Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 15:23, 24 August 2005 (→Outside View by McClenon: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For talk on why this page was created see: Misplaced Pages talk:Dispute resolution#Requests for comment and Archive 1. More archives: Archive 2 Archive 3

Deleting uncertified RFC's (again)

It used to be guideline that RFCs were to be deleted if not certified within 48 hours, but that wasn't actually enforced by anyone. Since policy and guideline are dictated by consensus, and consensus doesn't wish this enforced, it isn't guideline any more. Hence, the rewording of the template. Somebody is probably going to cite WP:POINT in the next couple of days, but the fact is that wording should reflect actual practice, if actual practice doesn't live up to theoretical wording. Radiant_* 14:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's apparent that you haven't read this talk page. This topic has been brought up before and dismissed. Deletion of uncertified RFC's is preferred. Do not assume that because this page has had little admin maintenance that it implies a change to a long-help practice is necessary. -- Netoholic @ 01:12, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

• Please provide evidence for your claims. To my best knowledge, that simply isn't the case. For instance, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Danny was never deleted by anyone, and a request on WP:AN yielded no response. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Kappa was considered by many to be improper, yet several people have refused to delete it on grounds that it's improper to delete any RFC. Radiant_* 07:29, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have left messages for both of those users asking if they want the respective RfCs kept. If not, I will delete them per policy. SWAdair | Talk 06:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• See also Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, which many people argue should be kept despite being invalid (some people also argue that it isn't invalid, but that's not my point). Radiant_* 08:00, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hehe... Interesting but so far from ordinary that it can't be used as a precedent. Subject of RfC was the second certifier, VfD consensus was that this made it a valid RfC. SWAdair | Talk 06:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• See also Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC, which again is a failed attempt to have an uncertified RFC deleted. Radiant_* 11:45, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • The RfC was deleted. This was about whether a user had the right to keep a copy of an uncertified RfC in their user space. SWAdair | Talk 06:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• See also WP:RFC/Stevertigo, which did not get any certification since its creation at April 9th (despite being in the relevant category) and hasn't been deleted in the past month-and-a-half. Radiant_* 11:47, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted with the summary "Empty RfC created two months ago in the wrong namespace." SWAdair | Talk 06:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Use your browser's "Find" function and search for "delet" on this page and /Archive 2. You will see that deletion is a long-held practice with no consensus for change, when it was proposed before. Your examples only show that recently the page has lacked admin attention -- they do not show that opinions about deletion have changed. -- Netoholic @ 12:48, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

• Okay, I just did that, and it proves you wrong. The above has you as the sole defendant on deleting RFCs, and on Archive 2, Michael Snow says that Removed has meant, in practice, only that the listing is removed from RfC. and in the later discussion a sizeable amount of people do not want them deleted, once more with you as the most vocal defendant, and JGuk as the only one backing you. The recent events I've repeatedly pointed out to you don't just show that no admins archive this page, but also that if brought to their attention, they are entirely unwilling to delete invalid RFCs. Radiant_* 13:31, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

If you disagree, then ask the question directly, prove consensus. In the meantime, stope revert warring, because the page should remain in its original state until this is settled. Few people have that page on their watchlists, and your change is somewhat sneaky. -- Netoholic @ 01:22, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

• I did ask my question directly on AN/I and nobody responded. This has nothing to do with sneaky since I explained it in this talk section. The earlier conversations you pointed out show that there is no consensus for deleting RFC pages, nor is it a valid deletion criteria anywhere in deletion policy. There have been several RFCs in the past half year that were invalid, but none were deleted. The RFC template is simply misleading. Radiant_* 08:11, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Let's take this example... Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Uncle_G. It is not certified, and is presently two and a half days old. Now if you are correct about RFC procedure, then it will be unlisted and deleted as soon as it's brought to the admins' attention (which would be relatively easy; there are likely some admins who read RFC regularly, and otherwise putting it on AN/I, or adding a {db} tag, would do it). We'll see what happens. Radiant_* 08:58, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have left a message on Uncle G's talk page asking if he wants the RfC kept. If not, I will delete it per policy. SWAdair | Talk 06:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, SWAdair. I've in the past tried to get a couple of them deleted, but have not met with any success. Thus I'm not sure where consensus lies. But personally I think that uncertified RFCs are close to personal attacks and should be removed. Radiant_* 11:06, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Then, why in the hell were you arguing the opposite at the top of this section? -- Netoholic @ 13:31, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
    • No swearing please. If SWAdair can delete them without raising opposition, that would show there's less opposition than I originally thought. You have not shown any evidence - he has, by doing that. Also, I find his civil and polite words more convincing than your hostile responses. Radiant_* 13:39, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • I ask again, why, if you agree that uncertified RFC's should be deleted, did you argue the opposite and try and change this established procedure even after I pointed out that you were mistaking lack of admin attention for consensus to change and declaring "it isn't guideline any more". -- Netoholic @ 20:10, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
        • Because there is a difference between what I agree with, and what consensus thinks - and obviously, the latter takes precedence. Radiant_* 07:38, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • Policy and practice should be in agreement. Radiant found that they weren't being deleted, even after prodding, so he correctly concluded that the official procedure was not being applied and should therefore be rewritten. Kappa 20:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

          That argument escapes my understanding. WP:TFD often lacks admin attention... should we then infer that the standards for template deletion should change? -- Netoholic @ 20:51, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

          • If, after repeatedly asking people, those people still would not do what TFD claims to be official procedure, then in that case the procedure would be wrong. WP lives by consensus, not bureaucracy. Radiant_* 07:38, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • I am more than happy to look after the uncertified RFCs, if they want deleting. smoddy 20:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Thanks :) I can do them myself, too, as of this morning. Radiant_* 07:38, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

• I just added a note that a person who is the subject of the RfC should not delete it, but should allow or request an neutral admin to do so. This seems obvious, but a recent example shows that it ought to be spelled out. DES 17:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Archiving RFC

The vast majority of RFCs are never officially closed as 'resolved', people just stop editing them when the answer is satisfactory (or, but rarely, when there's no point in continuing it). This has lead to the RFC page becoming overly long with old listings. I have been manually cleaning it out every couple weeks, by taking a bunch of old ones and moving them into the archive, and nobody has objected so far.

I would think it sensible to employ a bot for this work. It seems possible to have it come by weekly (for instance) and look at all RFCs linked from this page, and archive any of them that have not been edited for two weeks. I think it's reasonable to assume that if an RFC is dormant for two weeks, it will not continue very often (and in the rare cases where it does, moving it back is trivial). Any thoughs? Suggestions? Objections? Radiant_* 08:13, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• There are no objections up to now. If there aren't any in the next couple of days, I will ask the botters to go ahead and automate. Radiant_* 11:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I completely object to a bot running on this page. Disputes do not expire after two weeks - this task requires a human touch. -- Netoholic @ 01:09, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

• What I mentioned was after two weeks of inactivity, not two weeks after creation. How else do you propose we solve this mess? Very few people ever close an RFC or unlist it; the list of article RFCs, in particular, had over a hundred old entries before I started archiving them. Now I just manually check, if it's been edited recently, and if not, archive it. That's eminently bottable. Radiant_* 09:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

The proposition is flawed, but I agree you're moving in the right direction with it. What should be done with a bot is to archive all RfCs, regardless, 30 days after creation. It doesn't matter whether there is recent activity or not; no new ideas come to the table after that point, only the same voices going around in the same circles. 30 days and out. — Xiong熊talk* 10:52, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

• I think that's a good idea. An RFC that drags on too long is probably 1) repetitive and pointless, or 2) grounds for RFAr. In those few cases where it isn't, it's a simple matter of re-activating it. Radiant_* 11:29, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Object the process is annoying enough without adding yet another layer of annoyance to a human editor having to fight a bot. There are plenty of edit disputes that go on for months, plural, and having a previous RFC is evidence that an editor, or group of editors, are not going to resolve the problem. Pushing things "down the memory hole" for the sake of a clean page is unwiki. Stirling Newberry 17:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

So what's the current plan? I see some article disputes that have long-since been resolved. There's no link to an archive to move them to, which we used to have. Are we just deleting them? -Willmcw 11:35, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, policy here is now unclear. The RFC on DreamGuy is effectively closed and should probably be archived, but we've currently got User:-Ril- trying to speedy delete it. -- Solipsist 11:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

time you split

page big time to fix. rfc of people and rfc of content and rfc of other.

Splitting article RfCs by topic

On the RfAr/RFC page, Maurreen suggested splitting the article RfCs into the main Misplaced Pages catergories, Culture, Geography, History, Life, Mathematics, Science, Society, and Technology. Could be a way of getting more responses, by breaking down the list into more digestable sized chunks, and allowing people with specific interests to pick up on items which may be of interest. Thoughts? Dan100 22:58, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we try and clean out some old entries from the list before we see if this is needed? - Mgm| 15:17, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

This might also have the benefit of encouraging people to write RFCs about topics rather than people. I'm begininng to suspect that few of us are big enough to react well to being the named target of an RFC. Bovlb 04:35, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC) (cc'ed from VP by Dan100 (Talk))

• There is talk of installing a bot to remove all inactive RFCs. I'd wager that only the top dozen or so are actually active. Radiant_>|< 07:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

The reason I suggested splitting is to make the RFCs more active, to draw more attention to them. Maurreen 13:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would support splitting. — mark ✎ 08:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree there is a problem, RFC currently draws way too little attention, but I'm not sure splitting it up would help, Mathematics wouldn't get any RfCs at all and culture and history would get lots. I'd prefer removing items from the list sooner. --W(t) 11:20, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

I'll probably have a go at this tomorrow morning my time (UK) when the wiki's quieter. Weyes, I was going to combine a few of the topics together otherwise I think it would be too many. Is that ok? BTW I'm trying to keep on top of old articles - but 48hrs ago I went through all of them, and I couldn't believe how many active disputes there were - and that's only the ones which have gone to RfC... Dan100 (Talk) 19:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I tried to use the WP categories but they're pretty muddled, so I made up my own system. Fiddle around with them as you see fit. Dan100 (Talk) 22:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Aha! This is indeed an improvement. I initially thought RFC was to be split among different pages, and I'd say that's a bad idea. Different sections on one page, though, that's useful. Possibly the 'article title' dispute section should be deprecated in favor of this one, esp. since people tend to misfile title and content disputes. Radiant_>|< 13:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• • That seems like a good idea, as it does look somewhat untidy the way it's formatted at present. Steve block 14:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'deprecate', do you mean drop having a seperate section for title disputes, and put them in with content RfCs? If you do, I'm kinda split - the current layout is very focused - content issues are normally quite different to title disputes. Content disputes can often be sorted out by applying the appropiate policies, where as Title disputes are a bit of a nightmare. I can't help but wonder if a lot of people are not unlike me - only interested in content disputes, and I think they could just clutter up the Content section. Title disputes also seem to go on forever - again, I'd quite like to keep the rapid turn-over in Content. So I'm sort of reluctant to see them combined. Dan100 (Talk) 20:50, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Dan, this looks good. Thank you. Maurreen

Misplaced Pages talk:Content labeling proposal

The discussion on the above looks pretty dead, but it's still listed right at the bottom of the page under General convention and policy issues. I would remove it but does it need to be archived or something? --Steve block 20:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I worked it out all by myself. Steve block 22:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

dispute with ... Mel Etitis

Hi everyone I am not sure if I am in a right place, but I am having a dispute with ... Mel Etitis on a subject and I would like to have a second opinion on the matter or see if someone else can look into this matter. He is clearly not following the guidelines. The way this site is designed, there is no room for improvement by users IF The administator is not accepting the changes. And what happens if the administator lack knowledge????? - Farvahar 14:30, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Is the page Ali Shariati, as it appears from Farvahar's edit history, or is it some other one? Has Mel Etitis used administrator powers? It looks like he just reverted on Ali Shariati; administrators are allowed to edit, like anybody else. Septentrionalis 16:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Yes I know he has the right to edit, but shouldnt he give a reasonable and logical explanation for doing that? The dispute is actually about two things, first this quote: “I have no religion, but if I were to choose one, it would be Shariati's.” (Jean-Paul Sartre) I asked what is the source of this quote? He is refering me to OTHER websites. This is ridiculous!!!! I know that this quote is false and has been made up by Shariati's supporter to make him big. The other thing is his degree from university of Paris, he dose NOT have a doctorate in philosophy and sociology!!!!!! What is the policy here, things that been entered here once, stays forever???? And we as readers should produce evidence to prove YOU wrong? Or should you provide evidence for YOUR claims? Mel Etitis has taken my criticism kind of personal, so he is not doing his job correctly, which is to try to find out if the information is correct or not. If you base your information on other website, then I am sorry, nobody will take you seriously.

In addition to removing the quote you removed all the categories from the article and made several nonsense edits. You don't really have the credibility to question the article when you are vandalising it. Make some good-faith edits, acquire some credibility, and then maybe people will take you seriously. Guettarda 28 June 2005 04:47 (UTC)

Well, same BS as before, WITHOUT answering the questions. Hellooooo, answer the question. Its you and your childish attitud that makes people vandalise the atricles. You put whatever nonsense on your site without having any clue what they means, then your lack of knowledge which makes it even worst. Forget about MY action, DO YOUR god damn JOB. Why dont you get that. Your actions should NOT be dependent on my or other people actions. This is like a more boddy boddy club then an educational organisation, provide evidence for the information you are puting out there.

Bad people dont take seriously RFC anyway, do they?

Okay, this is just an "I'm curious" kind of questiion. I think request for comment on mean and nasty users is great but I really wonder...does it do any good? I have seen a few of the people up for RFC flat out say they couldnt care less what was said about them, what decesions were made, and they would continue to edit regardless of whatever resolution was made. One user, as I recall, told the RFC to go screw itself, got banned for it, and simply created a new user account and continued with business as usual. This isnt a negative post, I really am very curious. What do other people think? Does it really do any good? -Husnock 28 June 2005 04:39 (UTC)

I think results vary. The one RFC I filed on another user seemed to have some positive effect. Maurreen 28 June 2005 04:59 (UTC)

If the subject takes the RfC seriously, all well and good. If they don't, then it can be a good way to get evidence in order for an RfAr. --Carnildo 28 June 2005 05:28 (UTC)

As far as I am concern, administators of this site are not any better then bad users. They dont provide any evidense or reasons for thier comments either, it seems they lack konwledge on the subjects.

Well said Carnildo "If they don't, then it can be a good way to get evidence in order for an RfAr" Why dont you help your friends to get the evidense for the quote above?

Provide evidense for the quote or REMOVE it

Provide evidense for this quote or REMOVE it:

“I have no religion, but if I were to choose one, it would be Shariati's.” (Jean-Paul Sartre)

Religion of Shariati is Shia Islam, for those(administators) who are not familiar with this religion, its the same religion as Khominie´s religion. I dont know if you see the problem, but this is an insult to Jean-Paul Sartre. Stop spreading lies and stop acting dumb like you dont get the question. Its your fault why poeple start to vandalise.

New related proposal

See a new related proposal at Misplaced Pages:Disruptive User. Vote! Howabout1 00:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Changes to RfC

I'd like to see a substantial change to the procedure of RfCs, or at least a second kind of RfC added. Right now, RfCs are basically a punitive procedure, which is strange, since they have no actual consequence. Which means that they're a frustrating mix of obligatory part of dispute resolution and waste of time. Here's what I'd like to propose.

First, do away with certifications. Second, do away with "endorsing summaries." Instead, an RfC should be phrased as a request - an opportunity for people to comment on a situation. The comments should be individual - no "signing off" on someone else's comments (Although saying "X has it about right" would be fine), and should be made with the goal of being helpful. "X is a troll who should be banned" is exactly what we don't need on an RfC. "X is very knowledgable, but I wish he would work more with the other editors and not try to overwhelm the article with his POV" is more useful. Or "X makes very good edits, but I wish she'd get outside support when she deals with users she sees as being a problem instead of being so hostile on the talk pages." Or "I wish X would warn users before blocking them and give them a chance to explain."

My rough idea here being that RfCs should be an occasion to get input on something - not an obligatory step on the way to arbcomming people. To do this, though, they need an identity distinct from punitive procedures (Arbcom) and direct involvement in a dispute (Mediation).

Thoughts? Snowspinner 16:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the emphasis on constructive vs. punitive. I have no opinion on the specifics. Do you want to try a draft? Maurreen 16:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• I think we should encourage people to establish more RFCs about specific content issues rather than editors. Having said that, the procedures for the former are woolier. Any does anyone feel that they work? Bovlb 18:29:51, 2005-07-12 (UTC)

I've started a version of what I'm talking about here at Misplaced Pages:Wikimediation. If people want they can try migrating the process over here - otherwise, it's happy to exist where it is. Snowspinner 20:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I assume this is referring to RfCs about people, not articles, right? Dan100 (Talk) 20:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Though I bet article RfCs could be done in the Wikimediation format too. Snowspinner 20:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

"RfCs should be an occasion to get input on something - not an obligatory step on the way to arbcomming people" I absolutely agree. An RFC should be only what it's name says: a request for comments. The current RFC system could be renamed something more formal, such as an "Incident report" or something, and have all its formal requirements for evidence of disputed behaviour, certifying users, etc. An "Incident report" could then become the prerequisite for entering mediation. There should be no possible punitive outcome of an RFC, which might mean that wikipedia policy would forbid evening mentioning an RFC or anything said in an RFC in any of the punitive stages: incident report, mediation, arbitration. The request for comment form could be quite a bit more relaxed than an incident report, because it really is just trying to get outside, uninvolved comments about some event. If the talk page for an article explodes from an edit war, and every single editor on the article has taken one side of an argument or the other, an RFC would be a way to bring in some unbiased people to weigh in, make suggestions, comments, whatever might fix things. To help define what is "unbiased", it would be interesting if it could list all the editors currently involved in the dispute, and then anyone who posts a comment would have a number listed by their comment that would somehow indicate how many pages they contribute to that the editors in the dispute also contributed to. Or how many edits per overlapping page, or something. Anyway, it would simply be a numeric indicator of how uninvolved that commentor is with all the people in the dispute, versus how much history they might be dragging into their comment. It wouldn't prevent them from commenting, but it would help the editors judge just how neutral the commenter really is. the opinion of someone who hasn't interacted with any of the editors would likely be more neutral than someone who has been working with one editor on another page for a long time. Something like that, combined with the fact that there can be no punitive outcome would do a lot to encourage unbiased editors from making honest comments on an RFC. FuelWagon 06:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute"

I've recently commented on three RfCs on Users, all three of which were improper in much the same ways. The main problem was that in none of the three case (RfCs on Striver, Melissadolbeer, and SlimVirgin) had any real attempt been made to resolve the dispute before the RfC was brought. Where diffs are given in the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" sections (omitted altogether in the Melissadolbeer case), they're simply examples of the complainants' side of the argument (and often couched in aggressive tones, to the point of personal attack). Thus the RfCs were being used simply as weapons in editing disputes.

This seems to involve a deep misunderstanding of what RfCs are for; unfortunately, in one of the three case (SlimVirgin) the RfC has been endorsed by an editor who's been around long enough to know better, who's an admin and a bureaucrat. The problem is that having had an RfC on one, even when it foundered for lack of support, can constitute something of a black mark. What can be done to discourage this sort of thing? perhaps a small group of people (call them a committee, if you like) who examine RfCs, and remove those that have been brought improperly or prematurely? Any other thoughts? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment regarding the SlimVirgin RFC. The diffs for "trying to resolve and fail" have been changed to better examples. FuelWagon 23:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, the diffs that are there now are better examples? They're not examples at all, and I explain why in detail in my endorsement of SlimVirgin's summary. They're also not by two different people! If there have genuinely been two attempts at resolution and discussion, please document them before the 48 hours are up. If there haven't been, this RFC needs to be removed. Bishonen | talk 00:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

There haven't been, so I removed it. Uncle Ed 12:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

(PS — I suppose that this isn't unconnected with the previous section. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC))

• I agree with Mel's comments, and would like to add the RFCs on DreamGuy (which is OK now but started as a 'quickpoll' to get him banned), and several others I've deleted recently for being uncertified and rather messy , or borderline personal attacks , .
• I think that the current RFC process isn't working at all and should be scrapped entirely in favor of something else. The first problem is that some people don't use the template provided, but simply start writing somewhat incoherently. The second problem is that the template focuses heavily on evidence and policy transgressions. Basicaly, it's saying "I accuse User:SomeUser of this and that; all in favor, say aye".
• Mediation would be reasonable. Unfortunately, we now have four such processes (WP:RFM, WP:TINMC, Misplaced Pages:Mediation (2005)/Requests for mediation and Misplaced Pages:Wikimediation) and none of them seem to be helping much.
• What I think would help a lot, is focusing on the conflict rather than the user. People often claim that User:AnnoyingPerson is making a lot of mistakes, but generally the point is that said user himself has a conflict with the other user, and in most cases both parties have a point but are both somewhat stubborn. A sample template might look like this,
  • Location of the dispute: MyFavoriteArticle
  • People involved: User:AnnoyingPerson and User:Me
  • Opinion of User:Me (please restrict to 100 words or less, and provide 3-5 diffs as samples; do not cite policy)
  • Opinion of User:AnnoyingPerson (ditto)
  • Proposed solution by User:SomeOutsider (involved parties should be hesitant about adding their own solution, and any solution like 'User:AnnoyingPerson should be banned' must be stricken).
• Okay, that was my $.2 - comments welcome, of course. Radiant_>|< 13:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

On the User:Striver business, I don't think you should take my (unfortunate) habit of obessing on my own edits as evidence that no one has tried to work things out with him. I am guessing this is just a case of me not supplying the proper links. (First timer on this.)

For evidence that people have indeed tried and failed to work things out with User:Striver, see , ] and many other pleas from more tactful and less self-obsessed editors than me. BrandonYusufToropov 17:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Radiant, I haven't had much experience with RFCs on people, but I have had experience with article RFCs and have to say I feel they're thoroughly inadequate, mostly because they're thoroughly overlooked; most get few if any visitors. I think the RFC process can be of tremendous help in resolving article disputes, IF anybody bothers to take one on. I've begun making a habit of picking a couple of article content RFC's and trying to help them to resolutions, with some measure of success. I'm not sure that more strictures are what's needed, though -- I feel like it's a less cumbersome process than, say, mediation, and possibly more effective in certain circumstances because of it. I'm not sure even that the structure of the RFC process (again, for article content disputes) needs to be changed, but maybe there needs to be more of a centralized effort to involve editors in "patrolling" for ones they can weigh in on. There are already committees atop committees, but maybe a group of people who monitor listed RFCs and are ready to step in and help on one or two a month, say, in areas in which they have some interest. I've been thinking about this very thing for some time now. · Katefan0 01:25, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

The RfC process was doubtless intended to be a way of making a user aware that the community disapproved of her actions, in the hope that that would take the place of more authoritarian, punitive processes. The trouble is that there are two sorts of RfC: those that are frivolous, malicious, or just ill-advised (see above for examples), and those that are correctly brought, and have no effect on their subjects. It's possible (perhaps more than just possible) that the existence of the former contributes to the failure of the latter, though the roots of the problem are deeper.

The problems is that, as with the rest of the Internet, and indeed the world, there are many people who simply don't care what others think of them. ther are many reasons for this: sometimes it's a personal arrogance, sometimes an arrogance born of their adherence to a cause (religiou, political, or whatever), sometimes it's probably some form of autism — but whatever the reason, it leaves us with a problem.

Now, I'm a philosopher; I'm good at distinguishing and explaining problems. I need rather more time and help to try to solve them. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

first step towards punitive measures

I placed the following warning on the RFC page: FuelWagon 06:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Note that an RFC is generally considered a prerequisite for entering mediation, and mediation is generally considered a prerequisite for entering Arbitration, and Arbitration can impose binding solutions including a ban from wikipedia, removal of administrator priveledges, etc. Therefore, when you file an RFC, some may view it not as a simple request for comments, but as the first step towards punitive measures against an editor.

• But that is not really correct. Mediation is supposed to be far more informal than RFC. Radiant_>|< 13:36, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

• • FuelWagon, I can't see anything about RfC as a prerequisite for mediation on the page you link to, in fact I can't see any mention of RFC. I have also never heard of such a thing, it sounds extremely unlikely: mediation is the first step in dispute resolution, as far as I know. If I'm missing something on the page you link to, could you please point to it? If you've made a mistake, could you please remove it from the RfC page as soon as possible? It's not the kind of misconception one would like to see spread to new users. Bishonen | talk 13:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • The process is fairly clearly outlined at "resolving disputes". RfC is not a precursor for mediation, though a potential mediator may well want to see an RfC so he knows what the dispute is about. I think Fuelwagon should also take on board that the aims of both RfC and mediation are to resolve disputes, without punishment. A lot of people get this wrong, particularly with respect to RfC. A 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

well, just above, Snowspinner wrote

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

So there seems to be anecdotal evidence that it is obligatory.

I'm not sure what the absolute, spot-on wording should be. I was trying to use "generally considered" to indicate it wasn't formally required, but that there is a strong linkage. I'll use Tony's wording that "a potential mediator may well want to see an RfC" so it is more clear that is is not a hard requirement. let me know if that is still incorrect. FuelWagon 18:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it to use Tony's wording. Hopefully this is more clear that an RFC is not a formal requirement to mediation, but still indicates the effects of their linkage. The diff is here. FuelWagon 18:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

We seem to be at cross-purposes. Yes, there is an informal or "soft" requirement for an RfC to be done before a request for arbitration. It's certainly dispensed with in egregious cases, but arbitrators, if you ask them, are likely to say "better do an RfC first." That doesn't have anything to do with Radiant's protest or with mine, above, where we object to your claim that RfC is required before mediation. There's no hard nor soft requirement for anything at all before mediation, it's much better to get mediation just as soon as you can. It takes long enough to find a mediator as it is, that's why it bothers me that you're making people see extra, non-existent obstacles on the path to it. I've removed your reference to mediation altogether on the project page, please see if you approve. Bishonen | talk 19:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I double checked where I got that information from. this says Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes Mediation is likely to help. The first time, I misread it to say "if it hasn't gone through mediation, they'll first recommend mediation." Checking it again now, I see that I missed the "if it believes mediation is likely to help" on the end. FuelWagon 23:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason to reference mediation in the "warning." My understanding is that mediation is intended to be positive and RFCs are not intended as a preliminary.

I'm not wild about the "warning" anyway. Maurreen 23:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, I wonder what your point is here. You appeared to intend the RfC against me to be punitive, as evidenced by these entries on your talk page. SlimVirgin 23:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm through trying to convince anyone of my motives. I can't give you a CAT scan of my brain and say "See, look there, that proves what I was thinking." Everyone has already made up their mind anyway. For giggles, though, you can ask Ed and any of the other administrators to see if I ever said you should be blocked or de-admined or punished in any way. Even while I was serving time on my fourty-hour block, I never emailed him and said "SlimVirgin should be blocked too" or whatever. And if you're really bored, you can comb through the talk page archives and see that the only thing I ever actually said I expected from you was an acknowledgement to the effect of "Yeah, I, SlimVirgin, made a bad edit" and "Yeah, I accused you, FuelWagon, Duckecho, Neuroscientist, etc of some things you guys didn't actually do". There were some references to "Fonzi" in that regard, because Fonzi could never say "I'm Sorry". Whatever. Believe what you want. I don't care anymore. The only point of the warning is so that some poor sap of a greenhorn doesn't run into a problem and accidently file an RFC without knowing that some will view it as going to defcon 3, which is exactly how some people view it. FuelWagon 00:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry, but in the meantime, we really can't have your confused and confusing instruction on the RFC page. It's hard enough to do a proper RFC without a tripwire like that. OK, I believe you added it in good faith. But you're quoting irrelevant policies *for mediation*, and adding your own statement that the mediation procedure "includes an RFC" in amongst the quotes. No, it doesn't include an RFC. I'm sorry, I've tried twice to explain this politely, but you just don't seem to be listening. Your "instruction" is a mess (it doesn't help to quote if you quote irrelevant stuff). And it's factually *wrong* (because of the bit you added from yourself). I've removed it. Bishonen | talk 01:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

you're quoting irrelevant policies *for mediation*, and adding your own statement that the mediation procedure "includes an RFC". What I put in the article was this:

"a mediator will check that other alternatives of dispute resolution have been tried." , which includes an RFC.

"other alternatives to dispute resolution" includes an RFC, third opinion, and surveys. Or am I misreading that? I just listed RFC because it was the only one directly relevent to the RFC page.

I am not inventing a tripwire where none exists. There is a truth to what I'm trying to put in the article here. I'd appreciate it if you didn't delete the whole thing because I haven't expressed it exactly right. Yeah, the last version was "messy", but that was only because you said my paraphrase of the rules was wrong, so I tried quoting, which added a lot of text. I put a basic version in the article now, which doesn't get into all the rules, since I can't seem to explain them right. Does this version work? FuelWagon 11:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm OK with that one. Bishonen | talk 13:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Cool. FuelWagon 13:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me if I un-indent this thread; I can't think this "deeply".

FuelWagon, you wrote in the project page:

a mediator will check that other alternatives of dispute resolution have been tried." , which includes an RFC

This is incorrect. I've been on the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee from the beginning, and this was never a requirement for Mediators. It is within our discretion to take on a Mediation, even if users haven't jumped through all the hoops.

Perhaps you are misinterpreting the Misplaced Pages:dispute resolution process. In my interpretation, one should try the simplest, most "low-level" means of resolving a dispute. But I do not think this requires users to get bogged down in paperwork. You got a problem, come to me (I say this to everyone). If I can't solve it for you, I'll refer you to someone who can - or even form a special team if that's what it takes.

If you are interesting in improving Terry Schiavo or other articles, all well and good. But if you go after other contributors demanding apologies (which is uncivil) or start messing around with policy pages (which is disruptive), I'm going to have to ask you to leave. The choice is not a difficult or unreasonable: please pick one and stick to it. Uncle Ed 12:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

"if you go after other contributors demanding apologies (which is uncivil)"

Uhm, wait a minute, now I'm totally confused. When you stepped in as mediator on July 12, you blocked me because I swore at SlimVirgin a bunch of time and didn't apologize. I had actually started going through the talk page to remove all my personal attacks, but you blocked me, citing "unrepentant" personal attacks. And the example behaviour you cited was me saying "I won't apologize". I assumed I was blocked because I wouldn't apologize.

"messing around with policy pages (which is disruptive),"

Ed, could you assume good faith on my part just once? After my block for unrepentant personal attacks against SlimVirgin expired, I opened a request for comments on SlimVirgin's edit and her comments on talk against other editors. My view was she did a reckless edit (An out of the blue editor making a large number of changes containing many errors on a page marked "controversial" and in Mediation) At first you tentatively endorsed the RFC as mediator saying she moved "too far, too fast" and then you withdrew that remark and suggested the RFC was "gaming the system" and "bullying". Several editors who had been working on the Terri Shiavo page prior to her edit supported the RFC. But most outside comments ignored her edits/comments and spoke specifically to the RFC being abusive and an attempt to take someone to the "wikipedia woodshed". Since no one outside the article was actually commenting on SlimVirgin's edit/comments, I withdrew the RFC. I see this morning that you have also proposed another block on my account, citing "harrassment of SlimVirgin", "gaming the system", and representing her edits as "reckless" and "personal attacks". Since my block expired, the only interaction I've had with SlimVirgin was to answer a question she directly asked me above. I haven't emailed her or modified her talk page except to inform her of the RFC. I filed a request for comments about her edits. That was it. And it wasn't to "demand an apology" from her. After her edit, the talk page pretty much exploded and everyone had taken sides. The only reason the edit warring stopped was 3RR slowed things down, and then you stepped in as mediator and blocked me, and later locked the page for a while. But there was never any actual agreement about anything. Peace was achieved by force alone. I filed the RFC because I wanted to get some outside, uninvolved comments about SlimVirgin's edit so that some sort of actual agreement could be reached rather than working under the constant threat of blocking and page locking from the mediator. So, I am not "messing around with the policy pages", I am trying to warn other editors who may be unfamiliar with the system that filing an RFC may be considered bullying, harrassment, and gaming the system, and it might even get their account considered for suspension. FuelWagon 16:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This is getting silly. You're trying to interpret why the people who endorsed my summary did so. The fact is that the Schiavo talk page "exploded," as you put it, with your personal attacks, and it's not the only one to have done so. Your calling people "you arrogant cuss" isn't confined to me or to the Schiavo talk page. You haven't apologized for the language, either to me or (so far as I know) to anyone else, or for having filed an inappropriate, and arguably bad-faith, RfC. Changing your attitude would be more helpful than changing the policy page. SlimVirgin 17:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

You haven't apologized

That's the first time you mentioned it. I assumed a 40-hour block was enough to restore integrity. Since this is getting off the topic of RFC, I'm forking this thread over to your talk page. (continued in a moment.) FuelWagon 18:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I should butt in, but just a thought, maybe the best thing would be for everyone to just move on to something else. Or start over. Maurreen 02:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Article naming & popular culture

Misplaced Pages articles on popular music and other popular entertainment are seething with naming problems (not to mention poor English, poor formatting, and the worst kind of fanzine-gush and journalistic hyperbole). The problem is that these articles are often watched over and defended by their creators, who are completely uninterested in either correct English or Misplaced Pages style, and whose aggression, belligerence, and determination makes life very difficult for any editor trying to clean things up.

Japanese and Korean-based articles are a particular problem, as editors often insist that the typography of CD sleeves is followed exactly — so if an album title is printed in capitals on the sleeve, it has to be that way in Misplaced Pages, etc.

There are times when I find myself thinking: "To hell with it; who cares how articles on music that I dislike are written and presented..." — but whether I like the stuff or not, whether I think the subject is interesting or not, is irrelevant. Still, I'm spending far too much time dealing with this instead of with more productive matters; does anyone have any ideas about how to improve the situation? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• For article content, no - that's something that has to be decided on case-by-case. Article titles, however, are easy, and we do have some standards for that (e.g. no all-caps). We can protect them against being moved, if necessary. Radiant_>|< 09:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

yes, I thought so. the trouble is that most experienced editors steer clear of these articles (and I can't say that I blame them). At the moment I'm fighting a depressing battle against a few editors (mainly Ultimate Star Wars Freak (talk · contribs) and OmegaWikipedia (talk · contribs), who seem to be working in close concert}}), who simply revert wholesale my attempts to bring articles into line with accepted style (use of surnames, spelt-out numbers, correct use of quotation marks, naming conventions for song titles, etc.), and who respond with belligerence to my attempts to reason with them. One or two other editors seem to have run into them too (to judge by their Talk pages), but no-one seems able to dent their self-assuredness and determination to have things their own way. And that pattern can be found throughout this area of Misplaced Pages. Perhaps we could split them off into "Wikipop", and have done with them... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipop -- sounds good, but I don't know how feasible it is.

Another possibility: Find an appropriate tag to label the article. That way, it's clear that the article isn't up to snuff, but hopefully it won't bring about a fight. Maurreen 02:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You haven't seen these kids in action. They revert everything that changes their style; they insist on incorrect naming of articles (see List of Number 1 Hits (United States) for an example, in which one of them cuts and pastes a move just to get back to the wrong name), on incorrect internal links, numerals, wrongly-formatted lists, grammatical mistakes, etc. A template would be reverted with all the rest. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

For some users, it seems like we need a big stick or a police patrol.

Maybe whenever the validation feature is active, that will help. Maurreen 14:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

One thing that would probably help is the presence of more editors; looking at their Talk pages, it seems that every so often an editor stumbles across one of the articles, corrects it, and gets drawn into a battle with the fans who have taken ownership. In the past, the editor has finally given up; I'll not do so, but I'm finding myself bogged down in ridiculous edit wars. The presence of more editors on the scene might get through to them that I'm not some rogue editor with peculiar ideas (as they say that they believe, and perhaps genuinely do), but that their position genuinely is untenable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll look in on one of your if you'll look in at the category discussion on Talk:Agriculture. Maurreen 16:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Maureen, please don't get fooled by Mel. Most of the issues are content and style disputes. Like he want to remove song headers and put the time of a song at 3' 39 instead of 3:39. Isn't that confusing? I think a WikiPop possibility would be good, that way, everyone would be happy. We try to compromise with Mel, but he always insults us, like just above he calls us "kids". We try to talking peacefully and he rants and doesnt listen to our points. Please remember there are always two sides to each story OmegaWikipedia 20:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You might want to look at Through the Rain, Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song), It's Like That (Mariah Carey song), Crazy in Love, Love Takes Time, and List of number-one hits (United States). In the first five, the majority of the changes he's reverting (as with a long list of articles that he reverts) are to corrections of Wikilinks, bringing headings into Misplaced Pages style by removing excess capitals, changing a list made using HTML to one using Wiki-bullets, and so on. On the last one, he has now twice moved the page by cutting and pasting, despite my explanation that this isn't allowed, and my advice concerning how he should go about arguing for the move. A glance at my Talk-page discussions with this editor and one or two others involved, will demonstrate the truth of the matter regarding our interactions.

And now I suppose I have to go and look at Talk:Agriculture. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

My beef isn't what the caps. If you want to do that go for it. They just get changed back when reverting. Mel is guilty of doing the same exact thing. Mel is also using inconsistent notation with normal music articles and having tantrums when we point out his errors. I moved the page because Mel should not have moved it in the first place and his move was borderline vandalism. OmegaWikipedia 21:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

1. You're reverting every change that I make.
2. You've just done so again on a number of articles, violating 3RR to add to your vandalism in reverting corrections.
3. Please provide the diffs for my tantrums; I could do with a laugh. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

/Gabrielsimon - certified properly?

The RFC on Gabrielsimon has been certified properly. Four users have signed in the section Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Gabrielsimon#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute. This is the standard place for users to certify an RFC. It is contained within the RFC - it is not "somewhere else." Asking other editors to look there, as I did in this edit summary - - is completely appropriate. Because this RFC has been certified, standard procedure dictates that it should now be listed on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment under the heading Approved pages - have met the two person threshold. FreplySpang (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

when it was dreamguys second one, there were three sigs on that page, in the right place, and it still got deleted. thus i thought iot had to be directly on this page. Gabrielsimon 21:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know what that RFC looked like at the time it was deleted, but the certifying signatures definitely go in an RFC under the heading "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". They have to be right there, not just nearby, to count. FreplySpang (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

do not take lightly

There is nothing on the RFC page that supports the imperative to editors to "not take an RFC lightly". The page describes an RFC as something to be used to get comments from outside readers, to break a deadlock, resolve a dispute, etc. There is nothing punitive or negative in this description that would beseech the editor to take an RFC any more serious than that. That some editors view an RFC as punitive is fact supported by a number of comments on the RFC talk page to change the dispute resolution system so that RFC's aren't viewed as part of teh punitive system,

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

but it is not the design or intent of an RFC to do anything other than get outside comments, break deadlocks, and resolve disputes. There is nothing on the RFC page describing an RFC that supports the imperative that an RFC is "not to be taken lightly". This conflicts with everything else that the RFC pages says about RFC's. And this imperitive to editors to take an RFC as something more than it is is unsupported. Please stop inserting it. FuelWagon 19:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the imperative in question is shown here. FuelWagon 20:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

In theory it is should be used that way; in practice, it is seen as punitive, and frankly is sometimes a step towards an Arbitration Committee hearing. There's no point in denying the reality of practice, regardless of the ideals of the procedure. Jayjg 20:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the usage of the page is mixed. When articles are listed here, it really is the case most of the time that was is being sought out is new eyes to help out with an article that's having problems. Articles tend not to take offense; their feelings are not easily hurt. Editors are a different matter entirely. Putting an article up for RFC can indeed be taken lightly. Putting an editor up for RFC is generally (and correctly) taken as a request for (at least) chastisement. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Right. Article RfCs are seen pretty neutrally; editor RfCs are seen as a negative statement about the editor. Jayjg 20:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

a request for (at least) chastisement. Jpgordon, where does it say this on the RFC page? I've read it a number of times now, and the description says nothing of the sort. That people take an RFC as chastizement is their reaction, not a function of the description. This (chastisement) is a combative view of requests for comments, not supported by the description of RFC's. If this view is correct, then the RFC description needs some serious rework. Otherwise, the view needs to be changed, not the page. I made a suggestion in a thread above that an RFC ought to be completely removed from any punitive measures process, to the point where you cannot even mention an RFC when you're in arbitration. This would allow people to comment more objectively without fearing some punitive repercussions further down the road. But in any event, the current description of an RFC doesn't say anything that supports the idea of it being punitive. That appears to be a cultural norm in wikipedia. So, either the RFC descrption needs to be brought in line with what everyone thinks an RFC is, or the culture should be shifted to reflect what an RFC really is. FuelWagon 20:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that mediation is intended to be positive and RFCs are not intended as a preliminary. Maurreen

the aims of both RfC and mediation are to resolve disputes, without punishment. A RfC is just a chance for both parties to outline their problems and to get third party views. Tony Sidaway

There is nothing in the wikipedia policy towards RFC's that say they are any more serious than a way to request comments. Everything written about RFC's says they're for resolving disputes, non punitive, informal, blah, blah, blah. Inserting a line that says "Do not take lightly" changes the policy, and gives the editor nothing to base their decision on. 'well, I just want a comment, but this says "don't take lightly", but it doesn't say how to take it seriously, I just want a comment, so how do I file a request for comment any more lightly than by filing a request for comment' You have changed policy from "an rfc is just a request for comments, informal, non punitive" to "an rfc is all that, but you must not take it lightly". And you give a new editor unfamiliar with the system no yardstick to measure against as to what is "lightly", which will do nothing but discourage RFC's out of some unknown, unexplained boogeyman. You cannot have it both ways. Either an RFC is really an informal, non punitive, request for comments, or it is something to be taken as a very serious endeavor. FuelWagon 20:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• For editors, it is 100% the latter. For articles, it's 100% the former. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It was FuelWagon who added that RfCs are perceived as the first step toward arbitration and possibly punitive action. I've added that filing an RfC shouldn't be done lightly, which FW keeps deleting.

The reason I added this is that I've recently seen three RfCs filed where there had been no prior attempt, or an inadequate one, at dispute resolution, and the RfCs were deleted because of that, but not before causing considerable trouble and wasting time. One was FuelWagon's, and there have been two since then. It's important that editors understand that other steps must be tried first, and don't jump to the RfC option as a first step. It's also important that they understand that RfCs can have serious consequences for all parties, and may sometimes backfire and become RfCs on the nominator. For all those reasons, advising editors not to go into the process lightly is good advice. SlimVirgin 20:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

causing considerable trouble and wasting time ... RfCs can have serious consequences All of this is part of the culture of wikipedia and how editors react to an RFC. none of it is actually in the description of what an RFC is. Either the description needs to be updated, or the culture needs to be realigned to match the description. The description of RFC's describes nothing like what you are saying. FuelWagon 20:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

That's because you keep deleting it. Regardless of how you want it to be, we also have to pay attention to how it is. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If it is that way, fine, then the RFC page ought to be changed to say what exactly an individual RFC is for. Saying "An rfc is informal, nonpunitive, way to resolve disputes" in one section and then saying "do not take it lightly" in another section, just doesn't make sense. It doesn't give the editor anything to judge what is lightly and what is sufficient for an RFC. if an RFC is really an informal request for comments, then it is by definition "light". If it really is a formal process for chastizement, then it ought to say that so that "lightly" has some sort of context. As it is, it is an oxymoron, two statements at complete odds against each other. FuelWagon 21:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• RfCs are becoming frequently used for revenge. Sometimes it is revenge against a particular disfavored edit of an article. Most times it is revenge against a particular editor whose attitude or techniques one dislikes. There is no punishment to the initiator for not attempting to meet the terms of the RfC. And there is no punishment to other editors for misleading or lying "certifications" or other statements that were done solely for revenge. Other editors who have no knowledge of that particular dispute chime in as their opportunity to get even. As long as this is the case, it is the perfect tool for revenge: lots of harm to the target with no consequences towards the initiator or other editors. --Noitall 21:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

RFC's should be designed for resolving something between editors who have come to a deadlock about an issue. They should be designed for editors operating in good faith but who completely disagree on some dispute. Since RFC's would assume editors operating in good faith, they should be designed so that "revenge" isn't possible by editors acting in bad faith when they file the rfc. This would mean that RFC's cannot be punitive, they cannot be used in arbitration, they cannot be referred to by an arbiter or whoever saying "well, you failed this RFC, so we're going to ban you" or something. And RFC should be nothing more than an informal request for comments and it shouldn't be able to go any further than that. As long as your dispute resolution system makes it an implied/assumed/suggested/whatever step to arbitration, then you have a vengeance system. What the RFC page describes is an informal, non-punitive way to resolve disputes. But the way RFC's are designed into the system, they can be step 1 in some punitive dispute, and therefore vengeful. If someoen files an RFC in bad faith, the editor ought to be able to ignore it and nothing bad should come of it. The whole point is for resolving disputes between editors working in good faith, but completely deadlocked on some issue. If they're not acting in good faith, then some alternative is needed. But what the RFC page describes and the "vengeance" system you just described do not match and one of them needs to be adjusted. If the pages says its an informal system for getting outside comments, but an RFC is used for vengeance, then there is something in the design of the system that doesn't match what the description says it is. My experience with RFC's outside of wikipedia have always been for informal comments, I'm not sure how it got turned into a vengeance system on wikipedia, but if that's the case, then the page ought to reflect the reality of the system, or the system ought to be changed to match the actual description of what an RFC is supposed to be. FuelWagon 21:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• You are correct. It is a catch 22: an RfC designed to simply get comments happens on talk pages already. A simple dispute mechanism needs no rules such as certification. Also, as you state, a true dispute mechanism means that anyone can ignore the RfC and nothing would come of it. --Noitall 22:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

nothing would come of it. Well, that's not true. If a bunch of editors are acting in good faith but have become have become embroiled in an edit war/dispute/whatever, then a number of comments from outside editors who have no relationship to the article/editors in question could snap them out of their deadlock. The idea is to have a piece of the dispute resolution system for editors working in good faith but at a deadlock around some issue/editor/whatever. Outside comments should snap good faith editors out of their deadlock. it will likely accomplish nothing if an editor is acting in bad faith. And a bad faith editor needs to be dealt with in a different system/approach. FuelWagon 22:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

But, of course, everyone wants something to come of an RfC. So then you have a revenge system, not a dispute system. --Noitall 22:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, well, no, not everyone. If that's the case, then wikipedia ought to get rid of RFC's immediately. If a disagreement has been unable to find resolution on a talk page(s), then an RFC would be a good way to bring in some outside, unbiased editors to give a quick opinion about soemthing. For a page rfc, this might bring in some editors who aren't involved in a long-standing edit war and who can bring some unbiased commments. For a user rfc, this could bring in some unbiased editors who can bring in some unbiased comments about the editor. In either case, if the editor(s) involved are acting in good faith, then a number of comments from outside observers might snap them out of their deadlock and some sort of resolution might be possible. If the editor(s) are acting in bad faith, then the RFC is useless and its time to move to step 2, whatever that might be. My point is that it is only a vengeance system in part because it is designed as a possible first step to arbitration/punitive measures, in part because people are using it for veangeance, and in part because it is designed that way. See an alternative design. FuelWagon 22:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

And thus the requirement for two editors involved in the same dispute to certify an RfC on an individual -- at least it takes two people to keep a Revenge for Comment alive. I'd be half-tempted to push to get that threshold increased to three. Mind you, in most cases, an RfC is just a bitchfest, and the subject of an RfC might be well advised simply to ignore it; let other people do the commenting and responding. But I don't think I could do that either. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem isn't with the number of certifiers, the problem is that the system is punitive and therefore can be used in bad faith. If the RFC system isn't punitive, then a bad faith RFC can be simply ignored. FuelWagon 22:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Do not take lightly, but make distinctions

I think that a caution to Wikipedians that any process should not be taken lightly is reasonable. Some Wikipedians take formal processes lightly, and some do not.

There is a distinction, as I see it, between an RfC about article content, and an RfC about editor conduct. The latter should be far more formal, and should not only not be taken lightly, but should be "taken heavily". The procedures for an RfC about article content and an RfC about user conduct are completely different. In either data modeling or business process engineering, this implies that there are different business rules. This means that it is misleading to call them by the same name. An RfC about user conduct is meant to be punitive, or at least a prior step to punitive action.

It might be useful to use different names for what are really two very different sorts of inquiries. Robert McClenon 04:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

disclaimer rewrite

I've attempted another rewrite of this disclaimer, in light of recent events. The diff is here. FuelWagon 19:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

example user RFC instructions

I've tweaked the instructions on the "example user" RFC. The diff is available here. Since an RFC is viewed as a tool for revenge by some and since it can be a soft requirement for entering arbitration, I changed the instructions to say a user RFC is for one specific user. Looking at all the archived RFC's, only one user RFC was against two users, and I found that RFC to be highly questionable. This also ought to help prevent an "RFC within an RFC" from occurring, which also happened on the two-user RFC. The other piece added was to clarify that there are three sections (statement of dispute, response, outside comments) and users signing/voting/endorsing one section should not edit the other sections. The two-user RFC, by the end, had people who were endorsing the RFC also putting statements into the "response" section, disputing the views of users who posted in teh "outside comment" section. This didn't help resolve any dispute, it only helped to widen who was involved in the dispute. Finally, the bottom of the RFC says, all discussion should go to the talk page, and I added a clarification to say, no, really, all discussion should go to talk. Everytime I've seen threaded replies occur on an RFC, it only escalated the dispute, rather than resolve it. The idea that all responses should go to talk is intended to at least give everyone some space on the RFC page to state their side fo things without the opposite side getting in their face about it. FuelWagon 14:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Added requirements for user conduct RFCs

Several weeks ago, this section was added:

===User conduct RfC===

• For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by diffs showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours. The diffs should not simply show evidence of the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The two users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it. (However, an RfC subject to deletion for lack of evidence should not normally be deleted by an editor whose conduct it is discussing, but rather by a neutral Admin.)
• An RFC is considered a soft requirement for entering Arbitration, which can bring punitive actions against an editor. However, do not open an RFC simply to better your odds at getting into arbitration and punish another editor. An RFC is intended to operate in and of itself as a means to resolve a dispute. An RFC is not arbitration application paperwork. An RFC is a tool for resolving a dispute. Use it as such.

There was no vote or discussion that I am aware of, and in addition to some instruction creep, this adds a requirement for diffs. I don't think such a requirement is called for, because it has the effect of stifling discussion. In some cases there may not be any clear diffs, as when discussion occured via email or IRC. I removed the section from the project page and invite discussion here.

The original purpose of the certification mechanism, where two users must certify, was to reduce the volume of frivilous RFCs from vandals and trolls. It was not intended to make RFC a mechanism of last resort. RFCs serve a purpose in that they provide a central point of 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. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Maurreen (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Also agree with the removal. The requirement could just be to have certification by 2 real distinct editors - for the basis of a legitimate Request for Discussion of the matter, only.. --Mysidia 19:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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. Radiant_>|< 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. Radiant_>|< 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. Radiant_>|< 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)

Maintenance collaboration

I've nominated the RFC page at Misplaced Pages:Maintenance collaboration of the week. Maurreen (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding Biff Rose entry, and User:willmcw

I have had some issues with willmcw and the edits he reverts on the Biff Rose page. As it stands it is frozen with eidts I agree with. I ask that people research the lyrics of Biff Rose, and his websites, which include many of the offending racist and anti semitic statements as well as the lyrics from some of his songs. It is important to get a whole overview beyond that of Rose himself.

I will abide by the findings, however they play out. I would ask that willmcw would no longer post on my user page as he is insulting and making me out to be something I am not. It effects my relation with other wikipedia users. ThanksSteve espinola 07:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Hello. I have witnessed several of these "edits" and let's be clear: Espinola removed a significant number of cleanup tags I had placed in the process of migrating the old cleanup archives to the new ones. Willmcw reverted many of those back to their proper place. If any thing, there needs to be a RfC on espinola himself, just see his talk page for more on this. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate Signatures

There is a current RfAr concerning the complaint that a user has an inappropriate signature. (At least, the summary says that that is the issue, but there seem to other complaints about the user's conduct.) An RfAr seems to be a drastic step to deal with a complaint about a signature. Should inappropriate signatures be dealt with under inappropriate user names, or should there be a separate section of this page? Robert McClenon 11:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'd say it's part of user conduct. Only, of course, if you've asked the user and that didn't help. The issue doesn't come up often enough to warrant its own section, and username conflicts are usually about simple vandalism and impersonation attempts. Radiant_>|< 11:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

The time limit used for Uncertified RFCs

By the way, is anyone aware of the rationale for choosing 48 hours as the time limit? Perhaps 72 hours or greater would be the more appropriate time limit for certification, so that people can actually notice an Rfc before the time has already been called. This important, since not just any user can notice, research, and get an Rfc certified... other actual parties to be involved in a similar dispute with the user have to notice -- it could therefore take a while for them to become aware, especially if they don't log on every day, or is the Rfc process only designed for situations where disputes involve dozens of users?

Users are able to build Rfcs in their own userspace (i've seen it happening), perhaps calling people to get their Rfc certified before they move it to Misplaced Pages: namespace... I don't know, perhaps this is standard practice, or just smart, but I think of it more as an undesirable reaction to the time limit than a good practice, as it limits the amount of comment... Instead of delete RFCs after 48 hours, I think the rule should be made de-list RFCs after 48 hours, with an option to re-list, provided the party re-listing

is also certifying the listing, but do not delete the pages unless they were just patent nonsense... --Mysidia 19:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion about the time limit. The important thing is to have a mechanical means of delisting material that is clearly just a single user's grudge. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought the practice was to delist and not to delete. Maurreen (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• The rationale behind it is that one should research the matter and have a second opinion before posing the matter to the community. So yes, starting an RFC in userspace is a good idea. In theory it prevents such RFCs as User:Idiot is an idiot, and gets them removed swiftly if they don't have backing (and yes, they generally are deleted). However, that's the theory behind it, and in fact it's not a workable system. To my knowledge there are presently seven mediation-type systems, of which two are in fact working (RFAR and 3O), and the other five (this one, RFM, TINMC, WMI and M2005) are not. The latter five should be merged into some workable form. I believe the entire category of user-complains is generally about intra-user squabbles, and requires a different procedure than RFC - at present it's simply "say bad things about a user and see who agrees" and only rarely constructive. Radiant_>|< 07:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

This is a minor point, but I think that we have one pre-mediation system, five mediation-type systems, and one judicial system. Of them, three are working, and four are not. The three that are working are RfC, as a pre-mediation system, 3O, as an informal mediation system, and RfAr, which is judicial. I agree that the formal mediation systems are not working, and would be interested to know what exactly is wrong with them. Robert McClenon 12:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• I am not convinced that an RFC on a person does give productive results; generally, its subject either ignores it, or states why he thinks the certifiers are wrong. If I am wrong in this, please point me to some RFCs that had a productive response.

• I believe that merely by providing a suitable forum for users to criticise each other, RFCs serve a purpose. Before we had RFCs, people would post similar critical material all over the Wiki, most often at RFA (in the form of de-adminship requests), or at the Village Pump, or at Misplaced Pages:Requests for de-adminship. While it is most unusual for the subject of an RFC to make substantive changes in their editing pattern as a result of the RFC, a purpose is nonetheless served. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Why all mediations don't work? I guess you'd have to ask the mediators. But generally it seems to boil down to lack of enforceability. Whenever editors are courteous and friendly, there isn't need for mediation. Whenever they're not, they are unlikely to listen. Radiant_>|< 12:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Mediation rarely works, either at Misplaced Pages or elsewhere. It does not work here because the mediators are not taken seriously; as a group they are not seen as being community leaders whose insight and judgement are among the best of those at Misplaced Pages. There are various reasons for this, many of them historical. The mediators do not act as a unified group; they lack strong leadership, and as a result do not speak with a single voice. Part of the problem IMO is that they have accepted intractable cases which they should have left to others. Part of the problem is that their confidentiality standards make it difficult for them to take proper credit for those disputes where they have had a positive influence. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments on individual users - how is it supposed to work?

A translation of the example for an RfC on an individual user was transferred to svwiki some time ago, and I have a few questions regarding how it is supposed to function.

• If I opened the RfC, can others change the description that I made? What if others have already signed it?
• Can the person whose conduct is questioned, change or add his statement after it is posted? What if others have already signed the previous version, who might not like a new addition?
• Is it possible to sign at several places? What if an "outside view" too me sounds very relevant, but I have already signed in the first section?
• This question is relevant, only if it is possible to sign more than once. The notion that you should not edit in a section if you signed a summary in others - does this mean that if I signed the first description of the persons behaviour (or even wrote the first version of it), can I not sign in the section for "outside views"?

I am extremely grateful for explanations on how it is supposed to work. Trial and error is fine, but if we can learn as much as possible from enwiki that is great. Thanks. / Habj 10:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• This is not necessarily a good system, and it will likely be reworked in the next few weeks. Anyway, to answer your questions - people should never change existing text in an RFC, only add to it (obviously fixing typoes is allowed, as is adding links or extra examples etc). Any substantial addition to a paragraph that people have already signed for should go in another section - you cannot assume that people also agre with that part.
• You can sign in multiple places and endorse multiple views. This is common. They are generally not mutually exclusive. Note that the whole point of RFC is not to get many people to endorse things - the point is to get outside opinions and see what consensus is and what can be done about undesired behavior (if any). This is precisely one of the reasons why the current system isn't good.
• I don't really understand the point of your last question but the answer is no, per m:instruction creep and WP:NOT a bureaucracy people aren't forbidden to edit or sign anywhere in an RFC.
• HTH! Radiant_>|< 10:25, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

It does, thanks! Regarding my last question I was thinking about the repeated instruction that you should not edit more than one section. This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. etc. I understand that it says "should not" not "must not". I was wondering if "edit in a section" here referres to writing summaries, or also signing to agree with other people's summaries.

We have had some kind of RfC for a while, but pretty much without any form at all. Generally, it has ended in discussions where the antagonists just continue to quarrel and in the end, no one else bothers to read the page. As I have understood the point of this form, it is to keep the different sides separate and make them explain their views rather than argue with each other. / Habj 10:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that the rule about not editing other sections can be understood as a rule against censoring or "refactoring" a view with which you disagree. The originator may not edit the defense presented by the subject. The subject may not edit the statement by the originator. With regard to third views, it makes sense that they should only be edited by the originating third party. It also makes perfect sense that anyone can sign any number of views. They can even sign views that are inconsistent, but then someone may notice that. Robert McClenon 11:56, 12 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. Radiant_>|< 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. Radiant_>|< 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. Radiant_>|< 07:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Archives

Does anyone know what happened to the dispute archives? Maurreen (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• There's one at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive. The Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Article content disputes archive has dropped out of use since last june, since nobody had been really bothering to keep a proper archive for a long time (it consisted of simply cut/pasting the entries there, and nobody ever seemed to read them that way). The Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Everyone using a username which is against policy/archive even more so, it hasn't been updated since 2004. Radiant_>|< 09:24, August 17, 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. Radiant_>|< 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. Radiant_>|< 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.. 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. Radiant_>|< 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)

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)

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. Radiant_>|< 14:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)