Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Epbr123: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:39, 11 September 2007 editGeorgewilliamherbert (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users16,680 edits →Possible WP:CANVASS Issue: you can't Canvass a RFC...← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:52, 11 September 2007 edit undoButseriouslyfolks (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users16,752 edits →Possible WP:CANVASS Issue: moreNext edit →
Line 10:		Line 10:
	The initiator of this RfC sought the participation of at least 11 other editors through messages on their talk pages. The messages appear to be neutral, but judging by the views of the five who have weighed in here so far, it appears that the recipients were handpicked among people who had expressed a negative view of the subject. If so, the audience is partisan and this may have been improper votestacking. I haven't had any contact with the subject, so I'm not taking any position on the underlying RfC. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]\|]\|] </span>''' 04:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)		The initiator of this RfC sought the participation of at least 11 other editors through messages on their talk pages. The messages appear to be neutral, but judging by the views of the five who have weighed in here so far, it appears that the recipients were handpicked among people who had expressed a negative view of the subject. If so, the audience is partisan and this may have been improper votestacking. I haven't had any contact with the subject, so I'm not taking any position on the underlying RfC. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]\|]\|] </span>''' 04:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
	:An RFC is not a vote; it's not canvassing people who have been commenting to or warning an editor to notify them that the incident has escalated to an RFC, any more than telling people about a ] discussion or ] would be... RFC is about generating more comments and input and reviews of an incident, user, or article. ''Certainly'' all the people already involved are key participants. More uninvolved observers, reviewers, and commentators are helpful, of course. ] 04:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)		:An RFC is not a vote; it's not canvassing people who have been commenting to or warning an editor to notify them that the incident has escalated to an RFC, any more than telling people about a ] discussion or ] would be... RFC is about generating more comments and input and reviews of an incident, user, or article. ''Certainly'' all the people already involved are key participants. More uninvolved observers, reviewers, and commentators are helpful, of course. ] 04:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
			::Interesting. I suppose if someone has no explicit defenders, notification could not be done in a nonpartisan fashion. (I'm not saying that's the case here, just thinking through it.) Also, it doesn't have to be a "vote" for votestacking to apply. (Maybe it should be called !votestacking.) ] refers to an attempt to swing the debate (and apparent consensus) by enlisting people known to be on one side. Is there established precedent on this anywhere? --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]\|]\|] </span>''' 04:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:52, 11 September 2007

Just to let everyone know, I've notified User:Epbr123 of this RfC. However, he's sought fit to remove it from his talk page minutes after I've posted it. While I do believe it should stay on his talk page, at least until the RfC ends, I don't care to go down that road -- particularly since I don't see anything in the RfC guidelines regarding the user's right (or lack thereof) of removing RfC notification messages from their own user talk page. On the other hand, the user has clearly seen it and knows of its existence, and thus cannot feign ignorance to these proceedings, so I guess the point is more or less moot. Regardless, what it boils down to is that the user has been notified and knows. Any questions, comments, or concerns are more than welcome. So say we all. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 19:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. You've told him = he's been told. Don't revert his removal of the notification! Epbr123 has a right to remove any posts he chooses from his page. You don't ever want to edit war in somebody else's userspace. And the removal is reckoned to be proof that he's seen it, yes. Bishonen | talk 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, the goal of putting it on his talk page is to notify him, not to act as a badge of shame (which it is) that he can't remove. You've told him, he elected to remove it; so be it. (I did notice his nice rearranging of his barnstars after the fact, though ... :-) Xihr 04:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The guy is pretty much just off his rocker. He wants the articles to meet HIS requirements, and if they don't, they should just be deleted. The Rypcord. 04:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible WP:CANVASS Issue

The initiator of this RfC sought the participation of at least 11 other editors through messages on their talk pages. The messages appear to be neutral, but judging by the views of the five who have weighed in here so far, it appears that the recipients were handpicked among people who had expressed a negative view of the subject. If so, the audience is partisan and this may have been improper votestacking. I haven't had any contact with the subject, so I'm not taking any position on the underlying RfC. -- But|seriously|folks 04:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

An RFC is not a vote; it's not canvassing people who have been commenting to or warning an editor to notify them that the incident has escalated to an RFC, any more than telling people about a WP:ANI discussion or arbcom request would be... RFC is about generating more comments and input and reviews of an incident, user, or article. Certainly all the people already involved are key participants. More uninvolved observers, reviewers, and commentators are helpful, of course. Georgewilliamherbert 04:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I suppose if someone has no explicit defenders, notification could not be done in a nonpartisan fashion. (I'm not saying that's the case here, just thinking through it.) Also, it doesn't have to be a "vote" for votestacking to apply. (Maybe it should be called !votestacking.) WP:CANVASS refers to an attempt to swing the debate (and apparent consensus) by enlisting people known to be on one side. Is there established precedent on this anywhere? -- But|seriously|folks 04:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:39, 11 September 2007 editGeorgewilliamherbert (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users16,680 edits →Possible WP:CANVASS Issue: you can't Canvass a RFC...← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:52, 11 September 2007 edit undoButseriouslyfolks (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users16,752 edits →Possible WP:CANVASS Issue: moreNext edit →
Line 10:		Line 10:
	The initiator of this RfC sought the participation of at least 11 other editors through messages on their talk pages. The messages appear to be neutral, but judging by the views of the five who have weighed in here so far, it appears that the recipients were handpicked among people who had expressed a negative view of the subject. If so, the audience is partisan and this may have been improper votestacking. I haven't had any contact with the subject, so I'm not taking any position on the underlying RfC. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]\|]\|] </span>''' 04:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)		The initiator of this RfC sought the participation of at least 11 other editors through messages on their talk pages. The messages appear to be neutral, but judging by the views of the five who have weighed in here so far, it appears that the recipients were handpicked among people who had expressed a negative view of the subject. If so, the audience is partisan and this may have been improper votestacking. I haven't had any contact with the subject, so I'm not taking any position on the underlying RfC. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]\|]\|] </span>''' 04:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
	:An RFC is not a vote; it's not canvassing people who have been commenting to or warning an editor to notify them that the incident has escalated to an RFC, any more than telling people about a ] discussion or ] would be... RFC is about generating more comments and input and reviews of an incident, user, or article. ''Certainly'' all the people already involved are key participants. More uninvolved observers, reviewers, and commentators are helpful, of course. ] 04:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)		:An RFC is not a vote; it's not canvassing people who have been commenting to or warning an editor to notify them that the incident has escalated to an RFC, any more than telling people about a ] discussion or ] would be... RFC is about generating more comments and input and reviews of an incident, user, or article. ''Certainly'' all the people already involved are key participants. More uninvolved observers, reviewers, and commentators are helpful, of course. ] 04:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
			::Interesting. I suppose if someone has no explicit defenders, notification could not be done in a nonpartisan fashion. (I'm not saying that's the case here, just thinking through it.) Also, it doesn't have to be a "vote" for votestacking to apply. (Maybe it should be called !votestacking.) ] refers to an attempt to swing the debate (and apparent consensus) by enlisting people known to be on one side. Is there established precedent on this anywhere? --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]\|]\|] </span>''' 04:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)