| Revision as of 12:27, 22 May 2008 editNcmvocalist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,127 edits →Reply to Ncmvocalist← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:28, 22 May 2008 edit undoNcmvocalist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,127 editsm →Reply to NcmvocalistNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| ::My understanding is that this isn't about interpretation of policy, but Nautilus's refusal to understand and use policy, which is very much a conduct issue. ] (]) 12:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC) | ::My understanding is that this isn't about interpretation of policy, but Nautilus's refusal to understand and use policy, which is very much a conduct issue. ] (]) 12:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::We can't determine if he's |
:::We can't determine if he's complying with content policy - it would involve making a finding on content. But, if there is a clear lack of understanding of policy, or clear disregard for policy, then it is within the scope of this Rfc. An example is if he said something like "I don't care...I'm adding this content because it's the truth". Unfortunately, where it's not completely clear like that example, it falls in the scope of Article RFC. | ||
| :::But, if he engages in edit-warring, particularly where consensus is against him, this will be within the scope of this RfC, and he probably will end up being sanctioned. ] (]) 12:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC) | :::But, if he engages in edit-warring, particularly where consensus is against him, this will be within the scope of this RfC, and he probably will end up being sanctioned. ] (]) 12:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 12:28, 22 May 2008
Reply to Ncmvocalist
Ncmvocalist would throw out all evidence of content from this dispute. However, WP:NPOV (including WP:UNDUE), WP:NOR, and WP:V are all core policies. To say that core policies cannot be discussed at RfC is nonsense. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you don't understand how Misplaced Pages works in relation to dispute resolution, so I'll make it clearer for you.
- Those core policies you mention are content policies - disputes over article content, including disputes over how best to follow the neutral point of view policy, belong in an Article RfC. This is a request for comment on user conduct, and involves conduct policies like WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:EDITWAR etc. Please follow due process. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- My understanding is that this isn't about interpretation of policy, but Nautilus's refusal to understand and use policy, which is very much a conduct issue. Jefffire (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- We can't determine if he's complying with content policy - it would involve making a finding on content. But, if there is a clear lack of understanding of policy, or clear disregard for policy, then it is within the scope of this Rfc. An example is if he said something like "I don't care...I'm adding this content because it's the truth". Unfortunately, where it's not completely clear like that example, it falls in the scope of Article RFC.
- But, if he engages in edit-warring, particularly where consensus is against him, this will be within the scope of this RfC, and he probably will end up being sanctioned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)