User talk:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/FOURRFC

Invited comment[edit]

This RfC seems like a trainwreck waiting to happen; it's both too sprawling and too forcefully one-sided, occasionally bordering on insulting ("the Nick-D and Ian Rose article type that has so many panties in a bunch"... "Some have raised the issue of removing South Side, Chicago from the list for reasons that may be for no other reason than to contest any authority I claim over the project"). Tony, I'd urge you to have a third party draft a neutral, concise version of this instead; you can still post your version of events in the comments. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the panties reference.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of "too sprawling", I'd say it is sort of modelled after the most recent RFC that I have been in that seems to be successful: Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Check how that RFC was originally worded, before side issues started popping up. The current one is sprawling. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of "one-sided", I am open to discussion on anything that you might misrepresent an issue presented.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of "insulting", it is still a draft and we have this talk page to iron anything out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concise? Do you mean less background on the issues or fewer issues?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:RFC, particularly Wikipedia:RFC#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Honestly, negotiating this document word-for-word with you is not a road I intend to go down; I've already burned enough time in this discussion better spent in article space. Let me simply note three main objections: your draft openly endorses your position, is openly hostile to those who disagree, and is far too long. To repeat one very egregious example, you openly accuse other editors of bad faith: "Some have raised the issue of removing South Side, Chicago from the list for reasons that may be for no other reason than to contest any authority I claim over the project". You may simply be too emotionally involved here to draft a fair RfC.

Again, why not just ask someone you consider trustworthy to draft something brief and neutral? You can then take this material you've written about your side of the story and put it into the comments. With so many people at the project page and at the MfD concerned about ownership issues, you might consider not insisting on controlling the RfC.

Just my two cents, though, so feel free to disregard. All the best and I hope the issue can come to consensus soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be trying to refine the RFC for a bit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]