Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Catholic Church

This page is for any threaded discussion related to the RfC.

Structure

I've created a suggested structure here in case NancyHeise would like to use it for her RfC. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggested wording to initiate the Catholic Church RFC

"Two versions of the Catholic Church article have been proposed to serve as a basis for further article improvements. One version is shown here (show Uber's version) and the other is shown here (show Nancy's version). Please indicate which version you prefer and why. Thanks." NancyHeise ^talk 00:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this wording is neutral, but I don't think it provides enough information for us to get good feedback out of it. I think it might be wise to have at least a brief explanation of the benefits - and problems - with each version, for those who haven't followed the reams of discussion, and possibly a list of questions we would like answers to - length, citation density, POV, structure, etc. Karanacs (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to any discussion of benefits and problems. If this ridiculous time-wasting RfC goes ahead, my one and only comment will be to note that both versions are crap, and that good faith efforts at improving the article are being disrupted and prevented by a fixation on a false dichotomy between them. The notion that it is necessary to choose between two versions is FALSE. Discussing "benefits and problems" buys into that false notion and reinforces it. Hesperian 01:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hesperian, a large gathering of editors is increasingly voicing their discontent with the present version of the article and how it was installed. An RFC is the only way out of the dispute.
• Karanacs, I think that the information you want to include will make the wording become non-neutral and those issues will be expanded upon by the participants anyway. Why not let the participants spell out those issues in their responses? You are going to participate aren't you? What may concern you right now may not be what concerns others. I think it is improper to dictate to others what they should or should not be concerned about in the opening sentence. I am certainly going to cover my concerns in my response, you do the same. NancyHeise ^talk 01:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll#Autoformatting or Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. Both are more structured formats and might help us to better interpret the results. Karanacs (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs, I like the form of Elizabeth II's RFC and that is what I had in mind when I proposed the neutral wording above as an opening statement. If you look at that RFC, it begins with a simple one sentence question. It then provides the statements for and against. I would like to do this for our RFC are you in agreement with this? Can we begin? NancyHeise ^talk 00:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, how could you respond to Karanacs suggestion (to provide background/context) so that both K and your concerns are met? Sunray (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I recommend adding Johnbod's suggested text [1] to clarify a bit more what we are looking for. If we do that and structure this like the Elizabeth naming RfC, where different users can make statements that can be endorsed or discussed, then I think it will work slightly better than a free-for-all of comments. Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with this suggestion. Can we begin? NancyHeise ^talk 14:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod's proposed addition

[Cross-posted from NancyHeise's talk page].

Nancy, belated reply: Not really. I would like something added to the effect that "there is a clear understanding that both versions have serious flaws, and whichever version is proceeded with as the basis for improvement, nothing in that version should be regarded as established "by consensus""." In effect we need to reset the "established by consensus" clock to zero, painful though it may be. That is the only way your RFC can poossibly suceeed, & even then I think it is very long shot. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a good idea. Karanacs thinks so too. Let's incorporate this into the RFC. NancyHeise ^talk 14:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

New draft of proposed RFC wording

Two versions of the Catholic Church article have been proposed to serve as a basis for further article improvements. One version is shown here (show Uber's version) and the other is shown here (show Nancy's version). Please indicate which version you prefer and why. There is a clear understanding that both versions have flaws, and whichever version is proceeded with as the basis for improvement, nothing in that version should be regarded as established by consensus.

I have added an additional draft to be included in the RFC and proposed new wording in a section below see [2] NancyHeise ^talk 19:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC alerts

Sunray, I know we are allowed to post a notice on the related Wikiprojects regarding these types of issues like RFC but I was wondering about alerting all those editors who have worked on the Catholic Church page for the past two years as well including all those who voted in the last FAC. These editors have a lot of knowledge and have spent some time examining the article and could offer a decent opinion about the issue. I have been accused of canvassing in the past for asking people to come to the page and offer their opinions about certain issues even though my requests pinged editors I knew would not support my preferred position. WP:canvassing says this "Ideally, an announcement at a centralized page will obviate any need for friendly notices to individual editors, but it is generally acceptable to contact individual editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the dispute, or perhaps a Wikipedian known for expertise in a related field and who has shown interest in participating in related discussions. It is also acceptable to contact any editors who have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed, but not editors who have asked you to stop." I would like to contact all of these editors to let them know about the RFC but I don't want to get accused of canvassing again. What is your opinion? NancyHeise ^talk 08:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, just so you know, I disagree with notifying any individual users. We can add this to the RfC list, put notes on the Wikiproject talk pages, and perhaps leave a note at the Village pump or at WT:FAC. If we are going to notify individual editors, I want to know, in advance, who those are and how they qualify under "having substantively edited or discussed an article related to the dispute". Just appearing to !vote in straw polls, to me, isn't substantively discussing anything. Karanacs (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest not notifying any individuals. It can be posted on the RfC page, the Catholic Church talk page, any relevant wikiprojects, and on the village pump. I'd also suggest this not be done by Nancy to prevent any of the past problems. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Past problems like this one here just yesterday: Nancy scouring the depths of Wikipedia to notify an anon who had never edited before about the upcoming RFC. These are the kinds of [actions] that were all too common throughout the previous FACs and straw polls. You are virtually guaranteed this RFC will be no different, which is why (partly) I announced in the talk page that I am boycotting it.UBER ^(talk) 15:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your observation is noted. I've removed some language. I am unwilling to participate if there is going to be any canvassing. Sunray (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem, Sunray, is the same as what has occurred in every discussion, RFC, FAC, mediation, arb case, or anything related to the CC page: Nancy and Xandar don't seem to have a full (or even partial) understanding of Wiki policies, guidelines and procedures, and canvassing in one form or another has affected everything done on that page for a least the two years since I first became aware of its problems at FAC. Every FAC had to be held open abnormally long, in spite of serious and actionable Opposes to issues that have never been resolved in the article, because so many Supports came in from a core group of editors, who didn't seem well apprised of WP:WIAFA (although in some of the later FACs, some of the Supports were from neutral and experienced FAC reviewers). There is a core group of editors who always "vote" (overlooking policy) to back the Nancy/Xandar version-- in spite of long-standing, serious, identified deficiencies in core policies-- and these supports consistently stall any progress on the page. Unfortunately, I see that Nancy is now making statements that if the RFC doesn't resolve the page to her satisfaction, she will next take it to ArbCom: it doesn't seem that she is aware that ArbCom doesn't do content disputes, and that it is the ongoing failure to understand Wiki policies that leads to behavioral issues affecting the article now for several years. If Nancy structures an RFC in such a way that there will be no reasonable outcome, or outcome that will satisfy her, there will still be nothing for ArbCom to deal with, except yet another split along the lines we've historically seen. They've already tossed it back to admins once, asking that admins take action to deal with the behavioral issues, and that has helped to some extent, as it allowed the page to at least stabilize to a version that is somewhat more compliant with policy, albeit still lacking in some other ways. I am dismayed that no progress has been made on the core issues for as long as this has been going on, and doubt that an RFC will resolve the behavioral issues, or the failure to understand that no amount of "voting" can permit a POV, poorly cited, overcited, over long article to remain in the face of serious opposition to same. I hope you have some ideas for a way forward, but we have never seen an issue involving the CC that didn't have canvassing of one form or another (and I have strong indications same occurs off Wiki). We haven't seemed to be able to shake this notion that Wiki is a "vote", or to instill an idea of neutral, collaborative, consensus building, and those are behavioral, not content, issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your views, Sandy. I read your main concern as being the way in which some FACs have been executed. Would you be able to provide an example or two? As to participants' understanding of Wiki policies and guidelines, I have not observed any problems in that regard. I have seen some examples of canvassing from both sides of issues related to the CC pages. However there are many knowledgeable editors who will be watching if we do proceed with an RfC. I've asked for the proponents to agree on a neutrally worded question. An RfC should be time-limited and the results accepted as decisive. If there are content disputes, formal mediation would be the only further avenue for dispute resolution. As you correctly point out ArbCom does not adjudicate content disputes. Sunray (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would add that since certain editors have been driven away from the Catholic Church page by the recent events there, all recent contributors should be notified personally - as happened in the ongoing Elizabeth II RFC. The desire of some people to limit participation is not, in my belief, in line with WP ethos. Xandar 00:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you be willing to suggest some fair and equitable groundrules for notification, Xandar? Sunray (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, there have been literally dozens of editors who have been involved in the Catholic Church article creation over the past two years. My intent was to go through both the article talk page and the last FAC and Peer Review and post an invitation to these editors to come offer their opinion of the question we ask in this RFC. By notifying all we can not in any way be accused of canvassing because we do not really know what these editors would prefer. I think the only way to conduct the RFC fairly is to leave the messages at the various Wikprojects, Villiage pump, etc but also to notify all editors involved in the article since the last peer review. The last FAC for this article was created by a large number of users who represented both Catholics, Protestants, and those with no religious affiliation. I listed them in the Last FAC in an effort to let FAC reviewers know that it was a combined effort, one that I thought had produced the most neutral point of view article that could possibly be achieved. I think an RFC that did not notify the individual creators of the article would be unfair since many of them do not necessarily visit the Villiag pump (I don't) or scan RFC or FAC talk (I don't scan these either). NancyHeise ^talk 14:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember that the canvassing guidelines state that only people who have been substantively involved in discussions should be notified. Most of these editors that you refer to have not been substantively involved in either discussion or article modification in a very long time; those who have appeared on the talk page in the recent past have generally only done so when prompted by a message from you or Xandar. That means they are only providing an opinion because they have been specifically asked - they have been canvassed. The editors who have been involved in recent substantive discussions and who have declared their intent to leave the page already know that an RfC is being prepared (because you already left messages on some of their talk pages, including that IP!); if they are interested in participating in the RfC, then they should watch for it to be coming - if they aren't watching, they obviously aren't interested. Wikiproject notifications should catch a lot of those with a casual interest in this particular topic, and that should be enough. These are normal guidelines for an RfC - note that I did not notify all the editors who have ever worked with you about the RfC that I filed, and that a neutral RfC observer told me not to publicize that RfC on the Catholic Church talk page, even though that was the nexus of the dispute. There are strict rules for RfCs to ensure that there is not canvassing or vote-stacking, and if you are trying to determine consensus we need to follow those. Karanacs (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I will provide a list of editors who I feel have been substantively involved and need to receive an individual ping to be fairly involved in the discussion. One of the editors I feel has been substantively involved said they had not been involved in the page because they trusted my efforts and did not feel their presence was needed. Because of this I feel that there are many editors who would be very alarmed at what has taken place on the page and may want to, in all fairness, receive a notice and be involved. This is not canvassing and the policy does not specify how long ago a person's invovlement it do be considered to have substantive involvement. I do not think that you can arbitrarily decide that for all of us especially when I feel differently. If I am not allowed to contact all of these people maybe we should just take it to arbcom right now and ask them to clarify the canvassing policy. NancyHeise ^talk 16:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am traveling and haven't had time to keep up with this, but have noticed 1) that Nancy continues to make unfounded statements across multiple pages, and 2) the problem with Nancy's proposal to notify certain editors and statements about the article and the various FACs and other dispute resolution fora that have been tried is that she fails to acknowledge the substantial number of experienced neutral editors who gave up in disgust after the four (five) FACs and other means tried, and have vowed to never visit the page again. Those editors spoke in those FACs, in the RFC on Nancy, at ArbCom, at article talk, on Nancy's talk-- all endorsing a breadth and depth of POV and sourcing issues in the article that have never been addressed, and they gave up in the face of the intransigent ownership and battleground. If we start notifying individual editors, where does it stop? Do we have to go back through five FACs, talk pages, other fora and locate all of those editors, too? I am against any sort of individual notifications, as the canvassing and the idea of "pinging" sympathetic editors in to "vote" is what has caused the battleground, stalled progress, and what needs to stop. Unfortunately, Nancy has not shown an ability to recognize all editors who have left the article, and any "pinging" she does tends to be one-sided. I again state that the five CC FACs have been the most combative I have overseen in my tenure at FAC, largely because of this notion of "pinging" editors in to "vote" in favor of the article, and if Nancy is again allowed to ping "voters" in, the battleground without clear consensus will only continue. It is very frustrating to continue trying to get Nancy to understand that ArbCom does not adjudicate content disputes. They acknowledged in the last arb case the behavioral issues, but felt they weren't yet ripe for an arb case, and asked that admins step in. Admins are doing that, yet we see accusations of unfair adminning on Nancy's talk page. The troubling aspects that have caused the stall in this article continue: I hope there will be no "pinging" for "votes" allowed in an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suggest we engage in no pinging of individual editors. Sunray and I can post to the village pump and relevant project pages. But if we notify one individual, we would have to notify everyone who was ever involved, and that makes no sense. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not asking to notify everyone who was ever involved. I want to notify those who have been involved in bringing the article to the last FAC and thereafter. I have solid reasons for wanting to do this. I was under the impression that I would be given the opportunity to incorporate the opposing FAC comments into the article and bring it back to FAC. However, the recent WP:IAR has disrupted this in violation of Wikipedia rules. There are other editors who have communicated with me about the article and are under the impression that it was going to go back to FAC with comments incorporated, not completely tossed out in favor of a new version that no one has vetted through either peer review or FAC or even by WP:consensus. Because of the violation of Wikipedia rules, we need to notify all those who were previously involved. It is not a violation of canvassing rules to notify these editors as long as we include all of them and don't pick and choose. I am willing to do the posting if you like. I am also willing to put the question up to arbcom as well. NancyHeise ^talk 18:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You've been asked not to do the notifying, Nancy, and it's very important that you stick to that, because any perception of canvassing on your part would risk undermining the credibility of the RfC. Sunray and I (one or both) will do the notifying.

As for pinging individual editors, it would mean we'd have to contact everyone ever involved. There's no reason not to stick to the wikiprojects, village pump etc. News of it will then spread by editors checking each other's contribs. I think we'd see a lively enough RfC with all those projects notified, and if we don't we can have a rethink at that point. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not intend to ping without agreement on this page. I was offering to save you from work. I have already given my disapproval of just sticking to wikiprojects. I think it is unfair and insufficient notification. WP:canvassing allows for pinging of individual editors and I do not see any reason for not doing it. NancyHeise ^talk 19:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I will agree to forgo pinging everyone who has worked on it in the past two years if we can agree to ping those who voted in the last FAC and those editors who are listed on the talk page of the last FAC as having worked with me to bring it to that FAC. I'll get that diff for you in a minute. NancyHeise ^talk 19:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Because I did not create it in a single diff apparently, this is the text copied from the last FAC page[3] These are the editors who I think should receive notification of this RFC in order to be fair. "I would like to list for you the contributors and reviewers of this article that are known non-Catholics: - *user:Malleus Fatuorum - *user:Ceoil - *user:Michael Devore - *user:Storm Rider - *user:TSP - *user:Angr - *user:Garzo - *user:David Underdown - *User:Ling.Nut -

For comparison, these are the only known Catholics who have worked on the article: - *user:NancyHeise - *user:Xandar - *user:Tourskin - *User:Mike Searson -

Further comparison, significant editors and reviewers whose faith is unknown: - *user:Ealdgyth - *user:Karanacs - *user:Ottava Rima - *user:Soidi - *User:jbmurray NancyHeise talk 21:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)" NancyHeise ^talk 19:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ottava's Catholic -- he's written columns on the subject for a local paper. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He's also banned I see so I guess it doesn't matter. NancyHeise ^talk 20:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll bet that a significant number of the folks who will venture opinions on this RfC will be Catholic :) Sunray (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I consider myself Catholic although I am a non-practicing Catholic. Nonetheless, "once a Catholic, always a Catholic". I consider myself Catholic until the Church throws me out or I declare myself out. The Church considers me Catholic until they throw me out or I declare myself out. Neither of those events has happened and so I am Catholic. --Richard S (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Richard's comments, Nancy also knows that as a baptised and confirmed member I call myself a lapsed Catholic atheist. Haldraper (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Who to notify

I suggest that Sunray or I post a note saying something like: "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church has opened to decide which of two versions of the article has consensus, and how best to develop it. Input is welcome."

And that we post this to: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) (1,458 watchlists), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion (137 watchlists), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity (168 watchlists), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism (143 watchlists), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Religion (number of watchers not listed, meaning it's fewer than 30), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy (255 watchlists), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism (103 watchlists), and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History (125 watchlists). And any other general pages that interested parties might have watch-listed, such as Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates (921 watchlists), Wikipedia talk:Peer review (604 watchlists). SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the notification will also appear on the article talk page, per WP:RFC. Sunray (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Talk:Catholic Church is on 856 watchlists.SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering why we would put it on Wikiproject Atheism NancyHeise ^talk 19:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a wikiproject that may be interested in religion but that doesn't take a religious perspective. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Another page to notify: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Catholic Church straw poll (number of watchers not listed, meaning it's fewer than 30). SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Im OK with putting it on the straw poll page but not Atheism page. Why would you put it on Atheism. Why not Judaism and Islam as well? What specific quality does Atheism have that these others do not? I don't understand why we would single out Atheism, that is going to look really bad. I do not agree that is a good idea. NancyHeise ^talk 19:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, it's a wikiproject that may have members who are interested in religion but who don't take a religious perspective, though it may have some who do. I have no objection if you also want us to inform the Judaism and Islam wikiprojects. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Atheism is a religion. It is a specific belief that states with certainty that there is no God. I think that we should do what the user in the next section has suggested regarding the bot. He/she seems to think they can alert anyone who has touched the article in the past two years by using this bot. I think that would be more in line with WP:canvassing policy that allows for specific types of canvassing. I think posting on Atheism or Judaism or Islam could possibly be viewed as a violation of WP:canvassing though so I do not recommend doing that. NancyHeise ^talk 20:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As the RfC is now live, I'll post a note to the pages I listed above, except atheism for now, but if anyone disagrees with the decision to leave them out, please let me know. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's about time

I don't particularly have much interest in all of this, but I'd like to at least state that I commend all of you for finally getting started on this RFC. It's about time!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We are having discussions about who to notify and how as well as opening wording. Otherwise we would have put it all up by now. NancyHeise ^talk 19:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that. If I could offer one suggestion, after briefly skimming over the above, it would be to keep it simple: Create a list of anyone who has ever touched either the article itself or it's talk page, and have a bot run around and post "An RFC has started concerning the Catholic Church article."

Trying to over-engineer this sort of thing only leads to trouble (as should be apparent already).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am OK with that recommendation. Can you do this? Sunray and SlimVirgin are the admins overseeing the RFC so please get their OK before you do. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 20:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

New proposed wording

• Because a lot of editors have indicated that one version is too long and the other is too short, I have created a "medium" sized version to put up for consideration at the RFC as well. It is here User:NancyHeise/Catholic Church medium version. An analysis of the three versions is:
• Short version Catholic Church 46KB 7500 words
• Medium version User:NancyHeise/Catholic Church medium version 65KB 10500 words
• Long version User:NancyHeise/Catholic Church 75KB 12000 words
• I would like our proposed wording to include the option to choose this medium version as well as the long and short. The medium version was created by trimming the long version so I can vouch for the accuracy of the references and content. NancyHeise ^talk 19:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

New Proposed wording Three versions of the Catholic Church article have been proposed to serve as a basis for further article improvements. short version, medium version, long version Please indicate which version you prefer and why. There is a clear understanding that all three versions have flaws, and whichever version is proceeded with as the basis for improvement, nothing in that version should be regarded as established by consensus. NancyHeise ^talk 19:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

( 2 x ec) The thing to do now is for you to write a statement of the dispute, post it in this section, and sign it. You can write this yourself, or with Xandar, or you can both write separate statements. But it's you (you alone, or you and Xandar) who wants to initiate the RfC; therefore, you're the one who has to write up what the issues are. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. NancyHeise ^talk 19:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC page format

The current headers can be changed if people prefer. For example, you may prefer not to have a Response section, but just to let people add their own views. And people may want to change the "outside view" headers if they're involved. The headers aren't written in stone so free free to tweak them, so long as they stay neutral. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how to improve the headers but they do seem to be a bit awkward. NancyHeise ^talk 20:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My thinking was that you'd make your case in the "statement of the dispute" section; then the main opposing voice would post in the "response" section, then others would post in their own. But it's fine as it is too. Tweak your own header as you see fit, so long as it's neutral. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is it?

On 18 March, Nancy wrote: "Recently, a group of editors have decided to change the Catholic Church page significantly and held a one day straw poll that produced a mixed result with no clear consensus in favor of one version or the other. In an effort to discover which version the wider Wikipedia community would like to see going forward on that page, several editors including myself have decided that a community wide 7 day straw poll or RFC is desirable. ... We do not want this poll to be a considered a dispute resolution, merely a fun, interesting new thing to do to generate interest in the article and participation by the wider community to move it forward." [4]

On 24 March, Nancy wrote: "Because many editors have expressed their disapproval of the current page including the vast amount of reference material that was cut without discussion, citation and content errors and omissions, we must have an RFC to either legitimize the current page or restore the previous one. That is the only question we need to ask. Any repondents who want to elaborate are welcome to do so. Any respondents who choose not to participate are also welcome. However, Wikipedia rules allow us to follow appropriate dispute resolution procedures and that includes RFC." [5]

So what exactly are we doing here? Is this RFC to be considered "dispute resolution", or "merely a fun, interesting new thing to do"? If the former, then what kind of authoritative weight will the verdict carry against editors (on either side of the dispute) who refuse to be bound by it? And if the latter, why are we wasting everyone's time with it? Can it really be the case that no one here has anything better to do? Harmakheru ✍ 00:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Confusion reigns

The "short version" linked from the RFC page is not the "short version" linked from RFC talk.

The "medium version" linked from both pages is actually a page headlined "short version".

This is a recipe for disaster. What sense could possibly be made of any support expressed for the "short version" when that phrase could be taken to refer to any of three different pages? Harmakheru ✍ 04:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. It should be obvious that, page names nonwithstanding, the "short version" is what's linked as "short version" on the RfC page. Linking to a specific revision instead of the current article seems like a good idea to me, and the entire difference is two words. If you still see problems, you may just refer to your preferred version by number, or provide a link of your own... Huon (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

In the context of the interminable conflict that spawned this RFC, the word "obvious" has no meaning; what is obvious to one side is not at all obvious to the other side, and vice versa. When a "medium version" is linked to a page that advertises itself as the "short version", while the genuine "short version" is something else entirely, a door is opened for the results of the RFC to be subjected to exactly the sort of endless wrangling and wikilawyering that brought things to this point in the first place. The RFC is supposed to be about damping down the conflagration, not throwing gasoline on it. Harmakheru ✍ 05:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The simplest remedy, if this is indeed perceived as a possible source of confusion (and no one actually seems to be confused), would be for NancyHeise to move the medium version to User:NancyHeise/Catholic Church medium version and to change the link accordingly. But is that really necessaary? I don't think so. Huon (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the simplest remedy, and let's hope Nancy makes it. If she doesn't then we have a set-up for tendentious reinterpretation of the RFC results after the fact if things don't go the "right" way. "A majority of people who responded to the RFC said they wanted the short version, but actually the medium version was also called the short version, so half the votes for the short version should be transferred to the medium version, which makes the medium version the winner." And if you don't think anyone would make such an argument, I invite you to go back and read the 46 archived CC talk pages, where you will find numerous examples of arguments at least that ridiculous. Harmakheru ✍ 14:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've moved Nancy's medium version to User:NancyHeise/Catholic Church medium version to make sure there's no confusion. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

order

Why was my resonse moved down to number three position when it was number one to begin with? What is the justification for this? NancyHeise ^talk 20:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You were supposed to post your statement of the dispute, but instead you did that, but then also added a long view under your endorsement of the statement. Hesperian therefore moved that into your own section, by which time others had responded, so you ended up not being first. I've moved you back to first place but really the statement of the dispute should be claimed as yours, because it's your perspective. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, in case the above wasn't clear, the intention was that you would post everything you had to say under "statement of dispute," then whoever was assuming the mantle of the main opposition would post "response," so that the community would see the argument and counter-argument at the top of the page. That format wasn't followed, which is why one of your posts was moved. But it makes very little difference and seems okay as it is. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

to Civility Police: View by Harmakheru & NPA

• OK, I have a smallish rant. Yes, it is a rant. But it's smallish, mild-ish, and could not even imaginably be directed at anyone or any group in particular. It is saying that the Wikipedia editing model can't solve this issue due to intractable problems of size, complexity & POV partisans on both sides. In contrast, the rant within the "View by Harmakheru" strikes me as a violation of WP:NPA. Someone call a civility cop..? • Ling.Nut 05:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Asking "someone" to "call a civility cop" is itself a violation of WP:NPA, which states: "The appropriate response to inflammatory statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack."

See also WP:SPADE: "Being civil should not be confused with being friendly or courteous, let alone charitable or credulous."

And then there's WP:DUCK: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck."

Civility is a great idea when it works, but it shouldn't be a suicide pact. Two years of attempts to be civil with those who are themselves uncivil has resulted in the very gridlock and futility that your own rant so correctly complains of. Even those who have in the past been most solicitous of Nancy's feelings have now come to the point of calling her RFC "garbage". That alone ought to tell you something about where the real problem is. Harmakheru ✍ 15:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

hey Harmakheru — I dunno if Nancy is right or wrong, and I don't care. To me it's obvious that you do not need to be involved in this forum. I'm not threatening you or anything stupid like that; I'm making a calm, objective observation. Here's the take home point: You are bitter. The only thing that you have to share here is your bitterness and emotional turmoil regarding this issue, but you are using a very large number of words to do so. The only thing your presence will add is opportunities for trouble, arguments and bad feelings... I see that you disagree with Nancy, you think she's a bad person, etc etc etc. Fine. No problem. Really. Everyone is entitled to their opinions about everyone and everything. But there are other folks in this forum who disagree with Nancy just as strongly as you do, but who are not bitter, or at least can keep themselves in check. I humbly suggest that you let those other people do all the talking. Sit back. Buy some popcorn. Watch the page. But don't poison it with emotional spouts that have little real content to add. So do your cause a favor and opt out of the discussion... because you are hurting it by spouting bitterness. Good luck! • Ling.Nut 02:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I hazard a guess that the main reason Harmakheru is bitter is because WP:CIVIL is toothless when it comes to incivil actions like ignoring questions, refusing to listen to anything you don't want to hear, repeatedly claiming consensus on spurious grounds, denying consensus when it is quite clearly present, lawyering, filibustering, deliberately misconstruing others' comments, and sundry other deceptive practices that absolutely infuriate people who don't indulge in them; yet as soon as someone observes that these behaviours are present and problematic, WP:CIVIL suddenly grows some teeth. Hesperian 03:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) OK, you're flown your flag. "Let everyone know where I stand" is one item you can cross off your "To Do" list. So now contribute something.. you know... constructive. Good luck, again! • Ling.Nut 03:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, you've flown your flag. "Rudely mock anyone frustrated into rudeness by rudeness." is one item you can cross off your "To Do" list. So now contribute something... you know... constructive. Hesperian 03:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Hesperian. That's it exactly (on both counts).

And Ling.Nut, before you get too high and mighty about my bad attitude, you should take note of the fact that I had already decided I needed some time off, and had even mentioned on my talk page that I would be taking a much-needed sabbatical from all this (and, indeed, might never return) ... when Nancy announced that she was moving forward with an RFC to try to force a reversion to the status quo ante. Until then, I was quite happy with the prospect of leaving matters in the capable hands of Uber and the others, confident that they would move forward and turn the CC article into the sort of NPOV scholarly piece that it ought to have been years ago. If Nancy and Xandar had been willing to leave well enough alone, I would have been long gone by now. But they weren't, and so neither am I. Nobody is sorrier than I am at the way this thing has gone, because I really do have other things to do with my time, and I would prefer to be doing them instead of this. But we don't always get what we want, do we? Harmakheru ✍ 03:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent). Listen. Folks. I don't give a flying crap about Nancy. I don't give any... particular or special or individual crap about the RCC article. I have no horse in any race, I have no emotional investment on any side. I actually only came here to note that Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed when it comes to complex and controversial issues, and fundamentally incapable of resolving them (including this RCC issue) – and you folks are adding supporting evidence for that thesis each time you press "save." I only jumped in further because.. I don't care if Nancy is Hitler, a violation of NPA is a violation of NPA, no matter what. And you folks are violating it, motivated by excessive bitterness.. So if you do think she's Hitler, do the process a favor by opting out or at least calming down. That's all. I'm outta here. [Not that I have any hope you'll listen, or any hope anything will be accomplished here]. Good luck! • Ling.Nut 03:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Before you go, Lingnut, do me a favour and go find the worst personal attack in #View by Harmakheru. Then compare and contrast it with the following comments: "the rant within the 'View by Harmakheru'", "You are bitter.", "opt out of the discussion because you are hurting it by spouting bitterness.", "So now contribute something.. you know... constructive.", "you folks are ... motivated by excessive bitterness". Maybe you might learn something about yourself. Good luck! Hesperian 03:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Ling.Nut threaded discussion

1. I could agree to be part of a group of editors to do this. I think that you are correct in noting that POV pushing is a big problem for this page. It took us 9 months in a mediation to be able to include article text that tells the Reader what is the actual name of the Church, the one it uses for itself and, according to all of the tertiary sources and scholarly sources that discuss the subject say it "claimed as its title" (their words). NancyHeise ^talk 20:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

   I think that you are correct in noting that POV pushing is a big problem for this page. Priceless.Haldraper (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

   ...and yet folks still want to cling firmly to their belief that the results they accomplish here – if any, and that's a huge "if" – will last more than a month. Trying the same methods again and again and expecting a different outcome is a triumph over hope over vast tracts of bitter experience.• Ling.Nut 01:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

   Nancy's summary of what happened at the mediation is incorrect. Gimmetrow 17:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate?

Why are we still seeing this at WP Catholicism? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Who is JPBHarris?

Some of you may have noticed a strange comment by "JPBHarris" at the end of the "View of Esoglou" section of the RFC. In this comment (a threaded response which by rights should have been put on this talk page, not on the RFC page itself), JPBHarris takes it upon itself to "out" Esoglou as a user formerly known as Lima. JPBHarris justifies this on the grounds that "Esoglou's identity does make a difference in that he is an old user i.e. in the sense that he has been involved in previous CC RfCs and was named in the one against Nancy. The clarification is so nobody is under the elusion that he is another new account that has suddenly popped up ..."

This is actually pretty funny, since JPBHarris also appears to be a new account but has its own history with the Catholic Church page ... specifically, a history of stalking and harassing people who are on the "wrong" side of the CC debates. In fact, judging from its contribution history [6], JPBHarris seems to be a single-purpose account whose sole reason for existence is to harass its enemies with accusations of sockpuppetry. This obsession with other people's alleged misbehavior is at best disingenuous, since JPBHarris has itself been formally warned for using at least one sock of its own. [7] And despite its recent origin, the account has shown itself to be highly adept at the sort of wikilawyering that only a long-time editor would likely know how to do [8], which strongly suggests that it is itself some sort of puppet, of either the sock or the meat variety.

JPBHarris' first attack--made only three edits into its existence--was directed against me with an accusation that I was a sockpuppet of Lima [9]. That accusation was quickly determined to be entirely without foundation [10] but JPBHarris then went on to make similar accusations against others before, most recently, turning its guns on me again. It is now badgering me on my own talk page [11], demanding to know whether or not I am the same person as User:Kelvin_Case, whom I have never even heard of before. Without any prompting from me, Huon has very nicely intervened, pointing out that there is no overlap in the interests of myself and the other party, and suggesting to JPBHarris that it might be barking up the wrong tree [12], but this has only garnered a terse response from JPBHarris that there has been no mistake.

Well, how about this: If JPBHarris really believes that I am Kelvin_Case, or vice versa, or that both of us are the sockpuppets of some third party, then I invite it to file a formal complaint just as it did the first time around--and I will happily dance on its head when the results once again come back negative, as they inevitably will.

And if it's not willing to take that risk, then I invite it to get the hell off my talk page and stop bothering me. Harmakheru ✍ 02:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, blocked indefinitely. If your only purpose in being on Wikipedia is to make speculative accusations of sockpuppetry against good-faith users, whilst socking yourself, then you're not wanted. Hesperian 02:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

View by Esoglou threaded discussion

For the record user:Esoglou is the new account for user:Lima/user:Soidi and his banned sockpuppet accounts: user:Platia user:Decahill User:Defteri JPBHarris (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC) a new account that in view of the abandonment of all previous accounts has been declared legitimate in spite of the wishes of JPBHarris, all of whose contributions to Wikipedia, if his/her denial of being a sockpuppet is true, have been devoted exclusively to the Lima problem! :) Esoglou (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

User Esoglou's identity does make a difference in that he is an old user i.e. in the sense that he has been involved in previous CC RfCs and was named in the one against Nancy. The clarification is so nobody is under the elusion that he is another new account that has suddenly popped up into the CC. He has history in this article. But it is welcome that he now acknowledges that user:Lima was a problem. Lets hope lessons have been learnt from previous mistakes. JPBHarris (talk)