've dragged a legitimate RFC about a legitimate problem into your mud-slinging campaign. You are too biased to make any judgement call about ANYTHING that I've done as an editor. Drop it. You are now publicly axe-grinding. 500 admins and you're the one who keeps showing up to publicly declare how horrible I am. if there is a procedural problem with this RFC, it will not be for you to decide. You cannot declare you will assume no good faith on my part and expect to make any sort of reasonable judgement call here. You are involved. You are biased. If another admin finds a problem with the diffs of this RFC, I'll deal with them. The RFC has been around for over a week, and the only admin who complained was you. And you complaint was nothing more than an excuse to sling mud at me. FuelWagon 15:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Meta Subpage

This talk page consists of a combination of discussions of specific RfCs and of "meta-discussions" of the content and process of RfCs. I have decided to be bold and create a Meta discussion talk subpage. I have not archived or refactored any previous meta discussions onto that page.

I think that creating a separate page for meta-discussions will allow some editors who are trying to make Misplaced Pages work better in general to follow meta-discussions without having watchlists mention comments about specific RfCs. Robert McClenon 18:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your intent, but this is the "meta" page. Maurreen (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Then should there be a subpage for discussion of individual RfCs? As it is, this page is a mixture of discussion of individual RfCs and of process and content issues. Robert McClenon 15:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't find that a bad thing myself, Robert, because sometimes the individual issues throw up more general points. SlimVirgin 16:00, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Coloring within the Lines

There has been a problem on several recent user conduct RfCs that editors have edited portions of the page that they were not supposed to edit. Sometimes the person whose conduct is the subject of the RfC will insert comments into the Summary, or the certifiers will insert comments into the Response. I have a suggestion. The template should have wording added that states that this is not permitted. I would suggest wording at the top of the Description and the Summary of the form: "The person whose conduct is the subject of this RfC MUST NOT edit this section. Editing this section by the subject may result in a temporary block by an admin and may be seen by the ArbCom as evidence of bad faith." Similarly, the top of the response should have wording of the form: "The certifiers or endorsers of this RfC MUST NOT edit this section. Editing this section by the certifiers or endorsers may result in a temporary block by an admin and may be seen by the ArbCom as evidence of bad faith." Robert McClenon 15:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Certification Process

There has been some discussion in connection with specific RfCs (or Requests for Corrective Action) about what are the conditions for certifying an RfC. There are at least two specific questions.

Preconditions

The rules state that the Request for Corrective Action (still officially Request for Comments) must be certified within 24 hours by two editors who have both tried to resolve the dispute. This raises questions as to exactly what is the difference between engaging in the dispute and attempting to resolve the dispute. If the problem is a pattern of personal attacks, then I assume that attempting to resolve the dispute could be reminders on article talk pages or user talk pages of WP:NPA. Similarly, if the problem is 3RR, reminders of the policy are attempts to resolve the dispute. Do other editors agree?

This becomes more subtle when there is a conduct dispute arising from a content dispute, and where one editor simply shows contempt for consensus and makes too many reckless edits. What is the difference then between engaging in a dispute and attempting to resolve it? Perhaps the attempts to resolve the dispute should include requesting a Third Opinion or posting an article content RfC, and, if necessary, suggesting mediation. What does anyone else think? Robert McClenon 15:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that a third opinion, article RfC, mediation, or just asking other editors to become involved needs to be done before a content dispute becomes a user-conduct RfC. Or the editors already involved should be able to produce evidence of looking for a compromise. I'd also say the efforts have to be made over a longer period of time than just a couple of weeks.

What puzzles me is how a single editor could ignore consensus and keep on causing disruption over content, because if there's a clear consensus against him/her, then the others could simply keep reverting. At some point, the isolated editor is going to get bored, or else find other editors to support him, so the consensus would break down. Or even end up being blocked for disruption if the case is bad enough (e.g. by engaging in sockpuppetry). I can think of one case where an editor just kept on and on reverting, one revert a day, for a period of months, in the face of overwhelming consensus against him, but these cases are quite rare. He ended up before the arbcom for it. SlimVirgin 16:09, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I don't find it that rare. I posted a link on SlimVirgin's talk page to an RfC involving an editor who claimed that his church owned the biographical article on its founder. This involved both claims to proprietary ownership of the article and to access to documents, which appeared to be original research. An article RfC was posted. Other editors found the article to be non-neutral. The first action taken was to put an NPOV banner on the article. The editor in question removed the NPOV banner repeatedly, in one case 14 times in a 24-hour period before being blocked for 3RR (or 14RR). This sort of stubbornness and "heroic" persistence about an article is, in my opinion, more likely to happen the editor has some sort of passion or fervor about the article or its subject, based perhaps on religion or on political ideology or on hero-worship. In this case, the driving factor was religion. Such an editor, providing that he is careful about 3RR, can always simply revert the article to "his" version twice a day. Robert McClenon 17:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I had thought the requirement for certification was 48 hours. If it has changed, does anyone know when? Shall we change it back?
I do not agree with putting new hoops in the way of starting an RFC in general. Also, for instance: Mediation may ask you to try RFC first. And if an editor goes on a rampage in a short time, I see that as no reason to hold people back from trying to make progress.
In my view, sometimes issues are decided essentially on the question of who is willing to revert more. Maurreen (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution, again

As I have stated elsewhere, mediation should not ask to use a user conduct RfC (Request for Corrective Action) first. It should be clarified that the proper sequence of dispute resolution steps should be:

Discussion on article (or user) talk page.
Article Request for Comments.
Mediation.
User conduct Request for Comments (which should be renamed Request for Corrective Action, because it is more serious than an RfC and has possible punitive implications).
Request for Arbitration.

The statement in the RfM page that RfC should be tried first needs to be clarified that article RfC should be tried first, but that user conduct RfC should not be a precondition to mediation. Mediation should be tried prior to Request for Corrective Action when a content dispute has spilled over into being a conduct dispute.

The requirement for certification, to the best of my knowledge, is still 48 hours. I did not see any statement that it had been changed. What SlimVirgin is proposing is a period of discussion before the RfC is filed. Once it is filed, I think that we agree that it should be certified by two real editors within 48 hours.

I think that there is a need to disambiguate two types of conduct issues. There are "simple" conduct issues, where an editor engages in obvious policy violations, typically either personal attacks or 3RR. I see no need for a numerical time minimum before filing those, although it should still be necessary to try to resolve the dispute by reminding the offender of the policies. Then there are what I will call "hybrid" conduct issues, which originate as content issues, and the problem is stubbornness or incivility. (Personal attacks are uncivil, but not all incivility is personal attacks.) There should be a more stringent threshold for those, but at the same time, I am concerned that imposing "too many hoops" could simply result in "consensus" being decided by who was willing to shout more loudly and revert more. Robert McClenon 17:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Who Can Certify?

In at least one recent case, an RfC was certified within 48 hours by one signed-in editor, one anonymous IP editor, and two editors with no previous history. Is an anonymous editor (with a long and controversial posting history) a valid certifier? Are editors with no previous history valid certifiers? (One admin reasonably concluded that they appeared to be sock-puppets.) What should be done when an RfC is improperly certified, and is listed as certified? I would suggest that the person whose conduct is the subject of the RfC should have two choices. The first would be to request its deletion. The second would be to request that it be delisted, but that the RfC be archived as evidence of bad faith, for use in any possible subsequent RfAr. Robert McClenon 15:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that it should be up to the subject of the RfC. My own view is that RfCs not properly certified ought to be deleted, period. As for who can certify, I don't think we have it written down anywhere, and we ought to, but I'd say it's implied by the current rules that anons can't certify, and nor can suspiciously new accounts, because the rules specify two sigs within 48 hours, and of course if we don't know anything about the users, we can't say with any certainty that the sigs are from two different users. SlimVirgin 16:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that anonymous editors should not certify. As to editors with no previous history, they cannot certify because they did not try to resolve the dispute (or even engage in it), and that should stated, although it should also be obvious. Robert McClenon 17:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that an invalidly certified RfC should simply be deleted. An uncertified RfC can be deleted, but I think that an invalidly certified RfC should have the link deleted (which delists it), and should be archived, because bad-faith RfCs may be useful evidence for the ArbCom. If bad-faith RfCs are simply deleted, then a troll or flame-warrior who is the subject of a valid RfC gets a free pass on writing their own RfCs against the certifiers and endorsers (and getting a sock army to certify them). Robert McClenon 17:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I may be missing something, because I haven't been following this page, but I think that if a deleted, invalidly-certified, bad-faith RfC is needed for evidence in an ArbCom case, it can be undeleted temporarily, so I wouldn't consider that the possibility that it might be needed as evidence is sufficient reason for not deleting it. Ann Heneghan 22:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Once a bad-faith RfC is deleted, it will be difficult to find that it ever existed; if no one knows it existed, it can't be put up for temp undeletion. This means that the ArbCom may never be told that a user has a practice of making bad-faith RfC's against different editors, which should be severely discouraged. Septentrionalis 13:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea where to put this

There seems to be no place to put "uncategorized article RFCs". I think this discourages people from creating RFCs and prompts them to go straight to RFM - which is uncategorized. Please help me by putting the following RFCs where they belong.

Also, I don't really know how to set up the RFC template. Please help with that, too. Thanks. Ed Poor, MedCom acting chairman. Uncle Ed 00:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jonathan Sarfati

Demonstrating further justification against subpages. Maurreen (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Missing Message

Okay, did the society and law RFC page receive a message about DESpiegel and his unsolicited obscene posting on my user talk? If so, why was it deleted? Please respond as soon as possible at my user talk. It is a matter of importance. Felix Frederick Bruyns 03:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Ask User:CesarB, he reverted it (saying it was the wrong place). And can you please stop going around and asking people if your comments were deleted. Just look in the history yourself. Dmcdevit·t 03:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

RFCs, voting and consensus

The Bureaucrat consensus poll got me thinking about consensus and how we arrive at it. I think RFCs have too much of a stigmata attached to them, and that they can be used in cases like this. RFCs can be used for consensus building and not just dispute resolution. Think of the format user conduct RFCs use, a statement of scope, evidence and "views" that people endorse. There's all sorts of ways RFCs can be formated and managed (and closed out) without people saying yea or nay on something. It's a form of voting for sure but it's in a form that has people endorsing a result/solution rather than possibly just voting something down. If you're not seeing a "view" you can endorse you can create one which others can then take into consideration. Just some thoughts...Rx StrangeLove 04:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate charges on RFC

On an RFC filed against me Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Erwin Walsh the list of applicable policies includes WP:NPOV, which is a policy that applies to articles, not users (to my understanding). I have tried removing it but it was reverted. Perhaps an admin or RFC regular could clarify the situation. Erwin

NPOV is a policy that applies to articles. I have not read the RfC in detail. My assumption would be that this is an RfC that combines content issues and conduct issues with respect to how to resolve the content issues. The content policies are relevant if there were allegations that you were not being reasonable about content.

If you tried to delete some of the listed policies, then you were "coloring outside the lines" by editing a portion of the RfC that should be edited only by its certifiers. The proper place to have questioned the inclusion of NPOV would have been in your Response. Robert McClenon 16:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Process Issues: Changes to User Conduct RfC

Propriety of Additions to RfC

Questions have been raised on several RfCs about when and how additions may be made to a user conduct RfC after it is certified. Is it reasonable for the certifiers of the RfC to add additional language to the Description, or the Policies, or the Evidence of Disputed Behavior, after the RfC is certified? My own thought was that it should be, either because the certifiers, in the course of further research, identified earlier misconduct by the user that they had previously overlooked, or because the user in question begins to behave worse in some respect (e.g., vandalizes another user's user page as revenge). However, a few editors argue that adding to an RfC is "sneaky vandalism". Is it? If so, does that mean that the certifier should write a second RfC against the same editor? Robert McClenon 12:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I've seen an RFC that spanned over several weeks (a month or two?) as certifiers kept adding diffs for evidence. A few editors who originally supported the RFC later withdrew their support, but that wasn't because of added evidence, it was because of some disputes that broke out on the talk page. Basically, the RFC instructions say it must be the same dispute with the same editor or that it must be evidence of the same type of behaviour from that editor. As long as the additions meet that requirement, it should be fine, and other editors are free to withdraw their endorsement later if they wish. FuelWagon 23:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Description

Should it be permitted to add anything to the Description after the RfC is certified? If so, should anyone but the certifiers be allowed to add to it? Robert McClenon 12:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest limiting alteration of the description to the original certifiers. They are more familar with the original intent of the RFC and it would eliminate the possibility of "hijacking" the RFC. The original certifiers should be monitoring the RFC close enough to be able to add further evidence of misconduct, either new conduct or conduct from an earlier time. Rx StrangeLove 14:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

That appears to try to answer half of my question:

Should the original certifiers be able to add to the Description after the RfC is certified?
Should anyone else be able to add to the Description after the RfC is certified?

Your answer appears to be a clear 'No' on the second question. Does that imply that you think the answer to the first question should be 'Yes'? Robert McClenon 16:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

To a limited degree, yes. As long as it doesn't go too far afield from the original dispute, the problem being that people are reacting to and endorsing the original description and not to the additional content added after they endorsed it. Any substantial additions should go into an "additional view" or if absolutely necessary be spun off into a new RFC. Rx StrangeLove 21:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of Disputed Behavior

Should it be permitted to add evidence of disputed behavior after the RfC is certified? If so, should that be only for the original certifiers, or can new certifiers or endorsers also add? Robert McClenon 12:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The RFC instructions say it must be the same dispute with the same editor or that it must be evidence of the same type of behaviour from that editor. As long as the additions meet that requirement, it should be fine, and other editors are free to withdraw their endorsement later if they wish. someone should easily be able to determine if new evidence is related to the same dispute or disputed behaviour. New editors should be able to add evidence if they wish. If the original certifiers wish to keep their RFC separate, then that would be up to them. FuelWagon 23:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

be afraid, be very afraid

This statement

An RfC may be the first step toward arbitration, which can bring punitive actions against an editor. It is therefore not a step to be taken lightly.

is little more than slippery slope argument. An article RfC could just as easily be considered the "first step toward arbitration" because if an article RfC fails, then a user RfC may be next, and if a user RfC fails, then arbitration may be next. Any step in the dispute resolution process "may be the first step toward arbitration".

This statement also creates a linkage that does not exist in policy. A user RfC is not a requirement to enter arbitration. You can request arbitration without going through any other steps in the dispute resolution process. This statement implies a linkage and hides the fact that the linkage isn't official by hiding behind the term "may". "An RfC may be the first step toward arbitration". Although a linkage is implied, none exists in policy.

The end result of this statement is the same as any fallicious slippery slope argument: be afraid, be very afraid. Don't start because you may not be able to stop. It is therefore not a step to be taken lightly is nothing more than an admonishment to avoid the user Rfc based on the previously explained fallacious slippery slope argument. Since it's little more than a slippery slope argument, since it doesn't reflect any actual policy regarding "user RfC -> Must precede -> arbitration", and since it closes with what amounts to "be afraid, be very afraid", I've modified it to more accurately reflect actual policy and the difference from perceptions of a user RfC. FuelWagon 14:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The statement actually reflects reality, no more. Jayjg 21:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

any stage in the dispute resolution process may be the first step towards arbitration. That's also a reflection of reality. But we shouldn't put similar warnings on all the other steps too. FuelWagon 21:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

magical policy?

Does this conflict with what RFC policy says in some way?

"A user RfC is not required before entering arbitration, nor must a user RfC necessarily lead to arbitration."

Did I miss something in teh dispute resolution process? Or is some magical policy at work that says this is wrong? FuelWagon 21:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps SlimVirgin's personal view on user RfC's is coloring her editing of the RfC article: "An RfC is like putting someone in the stocks. In my view, it's a horrible process, and I would only do it to POV warriors and trolls who couldn't be blocked for disruption. I've never seen good come from an RfC."

This would explain her insertion of the "do not take lightly" admonition. However, it isn't a completely accurate portrayal of policy, and could be considered her point of view of policy.

Despite SlimVirgin's slippery slope, be afraid be very afraid warning, the facts of policy are that: A user RfC is not required before entering arbitration. A user RfC is not required to escalate until it enters arbitration.

Unless someone can point to some policy that says these are wrong, I see no reason that they shouldn't be reported alongside SlimVirgin's point of view. FuelWagon 22:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Your edits aren't good English, though not as long-winded as before. The word "may" in my version meant that an RfC might (but might not) be the first step toward arbitration. That's what the word means, and this is the English Misplaced Pages, so we have to rely on readers being able to read English. You've been revert warring about this for months, opposed by several editors. I've tweaked the edit to make your concerns even more explicit; now please leave it alone. SlimVirgin 23:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I know my English just fine. Speaking of language, your use of "although" mirrors the use of However. "Text like "A asserts Y. However, according to B, Z." implies that the latter assertion is truer or better than the former one. Avoid this construction in favor of simply stating: "A asserts Y. Others, including B, believe Z."," FuelWagon 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I reported simple facts of policy, you've rewritten them into "Although A, B may lead to Z", which does the same thing that "however" does: imply that the latter is truer or better than the former. Policy should be reported as simple facts without couching it in although/however language to weaken the facts you don't like. FuelWagon 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, your "don't take lightly" addition has no policy to back it up and could be considered original research and/or your personal POV. Even if some policy does point to this admonition, this particular admonishment is essentially useless since it gives no objective guidance as to when to file or not to file a user Rfc. It boils down to telling the user: "be afraid". FuelWagon 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)