Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Catholic Church/process

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purpose of page

[edit]
Shortcut

As the CC dispute may end up at ArbCom, I'm setting up this page for Sunray and I to discuss how to oversee the RfC. We had previously been e-mailing about it, but it was felt today that a public discussion would be more appropriate. Any other uninvolved admin or experienced editor who wants to help oversee the RfC is welcome to join us. SlimVirgin talk contribs 18:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

[edit]

One thing we need to discuss is whether anyone else needs to be notified, and if so how we go about that. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed, I will add a note to the RfC talk page about notifications. Sunray (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty with notifications is that Nancy and Xandar have a half-dozen or a dozen editors, who show up, vote, and revert-war when summoned - but are otherwise unconcerned with the article. (A convenient list of these may be found voting for Nancy's last RfC.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that most if not all of the legitimate editors who might want to take part in this probably know about it already—it was posted on the article talk page, village pump, and Catholic Church wikiproject, among others. But I would hate anyone to be able to claim the RfC wasn't valid because interested parties weren't notified. SlimVirgin talk contribs 23:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We could simply cross-check your list with those who have already commented on the RfC and just notify those who have not yet commented. Sunray (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we're agreed on that, I'll notify the article lists, and you notify the talk page lists, making sure when we post that the person hasn't already been informed, because several of the names are on both. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wording: I suggest something very simple such as "Input is welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church". SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've informed the top 40 non-banned, non-bot editors who've edited the article since March 2008, except for the ones who've already posted to the RfC. If you could do the top 40 who've posted to talk, that would be great. The list is here. There shouldn't be many left to do. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wilco. Sunray (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taam is someone from your list who still needs to be notified. His page says retired, but he edited this month so he should probably be told just in case he's still checking in. SlimVirgin talk contribs 05:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sunray (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing text

[edit]

I'm starting to write up the closing text. Sunray, could you weigh in? My thinking is to have a brief summary of the overall thrust of the RfC, then to summarize in more detail below it. I'm currently writing the longer summary, see below. We can tighten it all up at the end.

Sunray, could you look to see whether you agree with my long summary, in terms of the numbers, comments I've focused on, and order I've introduced them (bearing in mind that the writing will probably be tightened)? SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC was initiated on March 26, 2010 by NancyHeise, who disagreed with recent editing at Catholic Church that moved, removed, or rewrote several sections. Nancy presented three versions of the article for consideration: the first or "short" version (more or less the current version), a second or "medium" version proposed by Nancy; and a third or "long" version, which had been on the page before the recent edits. The RfC was posted on various wikiprojects, the article talk page, the philosophy and religion RfC page, the village pump, and the talk pages of the top 40 editors to the article and its talk page who hadn't already commented. Forty-four editors commented between March 26 and April 7; the RfC was closed on April 9.

  • Favouring the "short" version to work from, and regarding Nancy and Xandar's approach and the RfC itself as problematic:
  • Twenty-six agreed (views by Sarek of Vulcan and by Septentrionalis) to work from the "short" version, mostly because it's easier to add than to remove information, and because the short version's references have been more thoroughly checked. Other comments included that the version that had been on the page previously (the "long" version) had been disputed for years; and the "medium" and "long" versions proposed by Nancy were POV forks that violated the length and content policies, and were written by an editor (Nancy) regarded by eight of the signatories as a single-purpose account.
  • Twenty agreed (view by Hesperian) that the RfC was a call to arms, was profoundly harmful, and that editing should continue instead, while eleven agreed (view by Harmakheru) that the RfC was an attempt by Nancy and Xandar to impose their ownership on the article, and that Nancy had difficulty recognizing how to identify and use scholarly sources.
  • Fifteen agreed (view by SandyGeorgia) that the article had been a battleground for two years, involving issues of ownership, canvassing, content policy violations, several failed FACs, a mediation, an RfC, and an RfAr. NancyHeise and Xandar were regarded as responsible for false allegations of abuse of power and abuse of adminship, and for disruptive diatribes. They were asked to take a voluntary one-month break from the article and its talk page; this was increased to a request for a three-month ban for Nancy after she added POV tags to the article and took the issue to AN/I during this RfC. One of the 15 signatories (Richard S) supported the one-month break, but not the three-month ban.
  • Comments on length without reference to editor behaviour:
  • Nine agreed (view by Stephen B Streater) that less is more, and that the "long" version had caused problems for people with mobile connections, while four agreed or partly agreed (view by Kraftlos) that it would be unhelpful to be too brief, and that anything removed from the long version should be moved to daughter articles.
  • Regarding the editing process as flawed, and/or none of the versions appropriate:
  • Eight agreed (view by History 2007) that the article and the process that selected the current "short" version represent a low point for Wikipedia. Nancy and Xandar's "long" version contained good knowledge, though it saw the church through rose-tinted glasses—Nancy was singled out for painting the church as beautiful from every angle. But the "short" version was pushed through using "elections at midnight" and intimidation tactics, and should be rejected for that reason alone. The suggestion is to use none of the proposed versions, but to start again with Johnbod, Richard S, Mike Searson, and Haldraper as the editors, and to use the German, Italian, and Spanish versions as a guide.
  • Five agreed (view by Ling.Nut) that the RfC was pointless because Wikipedia's bottom-up approach will never do justice to an article such as Catholic Church, because of POV editing from the church's supporters and opponents. The only hope for the article would be the appointment of an editorial panel to write it.
  • Favouring the "medium" or "long" versions, against the current or "short" version:
  • Seven agreed (views by NancyHeise and by Xandar) that the current version of the article (the "short" version) was not the best starting point. Comments included that it was unfit for its purpose, bowdlerized, a travesty that does violence to the facts, was inserted in a way that violated process and the spirit of cooperation, has citation problems, and that length is not a major consideration given the importance, influence, and age of the institution the article is about.

To be continued. SlimVirgin talk contribs 23:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A remarkable level of participation, compared to most RFCs, even though we didn't notify the FAC reviewers, but SV who did I miss; I only identified 44 editors, you found 46. Could you add the missing two to my list there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got the 46 number from here, though there's no way to give a direct URL with this page, so you'll have to plug in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church. Don't worry about anything written here so far. I'm just using the page to write the draft publicly, so lots may change about it, and I'll do a manual count just to make sure. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see the difference-- your 46 includes anyone who edited the page, such as yourself, although you aren't really giving feedback on the RFC, just monitoring it-- so I think my 44 is OK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you're right, I'd forgotten that I'd edited it. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the summary generally. However, I wonder whether the summary of SandyGeorgia's comments should be revised somewhat. This was not a User Conduct RfC. In any dispute, there are at least two sides, but in a regular RfC there is no mechanism to present different points of view. How could this portion of the summary be made more neutral? Sunray (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you suggest some changes? I think it's problematic for us to say this is not a user conduct RfC, because in effect that's telling the respondents that they're not allowed to identify what they see as the problem. I'm willing to go along with changes along the lines you suggest, but we should be careful not to go too far in that direction. Also worth noting that several people commented on Nancy or Xandar. SlimVirgin talk contribs 08:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree that we cannot tell editors what to say. People have expressed themselves freely and that is now a matter of record. However, I think that we do have to be careful what we conclude about individuals' behavior when we are summarizing the RfC. A User Conduct RfC has a different notification process which is intended to get broad community input and specifically includes notification at ANI, etc. There is due process in such an RfC so that individuals may respond to allegations. And there are specific sanctions that may be brought to bear. This was not a User Conduct RfC.
In considering portions of the RfC that relate to other users, I think that we should avoid summarizing respondents remarks. For example, statements such as:
"... [Nancy and Xandar] were regarded as responsible for false allegations..." This was an allegation that was not responded to.
"... this was increased to a request for a three-month ban..." This is problematic, IMO. A suggestion of a voluntary break is one thing, but a request for a ban is not within the scope of a regular RfC. Only 8 of the 15 commented after this request was added, but it is inoperable in any case.
I would suggest we say something like the following as a summary:
"Allegations were made regarding NancyHeise's and Xandar's conduct. 15 users indicated agreement with certain of these statements. However, as this is not a User Conduct RfC, no conclusion can be drawn.
A link could be included to the actual remarks so that anyone interested could read them in the context they were made. Sunray (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the distinctions you're drawing between a user and article RfC regarding notification and conclusions. In my experience RfCs can go any which way. Do you have a link regarding the different notifications? It's worth reiterating who was notified, because I think we did go above and beyond:

  • Top 40 editors to article and talk
  • Article talk page
  • Village pump
  • Peer review
  • FAC
  • Wikiproject Catholicism
  • Wikiproject Religion
  • Wikiproject Christianity
  • Wikiproject Philosophy
  • Wikiproject History
  • RfC philosophy and religion page

The difficulty with failing to summarize remarks about other people is that there were a lot of them, and you've only focused on Sandy's. I think we also need to bear in mind that we're not here as mediators; our job is only to summarize what other people said so that they feel their views were fairly represented. I'll tighten the writing in the direction you suggest—my first draft was too long in any case—but I don't want to go so far that it's not clear what the conclusions were. SlimVirgin talk contribs 23:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was trying to make is that this was not set out as a user conduct RfC, which has its own groundrules and notification procedures. In our summary, I don't think that we should be reproducing any unsubstantiated negative comments about any editors. To do so would simply to be repeating personal attacks. So, for example, Harmakheru's remarks were substantiated with examples and seem fine, (though how we summarize them is another matter - perhaps just a link).
I don't regard either of us as fulfilling a mediation role with respect to the RfC. An RfC is another form of dispute resolution, separate from mediation. You asked for my comments and I am trying to provide useful feedback based on policy. My sense is that the summary should be brief. In the main, I think it should address how editors responded to the statement of the issue that was the subject of the RfC. Sunray (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sunray, for the second time you appear confused about what a personal attack is, and also confused about the purpose of an RFC. A significant number of editors felt that the content issues are not the problem: the content issues are being driven by behavioral issues, and why you are drawing this false distinction about the type of RFC is unclear. All of the views are aimed at addressing what is affecting the content, and clearly, many editors (not just in my view), felt that the behavioral breaches are a large part of the problem. Also, your statement that the Views can't be rebutted is incorrect: anyone could have put up an alternate view, which other editors then could have endorsed, if they felt that Nancy and Xandar's contributions were not the content problem. For the second time now, I see Slim trying to neutrally monitor the RFC, and you bringing peculiar personal interpretations that aren't founded in policy: your statement above clearly deems my View on the RFC as a "personal attack"-- I'm becoming more and more concerned that you imagine personal attacks from some editors, but don't see them in others. This is one of the highest participations and most widely noticed RFCs I've ever encountered, and yet we're still seeing stonewalling about the results! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The policy, WP:NPA, is clear: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I recognize that there are behavioral issues at play here. Thus it may well be that comments substantiated by diffs are relevant. However, once again, this was not a User Conduct RfC. There was a neutrally worded statement that editors were asked to comment on. That should be the focus of any summary, IMO. Sunray (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second draft

[edit]
Background

The RfC was initiated on March 26, 2010 by NancyHeise, who disagreed with recent editing at Catholic Church that moved, removed, or rewrote several sections. Nancy presented three versions of the article for consideration: a "short" version (more or less the current version), which Nancy opposed; a "medium" version proposed by Nancy; and a "long" version, which had been on the page before the recent edits, or was a former version that Nancy had edited before initiating the RfC.

The RfC was the latest in a series of dispute-resolution efforts regarding this article. Earlier steps included Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church, Jan–Jul 2009 (deleted); Requests for comment/NancyHeise, Oct–Dec 2009; a Request for arbitration, declined on March 2, 2010; and a previous straw poll abandoned on March 11, 2010 after allegations of canvassing. A neutral description of the RfC was posted by SlimVirgin and Sunray on several wikiprojects, the article talk page, the village pump, the peer review talk page, the FAC talk page, the philosophy and religion RfC page, and the talk pages of the top forty editors to the article and its talk page who hadn't already commented. Xandar expressed the view that not enough editors had been notified. Forty-three editors commented between March 26 and April 9.

The RfC was closed on April 9, as agreed on April 2. Three editors—NancyHeise, Xandar, and Johnbod—asked that it be left open for longer. It was closed after two weeks, in part because comments have mostly come to a halt, and in part because NancyHeise had opened discussion on March 13 about organizing an RfC or second poll after the failure of the first one, so by the time it began on March 26 a degree of fatigue had set in among the editors of the article, and it was felt that closing after two weeks would minimize disruption.

Conclusions

The RfC showed a clear consensus in favour of working from the "short" version; various reasons were cited by twenty-seven editors, including that its length was more appropriate, its references had been checked, it was easier to add than remove material, and the "long" version had been disputed for years (see views by Sarek of Vulcan, Septentrionalis, and Stephen B Streater).

A majority identified Nancy and Xandar's behaviour as problematic and responsible for the content dispute, or described Nancy's editing as too favourable toward the church; see above and views by Hesperian, by Harmakheru, by SandyGeorgia, and by History 2007. Fifteen agreed that Nancy should take a voluntary one-month break from the article and talk page, or that a three-month topic ban should be imposed; see view by SandyGeorgia. Several said that the RfC was harmful or pointless. Ten agreed or partly agreed that, regardless of the specific content issues, the way the "short" version of the article had been inserted was uncollaborative, or that an article such as this could not be written using Wikipedia's bottom-up model; see views by History 2007 and by Ling.Nut. Eight agreed that the "short" version was inadequate, inaccurate, or a travesty; see views by NancyHeise and by Xandar.

Nancy announced just before the RfC closed that she had decided to take a break. Anyone wanting to comment after the RfC has closed should feel free to do so on the talk page.

Is this better as a basic structure—perhaps to be filled in with some figures and links? SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Brief, factual and hits the major points. Diffs would be useful, IMO. Sunray (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Links to the views added, and I've added some figures. I don't want to get into too much detail with figures in a general summary, because people were commenting more than once; although quite a few said the same things, they were often in different contexts and not making quite the same points, so we need to be careful how we sum up the figures. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, I think the long version wasn't the version from just before the changes. I think Nancy had gone back to the version after the last archived FAC (Nov 2008?) and then added some content to that Karanacs (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've tweaked that sentence. SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Participants

[edit]
  1. Xandar
  2. Johnbod
  3. NancyHeise
  4. Student7
  5. Marauder40
  6. EastmeetsWest
  7. Storm Rider
  8. Patsw
  9. SarekOfVulcan
  10. Huon
  11. Esoglou
  12. Richardshusr
  13. Mike Searson
  14. Ealdgyth
  15. Majoreditor
  16. Septentrionalis
  17. Hesperian
  18. Truthkeeper88
  19. Harmakheru
  20. Haldraper
  21. Afterwriting
  22. Dana boomer
  23. SandyGeorgia
  24. Hamiltonstone
  25. UberCryxic
  26. Karanacs
  27. Tony Fox
  28. Carlaude
  29. Kraftlos
  30. Jbmurray
  31. JzG
  32. BirgitteSB
  33. Leadwind
  34. Sayerslle
  35. Geometry guy
  36. Vercingetorix08
  37. OlEnglish
  38. Ling.Nut
  39. Peter jackson
  40. Aiken drum
  41. Stephen B Streater
  42. History2007
  43. Gimmetrow

Overall 47 people posted to the page. Those not included in the above: More things post a threaded response, JPBHarris was blocked as a bad hand account, Harej posted an RfC template, and I posted a couple of times.

SlimVirgin talk contribs 05:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Catholic_Church/process&oldid=1078970169"