Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:44, 31 August 2005

For talk on why this page was created see: Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution#Requests for comment and Archive 1.

More archives:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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. R adiant _>|< 08:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

"Requests for comment/All" does not indicate the topics. Maurreen (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. R adiant _>|< 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)[reply]

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. R adiant _>|< 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)[reply]

Maintenance collaboration

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. R adiant _>|< 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 Wikipedia: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. R adiant _>|< 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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. R adiant _>|< 12:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Mediation rarely works, either at Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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! R adiant _>|< 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

People that prefer the old layout can still use Wikipedia: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)[reply]
  - 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. R adiant _>|< 08:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Or we could return things to the way they were. Maurreen (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, how should we resolve this, have an RFC about the RFC page? Maurreen (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A meta-RfC. Yes. Fun for logicians, and reasonable for other Wikipedians. Robert McClenon 18:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. R adiant _>|< 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'd suggest here. R adiant _>|< 07:56, August 16, 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. R adiant _>|< 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 ^Isotalo 22:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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. R adiant _>|< 09:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

How does your computer show this?

Over at the Wikipedia: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..

Side comment: there is of course no one "correct" operating system! I'd say, "This view can vary depending on several variables, such as which browser and operating system a given Wiki user is using, and on which fonts or language script packages are installed, how the various locale or language variables are set, etc.". Steve Summit (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I find it dubious, at best. I'm not sure what policy is regarding an RFC. I did find this, though. [1] "In some votes, guidelines require you to be a registered user for it to be considered." FuelWagon 05:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat dubious, yes. It depends on the edit history of the IP in question. Please see Wikipedia:Suffrage. R adiant _>|< 09:36, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

On the one hand, to the extent that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [2] Gorgonzilla added his signature certifying on August 21 14:05 [3]. That's well within 48 hours. Mr. Walsh in fact struck out Acetic Acid's signature from the RFC [4], 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 [5], tagged it for speedy deletion [6] and a short while after removed all modifications to the RFC with edit summary "test" [7], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

First step toward arbitration

FuelWagon, it may be the first step toward arbitration, which is true and is what I wrote. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 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)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 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.[8]. 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)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 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)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 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)[reply]

I appreciate your willingness to compromise. [9] FuelWagon 13:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 15:23, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

My comments have been directed solely at your behaviour around this. If there was a personal attack on your character, let me know. As for your recent edit, please don't call something a "copyedit" in the edit summary unless you're correcting grammar and spelling. You have a tendency to downplay your changes in your edit summaries. "restoring deleted material" is a nice way of casting yourself as fighting a vandal. FuelWagon 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to your continued insistence on saying that an RFC "may" be step one to arbitration, you conveniently ignore the intent of a good-faith editor filing a good-faith RFC. That isn't the point of my warning. My point is that even if someone files an RFC in complete good faith, and even if that will eventually turn out to resolve the problem and be the end of teh issue, some people will react to the initial filing of the RFC as punitive. That was the point I was tryign to make in rewording your warning, but you've made it clear you will accept no other wording. 'Now you go and edit my warning, after I left yours in place. So, it seems to me that you really intend for this to be non-negotiable. it is your warning, and no other wording is allowed. You already have your warning that says an RFC may be step one to arbitration. I dispute the accuracy of your warning, but rather than continue to fight it, I'm wiling to leave your warning in place, and simply put my own warning up. You on the other hand, have insisted that your warning remain unchanged, and are now take it upon yourself to change my wording. So, I'm left with the continued impression that you view this as non-negotiable. FuelWagon 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I've explained this more than once, and I don't know what other words to use. An editor may file an RfC not intending it as a first step toward arbitration. But afterwards, another editor might come along and use it as a first step toward arbitration. Because the arbcom DOES accept RfCs as first steps, and this is a wiki, so whatever you intend with an RfC, is not necessarily what will end up happening to it. It is therefore true that every single RfC, regardless of the intentions of the certifiers, MAY be a first step toward arbitration. I don't know why you're trying to pretend otherwise. I can only assume for personal reasons because of the RfC you filed. But your personal views can't outweigh the cold, hard facts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

"It is therefore true that every single RfC ... MAY be a first step toward arbitration." Fine. I dispute that claim, but I'm not so hard headed that I'll insist on changing the wording to your warning to say otherwise. You perceive it to be a problem, and your warning deals with the percieved problem. You've got your warning. I don't know why you can't be happy with that. I'm actually trying to deal with something else. The wording is different because it's addressing a different problem than yours. FuelWagon 18:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what FuelWagon is saying. What problem is he addressing? Robert McClenon 18:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good Faith and Bad Faith

I think that I either do not understand or do not agree with FuelWagon's concept of good-faith and bad-faith RfCs. If FuelWagon is implying that filing an RfC as a preparation for filing an RfAr is bad faith, then I strongly disagree. If a user is disrupting Wikipedia, and previous efforts to reason with the user do not work, then requesting arbitration may be necessary. Is that bad faith, or is that respect for due process? On the contrary, I would characterize a user conduct RfC as being in bad faith if the originator knows that he has no intention of going on to the RfAr stage, and is only filing the RfC in order to harass.

As SlimVirgin observes, filing a user conduct RfC probably will cause hard feeling. It is not a friendly action to take. It should only be done when friendly methods of dealing with an editor, such as discussion on article talk pages, have been ineffective. In an ideal world, a user conduct RfC might be a way to resolve disputes. In an ideal world, we would not have disruptive editors who cause disputes that need to be resolved.

It is not clear to me what FuelWagon is trying to say. I think I understand what SlimVirgin is saying. "Do not file a user conduct RfC unless you understand that it is typically a step toward arbitration," or "Filing a user conduct RfC will typically cause hard feelings. Do it only if it is your judgment that the benefit to Wikipedia outweighs the harm of the hard feelings."

I do not understand FuelWagon's concepts of good faith and bad faith. Robert McClenon 18:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"If FuelWagon is implying that filing an RfC as a preparation for filing an RfAr is bad faith" No. That isn't what I'm implying. If an editor files an RFC and has no intention of using it to resolve anything, then that is a bad faith RFC. An RFC is a method of dispute resolution unto itself. It should be used as such. The bad-faith RFC's I've seen were filed by people who completely avoided any attempt to resolve the issue with an RFC. I've commented on RFC's and had editors go "Oh, well, yeah, maybe I did have a part in creating this problem." and then the problem is solved. I've commented on other RFC's and the person who created it would get aggressive and say "No! It's HIS fault! This isn't about ME! I am RIGHT! He is WRONG! And you are WRONG for saying I am wrong." That's a bad-faith RFC. The person filing it simply wants to "convict" the other side of some policy violation and wants to completely ignore any violations they may have committed in the process. There is a difference between

(1) filing an RFC, hoping it resolves a problem, and if it doesn't, going on to arbitration and

(2) filing an RFC, getting the blanks filled in, ignoring any and all comments (or attacking them), being unwilling to allow the RFC process to resolve anything so that you can then request arbitration.

An RFC is part of the dispute resolution process, it isn't paperwork to be filled out and ignored and then move on to arbitration. I don't know how else to explain this. FuelWagon 18:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good way of putting it and it isn't consistent with the view of it being the first step toward arbitration (with the hope of there being no second step). So I added it to page. But I disagree with this: "If an RfC is filed in good faith, the editor filing it would be attempting to resolve a dispute by airing differences and inviting outside comments. But even an RFC filed in good faith may be viewed by some to be the first step toward arbitration and punitive measures, so be aware of the possible reaction you may receive, and make that part of your decision as to whether to file or not." It's unclear, and arguably false because of the good faith/bad faith presumptions (and we're not mind readers), and also because it says "may be viewed" as though this would be a minority view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:44, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm also confused and FuelWagon has been making this point for weeks, yet I still don't get it. An RfC is like putting someone in the stocks. In my view, it's a horrible process, and I would only do it to POV warriors and trolls who couldn't be blocked for disruption. I've never seen good come from an RfC. That's just my perception.

Neverthless, an RfC is a recognized step in the dispute-resolution process, widely seen as the step to take before arbitration. If the RfC alone will sort it out, then fine. But if you want to go to the arbcom, you usually have to precede it with mediation or an RfC, and the mediation committee is stalled, so an RfC is currently just about the only option.

Therefore, there is no bad faith implied in using an RfC in that way. And as Robert points out, it could be argued that an RfC that is NOT intended as a first step toward RfAr is the bad-faith one, because it's unnecessary.

FuelWagon shouldn't say anything on the RfC page that implies otherwise, because it would amount to his personal view — original research and wishful thinking — and not consistent with the way other editors, admins, and the arbcom perceive and use the RfC process. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:33, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the real problem is that you are still holding onto that RFC I filed against you a couple of months ago as a "bad faith" RFC and you are holding it as a grudge against me even now. That is why you relate to this as non-negotiable. And as long as you refuse to see that there was any merit at all in that RFC, you're going to cast me as the bad-guy here, and tell everyone I'm doing "original research", "wishful thinking", "pretending", making "ad hominem attacks again", and whatever else you've come up with. You are too invested in this for any discussion to come to any sort of useful outcome. I'm wrong and you're right, and that's the end of the conversation. You want to get some honesty in this conversation, stop pretending this is all about some warning on the RFC page I put up today or a week ago, and get some honesty about how much of this is about you begrudging me for filing an RFC against you a couple months ago. Until then, we're just going to keep dancing around the real issues. FuelWagon 19:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that you're trying to insert what you feel ought to be the case, instead of describing what is in fact the case. You were the one who started changing the contents of this page after your failed RfC (and no credible editor, other than you, saw the merit in that RfC, so perhaps it is you who needs to learn from it). From memory, Jayjg, Jpgordon, Mel, and I opposed your edits. And now Robert is also questioning them. And yet you continue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:17, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please. My RFC was supported by 4 other editors. Ed Poor even gave it partial support initially, but then he retracted it, probably after some other admins contacted him privately. One person who endorsed it was a neuroscientist, an editor who pointed out several neurological-related errors in your edit, but rather than acknowledge any errors on your part, you actually argued against an expert and then accused him of having a nasty tone. Neuroscientist was as credible as they come. So, do you want to retract the "no credible editor, other than you, saw the merit in that RfC" statement? I'll cue the chirping crickets now. I'd let this stay buried, but if you're gonna start rewriting history, then I'll be damned if I'll let you lie about some good editors who left wikipedia in disgust. You either bury this hatchet or you tell the truth about it. FuelWagon 21:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, please explain to me (on my talk page) why you filed a user conduct RfC against SlimVirgin. If you filed a "good faith" RfC against her in order to try to reason with her, then I understand what is happening. If you did that, and did not think that she was disrupting Wikipedia, then you simply made a mistake based on failure to understand how the rest of the Wikipedia community views user conduct RfCs. Why not read your own user page, and apologize for having done something that you did not mean to be aggressive, but was viewed as such? Robert McClenon 19:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FuelWagon, in reality an RfC is often a necessary step before a RfAr. The Arbitration Committee insists that people try to work out problems in other ways before filing an RfAr, and that generally means an RfC. Ideally the RfC resolves the problem, but often it does not, and an RfAr is then a logical next step. This is simply the reality of how the dispute resolutions mechanisms at Wikipedia work. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I point out the difference between the two following approaches: (1) filing an RFC, hoping it resolves a problem, and if it doesn't, going on to arbitration and (2) filing an RFC, getting the blanks filled in, ignoring any and all comments (or attacking them), being unwilling to allow the RFC process to resolve anything so that you can then request arbitration. I mentioned this above. FuelWagon 03:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FuelWagon|FuelWagon does have a valid point that an RfC is not being properly used if the originator is not interested in listening to the comments (as the name of the process indicates). My point is that there are at least two different types of bad-faith RfCs. There are the ones that FuelWagon mentions in which the originator is only filling out paperwork with the intention of going to arbitration. Then there are the ones in which the originator has no intention of going to arbitration. Perhaps they are both similar in that they are both being used simply as blunt instruments to try to intimidate another editor, since the ArbCom is not likely to accept an RfAr if it is clear that the originator is not trying to resolve the dispute. However, what SlimVirgin is trying to caution about is another type of RfC, which is a user conduct RfC that is posted without a recognition that it will be seen as confrontational, when an article RfC would be more appropriate. A user conduct RfC is seen by the Wikipedia community as more serious than an article content RfC.

There is a consensus among the Wikipedia community that a user conduct RfC is viewed as a serious action, and is seen as a step toward arbitration. FuelWagon may disagree, but there is a consensus on this point. Could FuelWagon simply accept that he is in a minority? A user conduct RfC is an empty threat and thus bad faith if there is no intention to go to arbitration if necessary.

There do appear to be mutual hard feelings between FuelWagon and SlimVirgin. At the same time, they are both on the same side of trying to maintain civility and develop an encyclopedia, and of agreeing that occasionally disruptive editors must be dealt with by the RfC and RfAr processes. Can we move on and agree that SlimVirgin's caution is not so much "non-negotiable" as the summary of consensus? Robert McClenon 11:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"There is a consensus among the Wikipedia community that a user conduct RfC is viewed as a serious action, and is seen as a step toward arbitration. FuelWagon may disagree, but there is a consensus on this point." Perhaps you could point me to a vote that shows people overwhelmingly support the idea that a user rfc should be considered "serious action". I know of no vote and I have anectodtal evidence to the contrary.

"this ... requirement for diffs ... has the effect of stifling 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."[10]

"RfCs should be an occasion to get input on something - not an obligatory step on the way to arbcomming people" [11]

"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." [12]

SlimVirgin expressed her view of the RFC process:

"An RfC is like putting someone in the stocks. In my view, it's a horrible process, and I would only do it to POV warriors and trolls who couldn't be blocked for disruption. I've never seen good come from an RfC." [13]

Given the disparate views on RFC's, I question the notion that SlimVirgin's caution is strictly a summary of consensus. It could just as much be a function of her personal view that no good ever came from an RFC. FuelWagon 14:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments

First, it is clear enough to me that there are now long hard feelings between FuelWagon and SlimVirgin because he filed a user conduct RfC against her. Obviously, she and many other Wikipedians thought that he was attacking her. I think that he was, but he disagrees. I agree with her effort to post a warning that posting a user conduct RfC will be seen as hostile. She is trying to avoid a misunderstanding like the one that already exists between him and her, by saying that such an RfC will be seen as hostile. She is right in saying that it will be seen as hostile. If FuelWagon disagrees, then the fact of this exchange is proof enough.

So why is FuelWagon eager to allow similar misunderstood filings? Why does he not want to spare others the hostility that he caused without meaning to do it? I think that SlimVirgin is trying to do future users a favor, and say, "Please be wary before posting a user conduct RfC. It is a serious measure."

I think that FuelWagon was in part a victim of the fact that the posted rules are in complete disagreement with the usual understanding of how dispute resolution should be done. He did what the rules said, and not what the understanding was. There was a genuine cognitive disconnect. The posted rules were wrong.

In retrospect, FuelWagon should have posted an article RfC rather than a user conduct RfC. He had no way of knowing this, since he only read the rules, and did not read the minds of the community. This was always really a content issue more than a conduct issue. One of the limitations of a wiki is that there is no obvious fast way to handle content issues quickly. Robert McClenon 00:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis Thoughts

Second, I invite other editors to read my statement on what needs to be done to improve Wikipedia: User: Robert McClenon/Crisis. I do not know whether this is the right way to provide views, but I decided to be bold without disrupting any existing space. Robert McClenon 00:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted RFC posted in user subspace

(copied from above) SlimVirgin, the real problem is that you are still holding onto that RFC I filed against you a couple of months ago as a "bad faith" RFC and you are holding it as a grudge against me even now. That is why you relate to this as non-negotiable. And as long as you refuse to see that there was any merit at all in that RFC, you're going to cast me as the bad-guy here, and tell everyone I'm doing "original research", "wishful thinking", "pretending", making "ad hominem attacks again", and whatever else you've come up with. You are too invested in this for any discussion to come to any sort of useful outcome. I'm wrong and you're right, and that's the end of the conversation. You want to get some honesty in this conversation, stop pretending this is all about some warning on the RFC page I put up today or a week ago, and get some honesty about how much of this is about you begrudging me for filing an RFC against you a couple months ago. Until then, we're just going to keep dancing around the real issues. FuelWagon 19:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that you're trying to insert what you feel ought to be the case, instead of describing what is in fact the case. You were the one who started changing the contents of this page after your failed RfC (and no credible editor, other than you, saw the merit in that RfC, so perhaps it is you who needs to learn from it). From memory, Jayjg, Jpgordon, Mel, and I opposed your edits. And now Robert is also questioning them. And yet you continue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:17, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please. My RFC was supported by 4 other editors. Ed Poor even gave it partial support initially, but then he retracted it, probably after some other admins contacted him privately. One person who endorsed it was a neuroscientist, an editor who pointed out several neurological-related errors in your edit, but rather than acknowledge any errors on your part, you actually argued against an expert and then accused him of having a nasty tone. Neuroscientist was as credible as they come. So, do you want to retract the "no credible editor, other than you, saw the merit in that RfC" statement? I'll cue the chirping crickets now. I'd let this stay buried, but if you're gonna start rewriting history, then I'll be damned if I'll let you lie about some good editors who left wikipedia in disgust. You either bury this hatchet or you tell the truth about it. FuelWagon 21:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd normally say this issue doesn't belong here, as it's about a dispute between us, but now it seems you've cut and pasted the deleted RFC into your user subspace, so perhaps it does belong here after all. Suffice to say your RFC was not supported, or it would not have been deleted, and as for one of the editors saying he was a neuroscientist, I'd say, first, you only had his word for it, secondly, he said on a talk page that he was 25, and third, even if he was an expert, they carry no extra weight at Wikipedia, particularly in determining NPOV, which is what our dispute was about.

I'm sorry to see you haven't let this go. I accepted your apology in the belief the issue was over. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't even MENTIONED the RFC since I withdrew it until you started questioning the credibility of anyone and everyone who supported it. I withdrew my certification just so it would be deleted. It already had two signatures and I could have left it stick around. You want it to be over? you get that you just insulted the credibility of everyone who supported my RFC, you get that qualifies as a personal attack, you retract the statement, and you apologize. Don't blame this on me. You're the one who's bringing back the dead. FuelWagon 22:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you get the history right, the first time my RFC was mentioned was here, when you posted " don't know why you're trying to pretend otherwise. I can only assume for personal reasons because of the RfC you filed." I didn't bring this up. You did. It's YOU who never let this go. You want to hold onto it, that's fine by me. But don't go accusing me of doing something now, because of something that you are holding onto. I was trying to change the RFC warnings to make the better. It had nothing to do with my RFC from way back. You brought it up. Don't blame me. You haven't let it go. Don't blame me. FuelWagon 22:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And don't go insulting the credibility of some good editors just because they're no longer around to defend themselves. Duckecho and Neuroscientist were hard working contributers to that article. They signed the RFC, and you just said no credible editor signed the RFC. So, you're the one who keeps bringing it up. FuelWagon 22:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read what you've written. I was on this page objecting to your editing of Wikpedia:Requests for comment, which is why this page exists. But you then raised the RFC. You wrote: "SlimVirgin, the real problem is that you are still holding onto that RFC I filed against you a couple of months ago as a "bad faith" RFC and you are holding it as a grudge against me even now ..."

You've now pasted a deleted RFC into your user page, even though it's supposed to be deleted.

All I can do is assure you that my attitude to this page isn't connected to the RfC of yours in particular, but instead is motivated by the overall number of frivolous and damaging RfCs I've seen. Also, there's no one else on this page who supports the edits you wanted to make, either now or the last time they were discussed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

And please don't change my header. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I thought this was a wiki. Now it's "your" header? lol FuelWagon 23:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then how did you know

"my attitude to this page isn't connected to the RfC of yours in particular" Oh, really? Then how did you know that I just recently pasted a deleted RFC into my user namespace? The only way would be for you to be monitoring my user contributions. I've made no public reference to those pages. it wouldn't show up on any article watchlist. But soon after I created the page, you were off asking another editor about policy regarding deleted RFC's in a user namespace[14], and you've made sure to announce it here with your subsection title, insisting that I don't change it. Are you saying you just happened to be on the RFC page and saw me add this recent warning? OK, fine. you've got this page on your watchlist. But how did you know about an addition to my userspace? Not connected in any way to an RFC I filed against you? None at all? Just browsing recent contributions by random editors? FuelWagon 23:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about it because I looked at your contribs yesterday, as it seemed clear you'd started up again, and your usual thing is to write to lots of people about it, so I looked to see whether you'd been doing that.

I'm requesting as a gesture of goodwill that you delete that page from your user space. You have every right to keep a copy on your computer, but there's no need or reason to keep it online. It was deleted, not moved or userfied. I also agree with Rob that it's not appropriate to discuss our dispute on this page, though it's appropriate to discuss your keeping a copy of the RfC. If you want to discuss the dispute, please suggest somewhere else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

" it seemed clear you'd started up again" Oh, it seemed clear did it? That I had started up again, did I? I appreciate all the "good will" that comes with the implied accusation that I'm guilty of "starting up" something "again". So, just to help clarify what really happened here, I added an entry to the "for your review" piece below. See, it went like this: you mentioned my RFC against you, I post it in my user space. So as for your accusation that I had "started up" something, and that I had done it "again", it's all false. Do you realize that on this page alone, you've accused me of "ad hominem" attacks [15], that I'm "pretending" and only doing it for "personal reasons because of the RFC" I filed [16], that everyone who supported my RFC was not "credible" [17], and that "it seemed clear" I had "started up again", [18] which comes not only with an assertion of guilt, but an implication of previous guilt. You want to retract these accusations? no? well, I uploaded the RFC partly so there would be a objective record of what really happened so I could defend myself from your accuastions. You brought up the RFC, not me. As for the people who supported it being "credible", there were four other people, and they happened to be my friends. We were working our asses off on the Terri Schiavo article when you came along and bulldozed your way through it. Two of them left wikipedia in disgust after that. One of them specifically blamed you. So, I'd appreciate it if you left my friends' "credibility" out the picture since they can't defend themselves from your accusations. And after all this, you have the nerve to ask me for a show of good will? I've done nothing to break it. Don't look for a sign of good will when you've shown me and my friends none. FuelWagon 03:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FuelWagon, this seems to be a personal issue you have with SlimVirgin; I don't really think continuing it here is appropriate, since it is unrelated to this article. Frankly, I don't see the value in continuing it anywhere else either, but that's just my personal opinion. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's so many various headings on this I don't know which one this comment should go on, so feel free to move it to the right one, somebody. All I wish to point out is that SlimVirgin's claim that no other credible editors supported this RfC is not the case. I supported it (and I'm not just credible, I'm incredible, baby), as I thought a Request for Comment meant a formal request for some comments on an issue that required resolving. Obviously, it actually means 'request for huge two month bitch fest with no end in sight'. I wish this would all just go away now. Proto t c 08:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

for your review

There seems to be some confusion as to the history of this recent discussion. I've posted the following diffs for your review.

15:58, 24 August 2005 SlimVirgin writes: "because of the RfC you filed." [19]

19:06, 24 August 2005 FuelWagon writes: "you are still holding onto that RFC I filed against you" [20]

21:21, 24 August 2005 FuelWagon pastes RFC into his personal userspace.

It seems fairly straightforward to me. FuelWagon 23:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two Comments

There does seem to be residual hard feeling between FuelWagon and SlimVirgin, and it is wasting Wiki space that would be better spent on improving the dispute resolution process. If the two of them still have hard feelings, why not request mediation to at least agree to express those hard feelings somewhere else?

Second, I restated what SlimVirgin said was the consensus of the Wikipedia community, that a user conduct RfC is a serious allegation that will lead to hard feelings and is commonly considered a step toward arbitration. FuelWagon disagreed as to whether this is a consensus. Is a quickpoll in order? Robert McClenon 00:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. R adiant _>|< 14:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

That is not policy, and putting a delete template on an article is not the same as deleting it, SqueakBox 23:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I never said that was policy, it's just a suggestion from me. R adiant _>|< 08:12, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

This fits none of the categories, but it's important

Talk:Barbara Schwarz has become the site of a flamewar over the article in question; a number of suspected sockpuppets have popped up and are not only defending the article's subject, but verbally eviscerating anyone, such as Texture or Tilman Hausherr, who tries to edit new information into it. User:Lily Firered and some anonymous user who signs all his posts "A Mormon" are largely at fault for the hostile atmosphere, and I think we need some new blood to take a look at what's going on in there. I haven't participated in any editing on that page in over a month myself, and I don't think I can resolve this conflict alone. - 206.114.20.121 18:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on RFC page

Given that above, three people voiced a preference for a unified RFC page, and only one person stated a preference for the subpages, I have returned Wikipedia:Requests for comment to the pre-subpage format.

I ask for any disagreement about the page to be resolved through discussion and consensus. Maurreen (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the other splits, but I believe that it is important to split out the front matter, because of the difficulty in tracking changes to the policy otherwise. I recently spent over an hour looking at diffs to try to figure out when a particular wording change was made. Such changes are getting lost, and are ending up in the page without consensus simply because no one is aware of them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand your reasoning better now and agree in principle with a subpage for the instructions. It's easy to miss those changes. I would like to suggest a different name than "front matter". "Procedures" might be more clear. Maurreen (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what we call it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have never actually stated what your problem is, actually. Please do so. Note that 1) on the village pump, several more people supported the change; and 2) the change actually offers more options without removing any of the existing ones. R adiant _>|< 22:36, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I said on 14 August: "This page used to be simple -- one page. Now it's scattered." That is a reason for my disagreement, regardless of how meaningful you do or don't find it. I see little value gained, but more effort to track RFCs as a whole and to list them. Maurreen (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vote with Maureen: I like the combined article display. Put the way-too-lengthy instructions and intro on a separate page where we can all ignore them. If necessary make separate pages for RFC articles and RFC users, but please don't separate the articles into separate pages again. Thanks. alteripse 04:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Maureen. I read this page (and many others, such as RfA, FAC, Peer Review, etc.) via diffs. It's a lot easier to do so when things are on a single page. --Carnildo 06:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to all three of you - there still is a single page that lists everything - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. That functionality wasn't lost. If people don't like its layout or the template for each section, that would be trivial to change. Radiant_>|< 08:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- "/All" is absolutely worthless for me. As I said, I read RfC via diffs. Transclusion, as is done in "/All", doesn't generate diffs. --Carnildo 04:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, yes. In that case you'd have to watchlist ten pages instead of one. Sorry to ask but is that really so inconvenient? It also makes the chance smaller that you'll miss an issue because two were added shortly after one another. And many people want to watchlist part of the RFCs but not all of them (e.g. not the user disputes, or maybe only anything about history). Radiant_>|< 09:16, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
    - It takes about 30 seconds to check out all the changes in the past day on the unified page. It takes the same 30 seconds to check out the changes on each split subpage, for a total time of five minutes or more to check out all of RfC. And with subpages, there's the possibility that I'll miss watchlisting a subpage entirely. --Carnildo 19:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you; I agree completely with Carnildo. Septentrionalis 19:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Radiant. This format seems neater. In fact, it's actually what alteripse would like: the instructions are all on a separate page (WP:RFC), and the article RFcs are all on one page (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All).—Encephalon | ^ζ 08:20:13, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

Interestingly, there is a thread at the Village Pump where Maurreen suggests precisely that processes like RFC be split into several areas by topic, and it gets some support there too. I'm not sure why she would oppose it here when she proposes the same thing over there. R adiant _>|< 17:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I think we all agree more than we disagree, guys. I could be wrong, but it looks to me like the present format satisfies most of the demands of various editors, and where it doesn't, it's probable that some adjustments can be made to meet them. Best wishes to everyone,—Encephalon | ^ζ 01:20:00, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

Split version is better. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 22:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I prefer the split version too. I want to at least have a look at all user RfCs, whereas content RfCs (though important) are something I'll work on time permitting. --fvw * 03:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

So where are my RFCs?

Given that the page has now been split again, and my RFCs are no longer listed on the RFC page, would someone at least tell me where they are? Maurreen (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CS. R adiant _>|< 08:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

If I wanted to hold a survey, I would do so. Maurreen (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I've pointed out several times already, WP:CS is a misnomer since it contains a lot of things that aren't surveys. R adiant _>|< 10:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Boldness should be tempered -- splitting, etc.

Regardless of the merits or not of subpages and any other changes, these is are to be decided by the community. There is obvious disagreement.

It is not for any individual to decide what subpages are appropriate, nor that certain RFCs are to be moved to Wikipedia:Current surveys, etc.

In my view, the mature and courteous thing to do, is to use the version of the RFC page that had been relatively stable for at least a year, UNTIL there is consensus to do otherwise. Thank you. Maurreen (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for comments here. You proposed a split of things by topic area on the village pump. In both cases, support was shown for the split up version. The new version has more functionality than the old version, as indicated by the discussion above. So do not bypass a discussion that you started yourself. R adiant _>|< 10:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

For one thing, I did not suggest dividing just RFCs by separate page.
I am not bypassing. We can have the discussion just as well, either way.
Support has been shown for both versions. No consensus has been shown for your preferred version.
I waited almost two weeks between opening the discussion and unifying the page. In that time, three people disagreed with one. Maurreen (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The intent is the same, and splitting RFCs (or for that matter, splitting the refdesk) would be a useful step towards what you actually propose.
Yes, you did. You started a discussion, ignored the response, and changed to the version you prefer in spite of the fact that response was not quite in support of that.
Like I said before, one does not vote on changes. Go and read Wikipedia:Conlangs/Straw_poll for an example. You ask for opinions and address the objections. That has, in fact, been done.
No, you did not. You started this discussion on 18:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC), and the one on the village pump on 08:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC). You broke the RFC page in an attempted reversion on 02:55, August 28, 2005.
You're being needlessly bureaucratic. Please don't. I have answered your concerns but you have never answered mine. You tend to simply ignore whatever I say and repeat your previous arguments. That's not productive. R adiant _>|< 09:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Radiant:

2. and 4. You opened the discussion on 7 August. You bypassed discussion by deciding to make the change without discussing first.

3. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus.

5. Saying that I am "being needlessly bureaucratic" and your repititive WP:NOT statements are not productive. What concerns of yours do you feel that I have not addressed? Maurreen (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Del unilateral rule

The following was on the RFC page as a hidden comment. I do not agree, and as far as I know, only one person supports it. So I removed it.

Yes, policy issues should go on "current surveys" to keep them all in a centralized place. "Surveys" is actually a misnomer, over half of its content isn't actually a survey. A request to rename is in place. Maurreen (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth do you oppose keeping all policy-related debates in a single place? R adiant _>|< 08:30, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

"Requests for comment" and "Current surveys" are clear, simple and straightforward deliniations. I see no problem with that. I see no need to change. Maurreen (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that they overlap substantially, and have done so for a long time. Many requests for comment take the form of a survey, and many surveys are in fact requesting comment. Also, some things listed on RFC were not in fact requesting any comment, and several things listed on RS were not in fact surveys. That has also been true for a long time.
Thus, we had two pages with essentially the same goal. That is redundant, and bureaucratic. That essentially means that everything posted on one should also be posted on the other - but people tend to forget that. It also means that everyone watching one should also watch the other - but people tend to forget that too. The end result is that some people will arbitrarily be unaware of some discussion, despite the fact that they wish to be. That is confusing and undesirable.
It is not generally possible to amend everybody's behavior to match the original intent of a page. It is on the other hand easy to rename a page to match with what people actually use it for, to facilitate it for new users. R adiant _>|< 15:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Given that we disagree, it makes sense to me to continue longstanding practice until there is a consensus to do otherwise. Maurreen (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given that longstanding practice is bureaucratic, redundant and confusing as I just pointed out, and given that you haven't given any argument to contradict that, I fail to see how you have a point. R adiant _>|< 15:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

My point is that none of this is for you to decide. It is not for me to decide. It is not for any individual to decide.

Also, you appear to be the only person objecting to this aspect of longstanding practice.

I see no point in going back and forth between the two of us.

Let the community decide. Maurreen (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is for you to decide. You are in charge of the entire wiki, Maurreen, you can make any change you want, whenever you want! Well... almost. At the same time, Radiant is also in charge, and well, so am I, so when you do make a change and we disagree, it might then be wise to discuss. :-) See WP:HEC for a useful framework for this.

Anyway, since you're in charge and therefore very important, I'd like to hear why you disagree with Radiant (who is also in charge and therefore also very important), and we can try to sort out what to do to your mutual satisfaction. (This is called "Finding consensus through negotiation and agreement") Kim Bruning 16:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's what I've been looking for -- both an intermediary and recognition that we're all equal here. Essentially, Radiant and I disagree on whether there is a problem with longstanding practice. In my view, it would be a positive gesture if Radiant would remove the rule, and then we could more easily discuss ways to satisfy both of us. Oh, and I had just listed this at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Maurreen (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:HEC says you can feel free to remove it yourself, if it's really making you unhappy. In the mean time, what's your issue with it? Kim Bruning 16:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can remove it, and I probably will. And then Radiant can put it back, and probably will. And we can continue our revert war.

He shouldn't actually. Has he done so earlier? If so we might need to talk to him a bit. Kim Bruning

My issue -- If someone wants to request comments, I see no reason why they shouldn't do so at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. That is clear, simple and straightforward.

Okay. That's clear. Kim Bruning

Radiant has not demonstrated that "longstanding practice is bureaucratic, redundant and confusing". I respect that Radiant believes this. I do not. I do not see that anyone else believes it. Maurreen (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, why do you disagree? Kim Bruning 17:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, earlier I avoided reading so I'd get an objective view of the situation, but now I've done so. You two HAVE been revertwarring, and there's a lot of discussion here as well about the topic. Hmmm. Well stop reverting, the both of you. Goodness. Kim Bruning 17:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this comes accross the wrong way, but I don't know how many ways I can say this or how to say it more clearly. Listing all requests for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment is easy. Having some hidden rule that says certain requests must go another page adds complexity for zero benefit that I can see. Radiant claims to reduce confusion. In my view, Radiant is adding confusion. Maurreen (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first off, there are two different issues here. I've removed the so-called unilateral rule now (which isn't a rule really, it's actually a description about how things work). But the recent revert s were about certain edits by Maurreen that broke the RFC page and confused the progress.
The point is that Maurreen is holding to the literal definitions of "requests for comment" and "current surveys". However, while a dictionary can certainly tell them apart, on Wikipedia they're extremely interrelated. Many requests for comment employ a survey. Most surveys are requesting comment. So they should both be listed on one place. I don't care what place that is, but there used to be three different spots. And that's confusing. R adiant _>|< 08:40, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for removing it. I appreciate that. Maurreen (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so Radiant has been busy reorganising stuff again! (He seems to like doing that.) Typically, so long as it's just a refactor, that's not a big deal. I understand that something went wrong here?

Hmm, could either of you paste the contested text below, so we can take a look at it, and see why it's so contested? Kim Bruning 13:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the contested text: Yes, policy issues should go on "current surveys" to keep them all in a centralized place. "Surveys" is actually a misnomer, over half of its content isn't actually a survey. A request to rename is in place. Maurreen (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposal: RFCs and surveys

Radiant or anyone: What do you think of dividing all requests for input (RFCs, surveys, whatever) among two types, article-specific issues and all other issues? Maurreen (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFC

I just noticed I still have an RFC on me which wasn't formatted or certified, I assume it should be deleted? --fvw * 01:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC) moved from subpage. R adiant _>|< 10:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Radiant_>|< 10:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted. R adiant _>|< 10:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

certification withdrawn

Will an admin please delete the RFC against Bensaccount? [21] Two editors have withdrawn certification to allow it be deleted. Thanks. FuelWagon 21:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you, and I'm concerned that you're using these, and the subsequent withdrawal of certification, as a way of controlling content. This RfC wasn't properly certified in the first place, in my view, because two of the certifiers are supposed to supply evidence of unsuccessful attempts to resolve the dispute — not evidence of the dispute itself, but of attempts to resolve it. Most of the diffs supplied show you engaging in the dispute. The others (one from Robert and one from Parker Whittle) aren't really appropriate, because Robert wasn't a certifer, and because both diffs show comments about the dispute, not dispute resolution. An attempt to resolve it would be, for example, an agreement to search for a compromise, which was rejected by the other party. I encourage you in future to think twice before filing another RfC on someone, and to search harder for ways to resolve disputes between yourself and other editors, before proceeding to this stage. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

@@ Line 520: / Line 520: @@
 ==certification withdrawn==
 Will an admin please delete the RFC against Bensaccount? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bensaccount] Two editors have withdrawn certification to allow it be deleted. Thanks. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 21:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
+:This looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you, and I'm concerned that you're using these, and the subsequent withdrawal of certification, as a way of controlling content. This RfC wasn't properly certified in the first place, in my view, because two of the certifiers are supposed to supply evidence of unsuccessful attempts to resolve the dispute &mdash; not evidence of the dispute itself, but of attempts to resolve it. Most of the diffs supplied show you engaging in the dispute. The others (one from Robert and one from Parker Whittle) aren't really appropriate, because Robert wasn't a certifer, and because both diffs show comments about the dispute, not dispute resolution. An attempt to resolve it would be, for example, an agreement to search for a compromise, which was rejected by the other party. I encourage you in future to think twice before filing another RfC on someone, and to search harder for ways to resolve disputes between yourself and other editors, before proceeding to this stage. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 22:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC)