User talk:PantherLeapord/Archives/2013/September

FOUR
Thanks for requesting my feedback. As with the prior RFC, it is difficult for someone who has been uninvolved to fully understand all the issues and present the most useful questions. Do you want me to a.) respond to problems with the RFC? b.) suggest further issue c.) try to refine it d.) other?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * a and b if you can please. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 22:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I up for a topic ban now. Last I looked that was neutral although I think I am going to be interaction banned.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * At this stage the topic ban discussion could go either way (Or just no consensus), but the I-ban is not between us so you can still provide feedback if that passes. I just want to make sure that we both agree with as much as possible before the discussions are closed. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 22:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I expect the topic ban to be NC (plus time served), but who knows.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't even understand some of the RFC topics as you wrote them and I am the person most aware of the issues. E.g., issue 1 juxtapposes the nominations area and someone wantonly listing articles. That is not what the issue is. The way it is written, it is so confusing it sounds like someone told you to write something on a subject you don't understand. Even with use of the nominations area, someone could wildly list articles without regard for merits. See below. Active use of the nominations area does not oppose willy nilly director, it opposes passive nominations by category. Basically, since you are no more familiar with the issues than the previous RFC creator, you are likely to waste another month of debate without resolving anything if you don't revise your issues. You need to learn what this issues are so that we don't waste another whole month.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * starting my list
 * 1) Presentation: I think there should be an introduction that says. Something like this RFC is intended for the projects and editors affected by the mission and administration of this award. This includes WP:FA, WP:FAC, WP:GA, WP:WGA, WP:GAC, WP:DYK, WP:CREATE and the 168 editors who have received the award. You may also be here because you want to lend an objective eye toward a controversial issue and your input is sought as well.
 * 2) (say what FOUR is) You may want to state that the project serves as encouragement for people who have a strong interest in and/or a deep understanding of redlinked topics to advance them to a very high level of quality. There should be a statement that FOUR has been awarded as recognition of editorial activity that has supported a current WP:FA by strong editorial involvement in all stages of the development of a FA. I.e., it recognizes that an editor helped 1.) create it as an encyclopedic topic, 2.) expand it to the point where it was recognized for having interesting content (DYK), 3.) expand it to the point where it was comprehensive (GA), 4.) expand and refine it the point where it upheld WP style guidelines and policy at the highest level (FA).
 * 3) Then there should be a statement that the award has existed since early 2009 as an editorial merit- and criteria-based one-shot peer reviewed award. I.e., selection has been based on a set of criteria that are reviewed by a volunteer for a final decision. The criteria leave little room to "fix" a candidate and are reviewed as a one-shot application. There has been much discussion as to whether FOUR should go forward as a barnstar type award given by and to any individual editor who the award is relevant to or whether it should continue as a merit- and criteria-based award.
 * 4) There should be a statement that recently, highly-contentious discussion has revolved around the criteria. Specifically, the first stage of the FOUR which is the creation stage has been hotly contested. All 800+ articles have been evaluated officially evaluated (FAs that are former DYKs and GAs) and a total of about 2000 articles have been evaluated based on the creation stage meaning an editor was involved before the article had encyclopedic content. I.e., those in support of the historic criteria (namely TonyTheTiger, who has reviewed about 2000 articles based on this criteria) says changing this criteria would change the award and all articles would need to be reviewed because another criteria is essentially another award. Others have stated that although no articles have used any other criteria in the past, FOUR should be awarded based on creation being determined by when an article appears in mainspace (if it was created in userspace or a sandbox) with a 24 hour window.
 * 5) Active or passive nominations. (strongly suggest rewording current presentation because the role of a director is under strong challenge). Currently all articles that appear in Category:Possible Wikipedia four award articles, which is a category populated based on being a current WP:FA, former WP:DYK, and former WP:GA according to T:AH, are considered nominated and moved to either Category:Wikipedia four award articles or Category:Wikipedia articles rejected for Four awards. I.E., every article that gets promoted to FA with the proper history is evaluated. Many of you likely received a FOUR without ever nominating an article due to the passive nomination based on T:AH. The vast majority (likely well over 90%) of all current FOURs have been awarded without an active nomination. The project does have a nomination section that predated the creation of the category. Formerly, nominations had to be sought by an active nominator. Should the awards be limited to those actively sought or continue with those passively identified as candidates.
 * 6) Currently FOUR has a Four Award/Records, which is a historical record of the project. Currently, four editors have withdrawn some of their articles from the historical listing. This has also been contentious. There has been a lot of drama about this. Essentially, once I refused to acknowledge a candidate based on different criteria than the other 2000 candidates were evaluated against, several editors wanted to disassociate from the project. Edit warring began. The issue that remains is whether an author should be allowed to remove all information of his article from the history or whether the article should remain with the editors name replaced by [placeholder].
 * 7) Currently, FOUR has a stated policy of being open to collaborations although no collaborative award has been recognized. The openness to collaboration is dependent on the definition of the creation phase of the article since all other phases of the article are clearly open to collaboration. Currently, by defining the creation phase as all those involved prior to the first encyclopedic content (readable prose that defines an encyclopedic topic) allows multiple users to contribute to an article prior to it having readable prose (creating a redirect, adding infoboxes, section headings, categories, etc.). The proposed alternate definition of those involved prior to it first appearing in the mainspace with a 24-hour window also allows collaborative creation. Some argue that only one person can create an article and that is either the person who makes the first edit or the person who makes the first edit with encyclopedic content. Should FOUR allow collaboration?


 * Tony, you do realise that the most recent withdrew after you called him racist, right? That's in no way related to how Ian and Nick were treated. I withdrew not because of how they were treated per se, but because your reaction and instant assumption of bad faith showed that FOUR had become your personal fifedom and was flying in the face of consensus. When someone with (13?) such awards decides "I don't want my name associated with this", generally that's an indication that there's a problem. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how your withdrawal is different from Ian's and Nicks. They were all because I refused to evaluate their article with a different criteria from the other 2000 articles that I had evaluated. You call this refusal a fifedom issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They were all because you refused to listen to consensus, a policy, and instead treated every new opinion with a heaping dose of bad faith with a side of personal attacks. Had you, you know, listened and acknowledged that either a) there should have been no collaborations or b) the wording of the FAQ was unclear, the issue would have been defused immediately. Once you get to the point where spamming personal attacks in an RFC notification seems like a good idea, then calling a random editor who disagrees with you racist, then calling an admin the same on ANI (neither times offering any proof), you've left "constructive disagreement", flown past "debate club", "Congress", and "husband and wife arguing", and reached "MAD". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Panther, I think the question of the director should go first. The current wording of question one ("should it be the way it is now with the director listing articles as they see fit?") presupposes the existence of a director. Question 1.5 is too vague, needs to be more direct (and if its a criteria change, I still strongly suggest dealing with the leadership issue). What's with the term "listed"? :If I were to write my own RFC, it would probably be based around
 * 1. Should WP:FOUR be run by one or more directors?
 * 1.1. If yes, should WP:FOUR also be run in consideration of a consensus established on the talk page?
 * 2. Should all articles that meet the criteria be listed, or can articles not be included despite meeting the criteria?
 * 2.2. If articles may not be included, should WP:FOUR be run on an opt-in (nomination basis) or opt-out (awarded writer asks for award to be withdrawn) basis.
 * 3. Should collaborations be recognised by WP:FOUR?
 * 3.3. If yes, how should the appropriateness of an award for a collaboration be determined?
 * Something like that. It's not perfect, but... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Part of the reason the last RFC was withdrawn I believe was that it devolved into a vote about something that was never discussed or even propounded for discussion. Now, you are again trying to insist on voting about the organization of the project without describing different parts of the role. Voting on a director should not come before understanding the role and the issues related to it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony. Reread Khazar's withdrawal statement. That's not how it was, and you know it. Now, some of us are trying to get FOUR out of the hole you dug for it with your sticks, stones, and hardened heart, so please either work constructively with accurate facts or make like Tipu's Tiger and stand very very still. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Panther, I don't think asking Tony for feedback is likely to be productive (see the implicit "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" above). The replies to my attempts to be constructive and help you with the RFC make this perfectly clear.
 * Tony, I never said there would not be an introduction. You are putting words in my mouth. Stop, now. That's not going to get any work done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

 * Sorry if you found my above posts either offensive or disruptive. I hope we can work out a reasonable solution to issues at WP:FOUR, and overall bring the award to a consensus. It's patently clear that numerous editors (including myself, at one time) find it beneficial, and I would hate to have this 2-month debate ruining things.
 * If you do not mind, I may suggest further revisions to the RFC. As you're still plotting out the questions to ask (and I agree, multiple RFCs may be for the best) I have no further suggestions just yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Both you AND Tony need to SERIOUSLY work on your interactions with the other! Both of you are free to suggest changes to the RfC as I work on it but if discussions turn into mud-slinging then they will be shut down without hesitation. I do NOT need to be pinged for arguments here! PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 11:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ... Right. And if one user or the other includes information which another believes to be inaccurate (or can show to be inaccurate) do you consider that "mudslinging"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No; that is debate. Mudslinging is when you assume bad faith of another person with remarks such as "I don't think asking Tony for feedback is likely to be productive (see the implicit "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" above)". PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 11:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So, in other words, you disagree with the assessment and have a different reading of his comments. Fair enough. I may have been a little harsh, though I should hope that it was not at the same level as some of (both editors) earlier arguments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comments here
Hi PantherLeapord, I am not sure we have met, but I am Ben, more commonly known on Wikipedia as Go Phightins!. I am not going to revert them, but I am not sure your comments on TonyTheTiger's talk page really are helpful, particularly in defusing what is a very charged situation. I would suggest you strike them as such. In situations like these, one should consider whether their comments are helpful in resolving the dispute prior to hitting save page. Maybe you did and thought that they were helpful, in that case we will have to agree to disagree on the matter. I am more than happy to discuss if you wish. Thanks, and happy editing. --  Go  Phightins  !  22:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day Ben, more commonly known on Wikipedia as Go Phightins!! As you can see - on review of my post I self-reverted. I will be sure to take more care with posting on talk pages in the future. Thanks for directly raising your concern here! PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 22:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - self-reflection does us all good from time to time, and for no one more than me :-) Happy editing!  Go  Phightins  !  22:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that this thread provides a good example of how to properly handle problems raised... PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 22:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I try.  Go   Phightins  !  00:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Armenians in Cyprus". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 11:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Could I ask you to tone it down?
While I appreciate the sentiment, the kind of comment you made at WP:AN works against us and allows people to claim that this is being done out of anger, not reason. Could I get you to edit your comment a bit?&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In a way my comment is in anger about their rather stupid response to the strongest community consensus EVER formed on this wiki AFAIK. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 02:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It definitely needs to be toned down, please. WP:CIV is policy, and dealing with this situation will take extreme decorum on our part to make any change stick. Please be considerate of other editors, especially those you disagree with. I'd hate to see you get blocked for agreeing with implementing the RFC results because of your tone. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the concern but quite frankly I feel that the WMF has a rather severe WP:IDHT problem on this issue which is why we are here now. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 02:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have redacted the P-word. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 02:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)