Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:20, 11 June 2008

Not the way to do this

RFCs are for a dispute with a single person, for the hope of getting that person to change. Simply lobbing complaints at the ID project isn't going to change anything because there's a lot of noise to have to wade through for an individual editor to figure out what it is that we would like for them to do differently. If there is a particular editor whose ongoing behavior is of a concern, bring an RFC specifically about that person. --B (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's RFC/U. This is different and is about a generalized conflict. If you would like to raise a concern with an individual editor, please feel free to do so. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple members of the Arbcom specifically said at Sceptre's RFAR to file a RFC first. Single RFC, no mention of multiple RFCs. And since Sceptre named more than one party as needing their attention, their response implies that a single RFC would be fine. Odd nature (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional items

I think the RfC is a good start, but it misses some elements. Here are a few that come immediately to mind.

• Copious allegations of "POV-pushing" for and against Intelligent design
• Allegations of "incivility," "tendentious editing" and "disruption."
• Strident debate, continued over many months, about whether or not Intelligent design, particularly its lead, is consistent with WP:NPOV. Some insist it is; some insist it isn't.
• Related debates on a host of articles including Evolution, Objections to Evolution, and Rosalind Picard.

I'm sure there are other issues that should be brought up, but I'm not sure how to include them now that the initial post has been endorsed by multiple users. It would be very helpful if someone would do the grunt work of identifying the dozens of parties to the dispute and notifying them of the RfC. Gnixon (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Very good

This is the best effort I've seen to resolve the situation and I hope it works. One question - is this entirely about Intelligent design or does it extend to behaviour by the editors outside the topic, especially when they disrupt Misplaced Pages process spaces such as AN/I and AN? Until the RfAr I didn't even know the people involved were ID supporters (I have little-to-no interest in the subject) - I had simply thought they were a group of people behaving like bullies that should be dealt with. When I look at the ID dispute, other people who support ID do not behave in such a manner. The canvassing on a recent RfA and bizarre accusations of racism were just the symptoms of a much wider problem which I've seen unfolding for a few months now. Orderinchaos 02:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that concern is in scope, given the convoluted history that led us here. Of course, you'll need diffs to support the view you have formed if you want others to concur. GRBerry 03:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Once I get these damned assignments and presentations out of the way I'll have time to look :P Orderinchaos 03:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind all this, it seems the thing's going the way I'd hoped anyway in scope terms. I'll put together something in the next few days once I have some free time. Orderinchaos 09:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider

I have noticed that User:LaraLove and User:Dtobias and User:Ncmvocalist and possibly a few others have protested their inclusion in this dispute and the associated administrative actions, including one or more of the associated, impending and threatened RfCs. These editors object on the grounds that they are not related to this dispute and want to opt-out of it.

However, I will respectfully point out that this is exactly the situation that the members of the ID Wikiproject, and even a group of editors that are not members of the ID Wikiproject, face in the ID RfAr filed by User:Sceptre, User:SirFozzie et al . The same is true of the impending RfCs and potential Arbcomm actions. As User:Durova noted, this form of mass group administrative action where the group has poorly defined boundaries sets one or more precedents, and might not be the best conceived approach to settling any underlying dispute .

The ID RfAr broadly supposedly targets the ID Wikiproject, naming in particular User:Filll (who is no longer a member), User:Orangemarlin (who is no longer a member), User:Guettarda, User:KillerChihuahua, User:Jim62sch, and User:Ali'i even implies that User:JoshuaZ (never a member), User:Baegis, User:Odd nature, User:dave souza (never a member), User:Raymond Arritt (never a member and scrambled his password because of repeated intimidation, including the ID RfAr filing), User:Badger Drink (never a member), User:ScienceApologist (never a member), User:QuackGuru (never a member), and User:FeloniousMonk are also to be included in this broad attack. The RfAr makes allegations of evil collective behavior. There are all kinds of vague and unsubstantiated claims in the RfAr, even though at this writing it has been open for about 13 days, which should be more than enough time to produce at least some minimal evidence of substantial wrong-doing, which has not yet been forthcoming. All of these editors are treated as some sort of evil monolith, and all are blamed for a mistake made by any single editor, and any purportedly uncivil wording of any given editor is attributed to all the members of this ill-defined group.

As User:Thatcher stated on May 30, 2008: "And remember that your conduct in bringing the case will be looked at just as closely as the conduct of those you name in the case, so using the RFC as an opportunity for flamewars and personal attacks is going to be self-defeating." If we going to allow a precedent where 14 editors can be named as targets of a vague catch-all WP:COATRACK-y assault, then the side bringing these complaints will have to endure a similar treatment and scrutiny of their actions associated with this dispute or leading to this dispute, as Thatcher so fairly and presciently states. In fact, since I have been attacked mainly for doing nothing more than defending other members of this purported and mystical "cabal", then those same standards will have to be applied to all. So by that standard, clearly User:LaraLove and User:Dtobias are suitable targets for one or more administrative actions. In addition, User:LaraLove was deeply involved in provoking, enabling and defending some of the behaviors that are part and parcel of this dispute, so should be included on that basis as well. I do not know the particulars of Ncmvocalist and any potential others who might be more tenuously involved, but given that there are demands by SirFozzie and Sceptre et al that they be allowed to attack the widest possible group of editors, then it is only fair that the exact same standards be applied to both sides in this dispute.

I would repeat the previous appeal of User:FeloniousMonk for all involved to just disengage and walk away from this RfAr, the RfC drafts, and any further impending administrative actions, which he made in the deleted RfC Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, B. I forsee nothing but wasted time and irritation from this series of RfAr proceedings, RfCs and Arbcomm proceedings. As Thatcher stated, everyone's behavior is going to be under investigation and scrutiny if this goes ahead. No one should be allowed to "opt out", and probably no one will be allowed to "opt out". Any mistake or misunderstanding or ill-considered remark made on Misplaced Pages, or possibly on other sites such as Misplaced Pages Review, will be open to examination and second-guessing and potential misinterpretation. Highly improper and uncivil comments like Sceptre's gleeful edit summary that was used when he opened this RfAr are going to be criticized. I would ask everyone on all sides to please use some rationality here and please walk away from this potential huge time sink and impending disaster. All those attacking the ID Wikiproject should not feel so smug, since it is quite likely that a serious examination is going to turn up evidence of bad behavior on the anti-ID Wikiproject and pro-WR side that is not going to necessarily reflect them in the best possible light.

What can be done to resolve this

(1) Stop talking about the members of the ID Wikiproject off-wiki (2)Start assuming good faith of all ID Wikiproject members (3) Stop calling the ID Wikiproject a cabal (4) Stop undermining the credibilitiy and ability of ID Wikiproject members to function effectively.

I personally feel harassed and would like it to stop. I feel I am being driven off the project, since I am constantly being undermined through exaggerated accusations. I have withdrawn from RfAs and RfBs and other polls because of this harassment. I have withdrawn from editing all evolution, creationism and intelligent design articles and all other controversial articles because of this harassment. What more can I do but just leave the project?

So I ask all concerned: Please reconsider.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Come again? You say that I'm a "suitable target" because people who bring cases (RFCs, RFARs, etc.) are subject to examination and criticism themselves... exactly what cases have I brought against you? Although I've commented in several of these RFCs and RFARs (though I don't think any that actually had you as a party), I am not the one who initiated any of them, and have yet to be named a party to any such case myself. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if any association or defense of anyone for anything that the accuser deems appropriate is considered a crime, which obviously is what the Sceptre ID RfAr is attempting to set as a precedent, then you and just about anyone else could be a target. After all, the same was done to the ID Wikiproject, and anyone vaguely associated with it, even nonmembers, right? If you want to play by those rules, then you have to understand what the consequences are going to be.

So I am asking everyone to just walk away from this madness. Disengage. Back off. Stop calling the ID Wikiproject and associated editors an evil cabal (or for that matter, lumping them together as BADSITES-bashers, for example). Stop attacking them. Start assuming good faith. Just return to sanity, or I fear things are going to get a lot worse around here.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even involved in the original dispute, and *I* can see a problem that is in need of resolution. The gross incivility, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and disrupting of Misplaced Pages to make a point has to stop sometime very soon - the community will not let it continue for much longer, and ArbCom's effective rejection of the current case should not be taken as an indication they will not take it again in future if this process does not conclude appropriately. I'm not sure whether to interpret your last sentence above as a threat, but I would note that any deliberate steps taken to escalate this would probably result in blocks for disruption. Orderinchaos 20:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Have an editor or two from the ID Wikiproject used profanity? Yes, as members of other Wikiprojects undoubtedly have. And I have cautioned them when I saw it. Was an ID Wikiproject member who lost family in the Holocaust a little overwrought in his response? Yes, but he was cautioned and withdrew it after a day or so. Was he provoked? Yes he sure was. Was there an uncivil response from those on the other side? Unfortunately, yes, which no one was even willing to caution the other side for, and which the other side edit-warred to maintain. Look there is plenty of blame and accusations to go around here. And if the finger pointing starts, it will be quite unpleasant. Do not make the mistake of thinking that all the finger-pointing will be in just one direction. Join me in pleading to end this madness. This set of dispute resolution procedures applied in such a broad manner are not going to produce a reasonable resolution.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to ask Filll to consider rephrasing the last sentence, given how such sentences have been interpreted when uttered by others. Merzul (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How is that instead?--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Omnibus reconsilation draft by User:PouponOnToast

Both sides have legitimate concerns. They can all be addressed.

The major apparent concern expressed by long-term ID editors is that they are being hounded by long-term not ID editors. The major apparent concern expressed by long-term not ID editors is that long-term ID editors are incivil. Thus

Voluntary civility restriction Users who sign on to the omnibus reconciliation proposal (ORP) are placed on a voluntary civility restriction. In the event they say something incivil to another party to the ORP, they may be informed that they are in violation of their voluntary civility restriction by any party to the ORP. The phrases "clique," "cabal," "crowd," "mob," and "hivemind," are designated incivil by fiat when used to refer to Misplaced Pages editors in good standing. Users are strongly cautioned that "Member," or "Regular," and similar phrases of affiliation must not be used to place undue weight on any affiliation. Notifications can be withdrawn by the notifier at their sole discretion. Notifiers may only notify any given editor once per month. Editors who are notified of three violations in less than one month are removed from the ORP and may not rejoin.

Voluntary discussion&dispute resolution restriction Users who sign on to the omnibus reconciliation proposal (ORP) are placed on a voluntary discussion restriction. In the event they discuss the actions of another party to the ORP outside of that user's talk page, the article talk page of the sole proximate article or the ORP discussion page, they may be informed that they are in violation of their voluntary discussion restriction by any party to the ORP. Notifications can be withdrawn by the notifier at their sole discretion. Notifiers may only notify any given editor once per month. Editors who are notified of three violations in less than one month are removed from the ORP and may not rejoin.

Voluntary good faith restriction Users who sign on to the omnibus reconciliation proposal (ORP) are placed on a voluntary good faith restriction. In the event they state the actions of another party to the ORP were not done with the goal of improving the encyclopedia, they may be informed that they are in violation of their voluntary good faith restriction by any party to the ORP. Notifications can be withdrawn by the notifier at their sole discretion. Notifiers may only notify any given editor once per month. Editors who are notified of three violations in less than one month are removed from the ORP and may not rejoin.

The underlying thought is that people will stop being incivil so that they don't get attacked on Misplaced Pages Review. Thoughts?

Responses to ORP draft

Incivility may be some other people's concern, but my concern is that some ID users have a tendency to assume bad faith, which extends to characterizing uninvolved users who attempt to step in and resolve the dispute, or who bring up concerns about their behavior, as somehow being in league with others they are in dispute with. --Random832 (contribs) 19:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Point 3 is an assumption of good faith restriction. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - just pointing out that the AGF problems are concerns in both direction. --Random832 (contribs) 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose that "WR cabal", along with any other equivalent term or any other term (including inappropriate weight on identifiers like "WR member" or "WR regular" even if otherwise true) that characterizes someone as being a WR member ahead of being a wikipedian, also be designated incivil. --Random832 (contribs) 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC) (P.S. incidentally, you misspelled "reconciliation", "discretion", "addressed", "credibility" - and the IRC network is called "freenode")

I've stated I am mildy dislexic. Please correct my spelling. I use a spellcheck in articlespace, but it takes a lot of my time to do so. I've added all of your proposed phrases. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that - With your permission I'll simply correct any further obvious spelling errors to avoid drama. --Random832 (contribs)

I do not take corrections of my spelling errors as a personal affront. Most of the time I'm certain that I've spelled it right and that english must have suddenly mutated around me. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; this needs to be evenhandedly applied in all directions. Anything that implies that either side is a monolithic and/or sinister clique, cabal, crowd, mob, hivemind, or any such thing should be regarded as against this pact. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest tightening the discussion restriction to apply to any venue other than the ORPs main discussion page, similar to the dispute resolution issue. If we're not going to let people file RFC's against each other, why should they be allowed to generally "talk shit" on ANI, on one another's talk pages, on IRC, etc, either? --Random832 (contribs) 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And the affected user's talk page but yes. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this would be useful, and I'm concerned it would just add more grounds for the parties to hurl accusations at each other. My fundamental behavioral complaint is that existing policies such as WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:OWN aren't being followed by the involved parties; nor are they enforced by the outside community. If the parties were capable of agreeing to follow those policies and agreeing on what they meant, they (we) wouldn't be here in the first place. Gnixon (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)