User talk:FimusTauri/RfCwO

At present, the suggested RfCwO is only a collection of ideas that I feel may be able to work. All constructive comments are welcome. Disruptive and unhelpful comments will be removed.


 * I'll have a detailed look at this later, but at first glance it doesn't seem to address the issue of enforcement. That is, if I understand right, it simply can be used if both/all sides agree. Correct me if I'm wrong. Peter jackson (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Essentially, it is initiated as a voluntary process, but once begun, the involved parties are then forced to abide by the process results. I must stress the point that this idea needs work and I welcome any ideas that could improve it. I would hope that, with help, this could eventually be worked into something that can be put forward to the community.--FimusTauri (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Having thought a bit further, I see a potential problem with the voluntary bit. In the dispute over "myth" I can envisage the other side simply refusing to take part, which would simply stall the process again. It would be better if that were removed. Assuming the dispute matches the criteria for opening a case, then each side is given opportunity to present a case; if one side refuses to participate then they will simply damage their own case. Done this way, it will be necessary to ensure the criteria for opening the case are strictly observed.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have taken out the voluntary bit.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, that's the fundamental point I'm concerned about. We all know there are plenty of dishonest propagandists who ignore or twist the rules as much as they can get away with to push their POV. We can't name names of course because of AGF, but that's no reason to pretend they're not there. In some articles there are enough honest editors to deal with them. In others they cancel each other out. But there are still plenty of articles where WP currently has no effective way of stopping them censoring and falsifying it.


 * Now how do you suggest getting wider response? Currently, my experience of both placing and responding to RfCs is that hardly anyone responds. Your remarks about lack of interest suggest you might still accept that situation. You might also like to consider what's meant by the situation before the dispute in practice. In some cases this might mean deleting the article altogether. Peter jackson (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully understand what you mean in your first point; AGF gets pushed to its limit at times.
 * I am not sure how to get a better response - I have had similar experience with RfCs. I am hoping that, since this would have oversight, it would be seen as more "serious" than an ordinary RfC, which would bring some additional comment. But thought will need to go into this to see how best to advertise it.
 * The "lack of interest" idea was literally just an idea. The thrust of this 'proposal' is that, by causing the "loudmouths" (such as me!) to shut up after presenting their case, it would be easier for other parties to discuss the salient points of the issue. In my experience, important points get "lost" in the debate as one side or the other will (sometimes deliberately) drown them out with side-issues. This is why the role of overseer is crucial. The overseer would be required to look out for people doing this and rein them in. In that environment a consensus has a better chance. However, we must have a mechanism by which resolution can be achieved without consensus (in a similar way to ArbCom). Hence, the idea would require an "oversight committee" (to be dubbed "OverCom", no doubt) that would make a "final resort" decision. I suspect that this would usually be in favour of one side or the other, but they should perhaps have the option of saying "neither is right" (or both, to some extent).
 * Just had a thought that may be worth considering. It might be a good idea to set up a wikiproject dedicated to this, with a view to encouraging people who join to take part in the debates. Clearly, this would improve the numbers of "neutrals".--FimusTauri (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have re-jigged the page to hopefully provide more clarity.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds generally promising. Peter jackson (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Couple of comments:


 * 1) I don't think there should be an absolute ban on further participation by involved parties. I suggest if they think they've something new to say they should post it to the overseer, who can decide whether it should go to the main discussion.
 * 2) Are you inviting comments from the arbitrator you mentioned as saying there's a hole?

Peter jackson (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Makes sense not to have an absolute ban. I agree that any further comment should be posted to the overseer, who will decide whether the comment is valid or needs editing.
 * Comments are invited from anyone, but the arbitrators comments would be specially interesting.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But where have you actually posted invitations? It's fine for you to wait until you think it's ready. I was simply reminding you of the point, not having any idea what you'd already done or planned as regards publicity. Peter jackson (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)