User talk:Sunray/Archive20

Sustainability
Thanks for doing such a good job "minding" the Sustainability article. I have stayed tuned-in but somewhat preoccupied at the moment.  Granitethighs  21:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Sunray! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Corinne McLaughlin -

AfD nomination of Faith-based community
An article that you have been involved in editing, Faith-based community, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of ecovillages
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of ecovillages. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of ecovillages. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church
Dear Sunray, you were the mediator for our successful mediation regarding the name of the Church. You're mediation skills were highly praised by several participants including me.

Recently, a group of editors have decided to change the Catholic Church page significantly and held a one day straw poll that produced a mixed result with no clear consensus in favor of one version or the other.

In an effort to discover which version the wider Wikipedia community would like to see going forward on that page, several editors including myself have decided that a community wide 7 day straw poll or RFC is desirable. We are in need of a neutral administrator who will post invitations to various area of Wikipedia, (including Wikiproject Catholicism, Wikiproject Christianity, Wikipedia's main page, the FAC talk page, watchlists, "more is better", etc.) and administer either an RFC or my preference - a simple straw poll on the Catholic Church talk page - that will help us discover which version of the article is most preferred by the wider Wikipedia community.

We do not want this poll to be a considered a dispute resolution, merely a fun, interesting new thing to do to generate interest in the article and participation by the wider community to move it forward. user:SlimVirgin asked me to create the longer, more comprehensive version on a user sub page - it is here User:NancyHeise/Catholic Church. The shorter, more concise version is currently found on the Catholic Church page. Can you help us?  Nancy Heise    talk  03:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up Nancy, I will look into this. Sunray (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt you have any real interest in involving yourself further in this unfortunate article; but I will give you an excuse to decline. I deplore the late mediation, do not consider you uninvolved, and strongly oppose your further intervention. I trust that will do. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Pmanderson: I'm not sure why you have chosen to offer this opinion. The mediation and my involvement post mediation are two entirely different matters. I've explained the difference, which you seem to have missed. I would be willing to elucidate, but doubt it would make much difference as your views seem to be strongly held. I wish you well. Sunray (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sunray, although you say it has already been explained to Pmanderson, I'm not aware of your "post mediation" involvement; could you perhaps re-summarize that for others or point to a link of past information? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say this had been explained to Pmanderson. It was explained on the talk page (more than once), and elsewhere. There is no need whatsoever to sift through it again. In sum: I mediated a dispute. Once there was a consensus decision in that dispute, I presented it to the community. When the consensus decision was attacked, I explained it and defended the consensus. My actions were reviewed by uninvolved mediators who found no irregularities. End of story. Sunray (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you decide to get involved, Sunray, you should know that other admins are already on board, so Nancy's request to you seems to be shortcircuiting them. I'm not aware of the previous mediation or your particular skills, but his particular dispute involves battleground and tendentious POV editing-- territory with which SlimVirgin is very familiar because of her areas of editing.  If you review the talk pages of the various parties, you'll see she's handling things quite well.  Also, there are numerous fundamental errors and failures to understand How Wiki Works in Nancy's post to you (this is one of the ongoing problems with the article):  RFCs are for 30-days, not seven; they aren't done "for fun"; they don't often generate consensus at all in environments where different editors are aligned (see  Requests for comment/NancyHeise as an example), and there is absolutely nil chance an article RFC will ever run on the mainpage.  Three editors have explained this to Nancy, but SheDidntHearThat.  Here is a link to the ongoing ANI so you can catch up:  Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Catholic Church straw poll.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Sunray. I certainly feel that an RfC ought to be held for the CC article. I know nothing of you but would be happy for you to formulate the question and close the RfC.


 * I don't follow Sandy's logic. As I'm sure you know, there's no requirement for an admin to be involved at any stage in an RfC. This has nothing to do with short-circuiting, nothing to do with a pecking order, nothing to do with stepping on toes, and nothing to do with admins.  Nancy would be perfectly within her rights simply to open the RfC herself, but  because of the contentious nature of the article she's decided to seek the help of uninvolved editor. I hope that's you. If you choose not to accept, perhaps you could suggest an alternative. I'm sure everyone would agree that the place is replete with trustworthy, neutral editors.--MoreThings (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sunray, a breakdown of the Catholic Church page events and the reasons why we have decided on an RFC or straw poll can be found here . I hope you decide to help us. Your level-headedness and clear logic successfully helped us through the last crisis at mediation. Maybe you can do it again.  Nancy Heise    talk  02:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This "breakdown" includes numerous and ongoing factual errors, misunderstanding of How Wiki Works, and omissions-- just a few examples: the allegation that the article was ever stable, the characterization of the "successful" mediation over the naming dispute, Nancy's ongoing misunderstanding of dispute resolution and her characterization of the RFC/U on her (which found serious issues) and the role she alleges Karanacs should have played as an admin (wrong), her notion that Karanacs is acting as an admin or FAC delegate on the article, and more. Another troubling omission is that Nancy mentions a very small handful of editors who she says have now left the article (although I can see no good reason for anyone to leave, given that admins are now watching for civility and editwarring), but doesn't acknowledge a much larger number of experienced FA writers, who offered to help over the various FACs, and have given up and refused to engage the article for several years because of the long-standing battleground, furthed by the notion that Wiki articles are built by "vote" and canvassing.
 * One of the alarming parts of Nancy's IDidntHearThat are the ongoing false allegations with respect to charges aimed at, a highly respected editor who has behaved conscientously and with extreme patience throughout years of the battleground on the article. We should always take it seriously when a respected editor is subjected to long-term unfounded charges across multiple pages and fora. It is very troubling that no matter how many times Nancy is told, SheWillNotHear that Karanacs is not acting as an admin on the article, there has been no abuse, or that the issue that she took to WT:FAC (whether failed FACs represent any sort of concensus for the reviewed version) was a perfectly reasonable post to take to WT:FAC-- in fact, there is no more appropropriate place than WT:FAC to ask the question, where the answer was unanimous agreement with Karanacs by uninvolved editors. I am very troubled that Nancy continues to post these unfounded statements about Karanacs in multiple places, and would encourage admin action the next time Nancy makes unfounded claims of "abuse" (she's done that to me as well).
 * I believe other, previously uninvolved admins have now followed enough of the page history to have a sense of what the issues are: Sunray, I share SlimVirgin's concern that Nancy's posts here may be admin shopping, as well as presenting the issues in her own, not always balanced view. Slim has given suggestions to Nancy that will help avoid another escalation to ArbCom: the arbs encouraged admins to get involved, but several mentioned they would be glad to revisit if the behavioral issues aren't curbed.  I don't believe the involvement of previously involved parties-- when not all were happy with the outcome-- will help lessen the battleground mentality on that article. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Sunray. Sorry to add to the deluge, but I'd like to reiterate that Nancy is not asking you to do anything with your mop. No admin input is required for an RfC, and the claims of admin shopping are bizarre at best. Nancy is looking for a neutral editor. You're the first one she's approached.


 * There are two sides to every story. The fact that Slim and Sandy respond in this way to Nancy's attempt to find a neutral editor to set up a neutral RfC gives an insight into Nancy's side of the story.--MoreThings (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What has happened on the Catholic Church page is a disgrace. There has been a complete ignoring of consensus, and an edit-warring of a non-consensus slashing of the article by over 50% by a group supported by Sandy, Karanacs, Uber and others. This has, without any consensus whatsoever, reduced the vital sections on membership, organisation, Beliefs, and practices by over 2/3s. the cuts have been made to such an extent that the article is now non-comprehensive and barely capable of reaching a Class C level. These edits have been supported by what have been seen by many as highly dubious blocks on myself and Nancy for the week the changes were put in place. At the same time no action was taken against those breaching Wikipedia's core consensus rules by making the unagreed and undiscussed changes. The admin put in charge of the page before these events, left in disgust, and now admins on the page include Sarek of Vulcan who played a part in the blocks of myself and Nancy, while not sanctioning those openly ignoring rules, and making huge non-consensus changes. In such circumstances, the seeking of more impartial admins for the article is quite reasonable. As for Sandy's contention that the article was never stable, that is very easily disproved.   Xan  dar   03:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Xandar, I'm afraid you're mistaken on all counts, and I'm concerned about what are either straightforward misrepresentations, or simply a failure to understand how wiki works. There was one instance of edit warring in the last ten days over one sentence, and the editors themselves backed off and apologized: there has been no slashing of the article either by edit warring or without consensus. It has long been acknowledged, both at FAC and among many editors working on the article, that 12,000 words significantly passes WP:SIZE and summary style is needed. The article has been reduced from 12,000 words to about 7,000, which is still a very large article. Work has been orderly, collaborative and consensual, and by no means is it accurate for you to be saying the article is a stub or barely a C-class: it is clearly B-class, exactly as it was before and if work continues, it may be able to retain GA status, which the previous version would have lost because it clearly did not meet GA criteria. All of the editors working there now are experienced, collaborative editors: there have been no "broken rules". There has never been a stable, consensus version of that article; it was rejected at FAC in unprecedented number and scope, and has been under constant canvassing, edit warring, battleground, and mediation since then. The blocks were not dubious: they were reviewed at ANI and were based on a long history of canvassing, tendentious editing, edit warring, and creating a battleground on the article. I have asked you direct questions on talk about how to merge content you want to see in the article, twice, and you haven't answered. Instead of working on the article, you're expending time arguing over past history, which only furthers battleground. Also, content is never lost: it should be moved to daughter articles and summarized using summary style back to the main overview article. There was never an "admin put in charge" of the page, and multiple admins are now watching. There is an open ANI thread; this business of posting around looking for a supportive admin does look like admin shopping. An ongoing ANI subpage assures that uninvolved admins are watching: as of this point, at least five that I know of. If your concern is the article, could you please address the direct queries on talk so that others can continue collaboratively? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Concern
Hi Sunray, I'm concerned that Nancy may be admin-shopping here, so I thought I'd let you know that I asked her recently to step back from the page a little (I suggested a three-month break from it), and if she wanted to hold an RfC to wait until current work on the article had made more headway. Throughout my discussion with her, her only concern seemed to be to hold a poll, and indeed as soon as she was unblocked she jumped back into asking for that, thereby holding up article development again. I've left a note for her here expressing concern. My earlier requests to her, along with the reasons I'm concerned about her approach, can be seen here. If you're willing to get involved in this issue, perhaps you'd consider us working together on it. I'd certainly appreciate fresh eyes. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 13:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This again is a worrying symptom of the one-sidedness of view of certain admins. SlimVirgin asks nancy to "step aside". Why has she not stood out against the massive and damaging non-consesus changes made to the article? Why has she not been advising and warning any of the editors who started this confrontation to stop what they are doing and step aside? Nancy is not the one who has flouted all the Wikipedia rules on consensus, and making substantive changes to articles only by agreement. It is the appalling slashing of 60% of the article without discussion or agreement between 9th and 11th March that is the cause of this. Is that what SlimVirgin calls "article development"? Surely this action, labelled a "Hiroshima" of the article by one independent editor, is the sort of non-consensus article "development" that needs to be "held up"! Similarly it is very strange that it is only Nancy's "approach" (ie following WP rules) that Sv seems to be "concerned" with. Is not the "Ignore ALL Rules" article smashing and consensus-ignoring "approach" of UBER, Karanacs, Sandy and friends of "concern" to her? If it is, I have seen absolutely no evidence of it. WP Admins need to be impartial and to enforce the rules and polcies of Wikipedia. If their sympathies lie more with one side, they should withdraw.
 * On an RFC I consider it should have position statements, and a discussion area, and that both main position statements should appear before the area where people indicate their opinions.  Xan  dar   02:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Xandar, thanks for your note. I'm not about to make any judgement on "the one-sidedness of view of certain admins." Admins have to make difficult calls sometimes. I have no concerns with what I've seen of the process Slim has followed. She's made her call. I see no benefit to trying to challenge that. Slim has indicated her agreement with an RfC process. Nancy has been unblocked by another Admin. Would you be willing to now proceed on that basis? Sunray (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sunray, I think this post indicates you are agreeing to take on an RFC for the Catholic Church article? Thank you - I think it is the only way to find out which form of the article is most preferred by the Wider Wikipedia Community and end the current spat of arguments on the talk page. I would like to ask you also if you think I am an advocate for the Catholic Church. I have been accused of this by SandyGeorgia and SlimVirgin but I am not employed by the Church and I am not an advocate other than actually being a Catholic. Last fall, I submitted a news article about my personal religious journey to a Catholic themed news organization. That article was ultimately published. I was not paid for the article nor did I ask for payment. It was just something I did to share my story. Sandy points to this as evidence of my advocacy. Do you agree that I should be topic banned because of this? Should I take this question to Arbcom in your opinion? Here's a link to that article and all of my published articles in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel and Palm Beach Post. Some of these are related to my involvment with a local charity, other articles are about the schools or my knowledge about the sugar farms and the Everglades. Some have been about the local Church with regard to my perspective as a Catholic seeing certain issues that have faced the local Church. In all of these articles, I have not been paid nor asked to write them. Does this make me an advocate in Wikipedia's definition that would prohibit my involvement in developing the Catholic Church article? I thought I was doing Wikipedia a favor by lending my knowledge and time to the project.   Nancy Heise    talk  15:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Nancy. I'm not at all sure I should be the originator of an RfC. I think it might be better for you to initiate it. I would be willing to comment on the wording (of a draft version) and to find one or more editors who have been involved in the redraft of the article to also comment on the wording before it is initiated, if you like. I would be willing to oversee the discussion of the RfC.


 * As to your status with respect to the Catholic Church article: Some people have said that they think you have a strong POV regarding the Church. You have pointed out that you have not been paid for your writing about the church. That doesn't necessarily indicate neutrality. What is your own view of your ability to write from a neutral point of view?


 * With respect to the block. The decision of an administrator is not really questionable if policy was followed. I don't see any irregularity in applying policy. Have I missed something? Sunray (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sunray, I believe Sarek's block of me was a violation of policy. I did not canvass, I did not disrupt. I responded to accusations made on the ANI. Neither have I been in the top ten editors for the Catholic Church page for a long time. I was basically blocked because I dared to argue with SandyGeorgia and I think in this instance, she needed to be argued with.
 * If the blocking administrator believes that certain behavior is disruptive, it is their call. Moreover, one of the goals of a block according to the blocking policy is: "Encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." It would be difficult, to argue that Sarek was not applying this criterion, IMO. Sunray (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view is just presenting facts as they are presented by the scholars who include these facts in their scholarly works. I have resorted to using the actual words of these scholars in parentheses to allow the page to reflect the emphasis they themselves have placed on issues of importance to the Church. Yet by doing this, I am seen as a pov pusher. That's probably not helped by my recent article or the fact that I make no secret of my religious affiliation as others on the page have done. Haldraper has indicated to me that he is an atheist- on my talk page - and his edits seem to push that particular pov. I am not sure of the religious affiliation of the other editors on the page but it seems to me that if you put all of us in a pot and stir us up, you will end up with something approaching NPOV. That's why I have never accused anyone of being anti-Catholic. I have made some statements about article text sounding anti-Catholic but never made such a statement about an editor on the article talk page.
 * Fair enough. However, the way you are continuing to push your point about this particular issue seems to run pretty close to the line. Would you be willing to drop this now and move on? Sunray (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your offer to help write a neutral text for the RFC. I will put this together later today and post it on your talk page here. Thanks for helping.  Nancy Heise    talk  18:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't rewrite history, Nancy. While you generally don't name names, you always make it very clear who you are talking about calling Harmekheru "viciously anti-Catholic" . Karanacs (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is a "stir the pot" comment Karanacs, completely unhelpful. The comment about Harmakheru was made on my own talk page in response to your question. The other was made on the FAC two years ago. As I have indicated to Sunray, I have not called anyone anti-Catholic on the Catholic Church talk page. Actually, I have not called anyone any names at all even though I am often the object of others name calling which always goes unchecked by any admin. I think it would help the page improve dramatically if some balanced effort on the part of participating admins to promote civility ensued beginning right now.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nancy and Karanacs: It would be helpful if you commented on issues, rather than the person. Statements such as "don't rewrite history" and "a stir the pot comment" may be couched in neutral sounding language, but are actually comments about the person, IMO. I regard these as personal attacks and this a breach of civility.  Would you both be willing to stick to issues, and avoid making observations about each other's behavior? Sunray (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that if there is no sudden return to a position of policy-following and real compromise by the Uber/Karanacs group on this article, this is going to have to go to RFC. We have attempted to offer compromises to dealing with the length issue, but none has been taken up so far. In my view the question is simply whether there is consensus for the Uber/Karanacs version to replace the Longstanding text or not? That's a simple question that pulls together both the changes made and the manner in which they have been made - in an undiscussed mass transformation of the entire article. There could then be longer principal position statements, explaining why we oppose or support.  Xan  dar   20:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right Sunray. Please stay with us, we need your help and your comments like this to get back on track. You know I respect your mediation skills very much. I was really amazed at how you were able to get us through the mediation. I think you will be able to get us through this as well. If you ever need a written reference from me when you decide to open your own arbitration business, just shoot me an email. (not kidding)  Nancy Heise    talk  00:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your note
Hi Sunray, I'd be very happy to have your help, especially as you know the background, and please proceed as you see fit. I won't interpret it as treading on what I'm doing at all. I made the mistake yesterday of getting involved in protracted debate about it, so a fresh pair of admin eyes is particularly welcome now. And there's no rush because the dispute sadly doesn't look as though it's going away. :) SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 11:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggested wording to initiate the Catholic Church RFC
"Two versions of the Catholic Church article have been proposed to serve as a basis for further article improvements. One version is shown here (show Uber's version) and the other is shown here (show Nancy's version). Please indicate which version you prefer and why. Thanks."  Nancy Heise    talk  00:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this wording is neutral, but I don't think it provides enough information for us to get good feedback out of it. I think it might be wise to have at least a brief explanation of the benefits - and problems - with each version, for those who haven't followed the reams of discussion, and possibly a list of questions we would like answers to - length, citation density, POV, structure, etc. Karanacs (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly opposed to any discussion of benefits and problems. If this ridiculous time-wasting RfC goes ahead, my one and only comment will be to note that both versions are crap, and that good faith efforts at improving the article are being disrupted and prevented by a fixation on a false dichotomy between them. The notion that it is necessary to choose between two versions is FALSE. Discussing "benefits and problems" buys into that false notion and reinforces it. Hesperian 01:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hesperian, a large gathering of editors is increasingly voicing their discontent with the present version of the article and how it was installed. An RFC is the only way out of the dispute.
 * Karanacs, I think that the information you want to include will make the wording become non-neutral and those issues will be expanded upon by the participants anyway. Why not let the participants spell out those issues in their responses? You are going to participate aren't you? What may concern you right now may not be what concerns others. I think it is improper to dictate to others what they should or should not be concerned about in the opening sentence. I am certainly going to cover my concerns in my response, you do the same.  Nancy Heise    talk  01:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking along the lines of Date_formatting_and_linking_poll or Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. Both are more structured formats and might help us to better interpret the results. Karanacs (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Karanacs, I like the form of Elizabeth II's RFC and that is what I had in mind when I proposed the neutral wording above as an opening statement. If you look at that RFC, it begins with a simple one sentence question. It then provides the statements for and against. I would like to do this for our RFC are you in agreement with this? Can we begin?  Nancy Heise    talk  00:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nancy, how could you respond to Karanacs suggestion (to provide background/context) so that both K and your concerns are met? Sunray (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I recommend adding Johnbod's suggested text to clarify a bit more what we are looking for.  If we do that and structure this like the Elizabeth naming RfC, where different users can make statements that can be endorsed or discussed, then I think it will work slightly better than a free-for-all of comments. Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with this suggestion. Can we begin?  Nancy Heise    talk  14:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod's proposed addition
[Cross-posted from NancyHeise's talk page].

Nancy, belated reply: Not really. I would like something added to the effect that "there is a clear understanding that both versions have serious flaws, and whichever version is proceeded with as the basis for improvement, nothing in that version should be regarded as established "by consensus""." In effect we need to reset the "established by consensus" clock to zero, painful though it may be. That is the only way your RFC can poossibly suceeed, & even then I think it is very long shot.  Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a good idea. Karanacs thinks so too. Let's incorporate this into the RFC.  Nancy Heise    talk  14:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: Discussion has been moved to RfC talk page here Sunray (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC alerts
Sunray, I know we are allowed to post a notice on the related Wikiprojects regarding these types of issues like RFC but I was wondering about alerting all those editors who have worked on the Catholic Church page for the past two years as well including all those who voted in the last FAC. These editors have a lot of knowledge and have spent some time examining the article and could offer a decent opinion about the issue. I have been accused of canvassing in the past for asking people to come to the page and offer their opinions about certain issues even though my requests pinged editors I knew would not support my preferred position. WP:canvassing says this "Ideally, an announcement at a centralized page will obviate any need for friendly notices to individual editors, but it is generally acceptable to contact individual editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the dispute, or perhaps a Wikipedian known for expertise in a related field and who has shown interest in participating in related discussions. It is also acceptable to contact any editors who have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed, but not editors who have asked you to stop." I would like to contact all of these editors to let them know about the RFC but I don't want to get accused of canvassing again. What is your opinion?  Nancy Heise    talk  08:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sunray, just so you know, I disagree with notifying any individual users. We can add this to the RfC list, put notes on the Wikiproject talk pages, and perhaps leave a note at the Village pump or at WT:FAC. If we are going to notify individual editors, I want to know, in advance, who those are and how they qualify under "having substantively edited or discussed an article related to the dispute".  Just appearing to !vote in straw polls, to me, isn't substantively discussing anything. Karanacs (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest not notifying any individuals. It can be posted on the RfC page, the Catholic Church talk page, any relevant wikiprojects, and on the village pump. I'd also suggest this not be done by Nancy to prevent any of the past problems. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 15:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Past problems like this one here just yesterday: Nancy scouring the depths of Wikipedia to notify an anon who had never edited before about the upcoming RFC. These are the kinds of [actions] that were all too common throughout the previous FACs and straw polls. You are virtually guaranteed this RFC will be no different, which is why (partly) I announced in the talk page that I am boycotting it. UBER  ( talk ) 15:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your observation is noted. I've removed some language. I am unwilling to participate if there is going to be any canvassing. Sunray (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem, Sunray, is the same as what has occurred in every discussion, RFC, FAC, mediation, arb case, or anything related to the CC page: Nancy and Xandar don't seem to have a full (or even partial) understanding of Wiki policies, guidelines and procedures, and canvassing in one form or another has affected everything done on that page for a least the two years since I first became aware of its problems at FAC. Every FAC had to be held open abnormally long, in spite of serious and actionable Opposes to issues that have never been resolved in the article, because so many Supports came in from a core group of editors, who didn't seem well apprised of WP:WIAFA (although in some of the later FACs, some of the Supports were from neutral and experienced FAC reviewers).  There is a core group of editors who always "vote" (overlooking policy) to back the Nancy/Xandar version-- in spite of long-standing, serious, identified deficiencies in core policies-- and these supports consistently stall any progress on the page.  Unfortunately, I see that Nancy is now making statements that if the RFC doesn't resolve the page to her satisfaction, she will next take it to ArbCom: it doesn't seem that she is aware that ArbCom doesn't do content disputes, and that it is the ongoing failure to understand Wiki policies that leads to behavioral issues affecting the article now for several years.  If Nancy structures an RFC in such a way that there will be no reasonable outcome, or outcome that will satisfy her, there will still be nothing for ArbCom to deal with, except yet another split along the lines we've historically seen. They've already tossed it back to admins once, asking that admins take action to deal with the behavioral issues, and that has helped to some extent, as it allowed the page to at least stabilize to a version that is somewhat more compliant with policy, albeit still lacking in some other ways.  I am dismayed that no progress has been made on the core issues for as long as this has been going on, and doubt that an RFC will resolve the behavioral issues, or the failure to understand that no amount of "voting" can permit a POV, poorly cited, overcited, over long article to remain in the face of serious opposition to same.  I hope you have some ideas for a way forward, but we have never seen an issue involving the CC that didn't have canvassing of one form or another (and I have strong indications same occurs off Wiki).  We haven't seemed to be able to shake this notion that Wiki is a "vote", or to instill an idea of neutral, collaborative, consensus building, and those are behavioral, not content, issues. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your views, Sandy. I read your main concern as being the way in which some FACs have been executed. Would you be able to provide an example or two? As to participants' understanding of Wiki policies and guidelines, I have not observed any problems in that regard. I have seen some examples of canvassing from both sides of issues related to the CC pages. However there are many knowledgeable editors who will be watching if we do proceed with an RfC. I've asked for the proponents to agree on a neutrally worded question. An RfC should be time-limited and the results accepted as decisive. If there are content disputes, formal mediation would be the only further avenue for dispute resolution. As you correctly point out ArbCom does not adjudicate content disputes. Sunray (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would add that since certain editors have been driven away from the Catholic Church page by the recent events there, all recent contributors should be notified personally - as happened in the ongoing Elizabeth II RFC. The desire of some people to limit participation is not, in my belief, in line with WP ethos.  Xan  dar   00:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to suggest some fair and equitable groundrules for notification, Xandar? Sunray (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sunray, there have been literally dozens of editors who have been involved in the Catholic Church article creation over the past two years. My intent was to go through both the article talk page and the last FAC and Peer Review and post an invitation to these editors to come offer their opinion of the question we ask in this RFC. By notifying all we can not in any way be accused of canvassing because we do not really know what these editors would prefer. I think the only way to conduct the RFC fairly is to leave the messages at the various Wikprojects, Villiage pump, etc but also to notify all editors involved in the article since the last peer review. The last FAC for this article was created by a large number of users who represented both Catholics, Protestants, and those with no religious affiliation. I listed them in the Last FAC in an effort to let FAC reviewers know that it was a combined effort, one that I thought had produced the most neutral point of view article that could possibly be achieved. I think an RFC that did not notify the individual creators of the article would be unfair since many of them do not necessarily visit the Villiag pump (I don't) or scan RFC or FAC talk (I don't scan these either).  Nancy Heise    talk  14:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember that the canvassing guidelines state that only people who have been substantively involved in discussions should be notified. Most of these editors that you refer to have not been substantively involved in either discussion or article modification in a very long time; those who have appeared on the talk page in the recent past have generally only done so when prompted by a message from you or Xandar.  That means they are only providing an opinion because they have been specifically asked - they have been canvassed.  The editors who have been involved in recent substantive discussions and who have declared their intent to leave the page already know that an RfC is being prepared (because you already left messages on some of their talk pages, including that IP!); if they are interested in participating in the RfC, then they should watch for it to be coming - if they aren't watching, they obviously aren't interested. Wikiproject notifications should catch a lot of those with a casual interest in this particular topic, and that should be enough. These are normal guidelines for an RfC - note that I did not notify all the editors who have ever worked with you about the RfC that I filed, and that a neutral RfC observer told me not to publicize that RfC on the Catholic Church talk page, even though that was the nexus of the dispute.  There are strict rules for RfCs to ensure that there is not canvassing or vote-stacking, and if you are trying to determine consensus we need to follow those. Karanacs (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I will provide a list of editors who I feel have been substantively involved and need to receive an individual ping to be fairly involved in the discussion. One of the editors I feel has been substantively involved said they had not been involved in the page because they trusted my efforts and did not feel their presence was needed. Because of this I feel that there are many editors who would be very alarmed at what has taken place on the page and may want to, in all fairness, receive a notice and be involved. This is not canvassing and the policy does not specify how long ago a person's invovlement it do be considered to have substantive involvement. I do not think that you can arbitrarily decide that for all of us especially when I feel differently. If I am not allowed to contact all of these people maybe we should just take it to arbcom right now and ask them to clarify the canvassing policy.  Nancy Heise    talk  16:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am traveling and haven't had time to keep up with this, but have noticed 1) that Nancy continues to make unfounded statements across multiple pages, and 2) the problem with Nancy's proposal to notify certain editors and statements about the article and the various FACs and other dispute resolution fora that have been tried is that she fails to acknowledge the substantial number of experienced neutral editors who gave up in disgust after the four (five) FACs and other means tried, and have vowed to never visit the page again. Those editors spoke in those FACs, in the RFC on Nancy, at ArbCom, at article talk, on Nancy's talk-- all endorsing a breadth and depth of POV and sourcing issues in the article that have never been addressed, and they gave up in the face of the intransigent ownership and battleground.  If we start notifying individual editors, where does it stop?  Do we have to go back through five FACs, talk pages, other fora and locate all of those editors, too?  I am against any sort of individual notifications, as the canvassing and the idea of "pinging" sympathetic editors in to "vote" is what has caused the battleground, stalled progress, and what needs to stop.  Unfortunately, Nancy has not shown an ability to recognize all editors who have left the article, and any "pinging" she does tends to be one-sided.  I again state that the five CC FACs have been the most combative I have overseen in my tenure at FAC, largely because of this notion of "pinging" editors in to "vote" in favor of the article, and if Nancy is again allowed to ping "voters" in, the battleground without clear consensus will only continue.  It is very frustrating to continue trying to get Nancy to understand that ArbCom does not adjudicate content disputes.  They acknowledged in the last arb case the behavioral issues, but felt they weren't yet ripe for an arb case, and asked that admins step in.  Admins are doing that, yet we see accusations of unfair adminning on Nancy's talk page.  The troubling aspects that have caused the stall in this article continue: I hope there will be no "pinging" for "votes" allowed in an RFC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Propose moving of discussion
There seems to be some agreement that an RfC might be an acceptable way to go for the CC article. SlimVirgin has proposed that if and RfC is initiated it should have its own page (i.e., Requests for comment/Catholic Church), rather than cluttering up the article talk page. I'm wondering, though whether this discussion should now move to a subpage of the article talk page, until the wording and process are agreed upon. Comments? Sunray (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sunray, these types of decisions are the kind that I had hoped you would make yourself as the arbitrator (correct term?) of our RFC. I trust you to be a neutral and well meaning person and I will respect your decisions. It is too much to have a discussion about every minute aspect of the RFC, this is one of those minute aspects that I think you should just decide yourself and let us know.  Nancy Heise    talk  14:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nancy, you're the one who wants the RfC, so you have to be the one to decide the format and initiate it. I suggest you start writing it on Requests for comment/Catholic Church, and move discussions about it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Catholic Church. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 16:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC page
Sunray, I've created a suggested structure at Requests for comment/Catholic Church in case Nancy wants to use it. It might make sense to use Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Catholic Church for centralized discussion about setting it up. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 16:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for setting that up Slim, I've copied the discussion on proposed wording and will also move the discussion on "RfC Alerts" to the RfC talk page here. Sunray (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that. At some point you and I will need to discuss when it's officially open i.e. whether it's open after the statement of dispute is posted, or whether we wait until the response is posted too; and then where precisely to post it. I suggest no individual talk pages, because as soon as we ping one we open a can of worms regarding which others to ping. I also suggest we ask everyone involved not to publicize it, but to leave it to us. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 17:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed some of the parts that could be construed as blatant personal attacks. You have my apology for those comments. My intention was to sternly instruct, not to insult. UBER  ( talk ) 01:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sunray (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Significant Problems with the Catholic Church RFC
1. I had to add the RFC template to the page, because it wasn't properly set up so that this issue showed on the WP:RFC page.

2. The couple of tiny notices put out by SlimVirgin on a couple of project pages are A) Too small to be noticed, and B) State NOTHING about the importance of the dispute. Partly because of the above two errors, we are getting virtually no participation on the page up until now.

3. When I added two short and highly neutral posts to the notices put up by SV, to draw more attention to them here and here, Slim Virgin improperly removed them, and then accused me of "canvassing" on my talk page! This is outrageous.

4. I specifically said, when the RFC was being discussed above that all voters in the previous poll should be notified of the RFC. This was because a number of participants had left the page since the UBER coup attempt, and would not see a notification posted there. Yet these people have not so far been informed - as is common and proper Wikipedia practice.

These changes and omissions all add up toward under publicising and even concealing the RFC (which many on the page, including Slim Virgin, were clearly against,) from potentially interested parties. Nancy and I made clear above that we want an RFC with wide community involvement on the important changes made to the article without consensus. It is therefore important to the validity of this exercise that interference with properly publicising the RFC ceases. I would therefore also ask that my posts are restored to the notifications posted, and that the voters in the past straw poll (at the very least) are all informed of the new RFC  Xan  dar   10:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just want to say that I agree with Xandar here. One of the comments on the RFC discussion page (here ) is from an editor who says there is a bot that enables us to contact every editor who has touched the page in the past two years. Why are we not using that bot? We need more input, not less if we want to know what the wider wikipedia community thinks. As of now, the people responding to the RFC have had recent and limited activity on the page and those who have had more have not yet responded. Thanks.  Nancy Heise    talk  13:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sunray, this editor provides us with evidence that the notifications are inadequate. See . Can we please notify, by using the suggested bot, all those who have worked on the page over the past two years?  Nancy Heise    talk  14:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reading the concerns expressed by Xandar, I am unclear as to why we launched the RfC so fast. I was trying hard to encourage folks to agree on the wording and notification process before we launched. Now that we are into it, it is harder to change. However, if you wish to make a case for expanding the notification, please do so on the RfC talk page. I suggest that you make your proposal brief and to the point. Sunray (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was surprised at the speedy launching of the RFC - note my comment being at the bottom. However we need to ensure that it is well and adequately publicised.  Xan  dar   20:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Could I ask, please, that discussions about this take place on the RfC talk page? Otherwise we have forest fires breaking out, and it isn't fair to expect people to watch all these pages for developments. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 20:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've commented on this on the RfC talk page. Sunray (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI
I'm concerned that the tagging could skew the RfC and wanted to make sure that this was brought to your attention. I've left the same message with SlimVirgin. Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've commented about this on the article talk page. Sunray (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please explain
... your peculiar interpretation of personal attacks, based on policy, please, thank you. Further, so I can understand your particular interpretation, please put your response in the context of why you left this on Nancy's talk, while removing my response to it. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that's more equitable and reasonable, and will give [editors] a better model of the kinds of behaviors [they] need to stop. Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I originally left Nancy's statement there as I intended upon using it as an example of the kind of language that is not helpful. But you are quite right, it was a personal attack. Sunray (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Many thanks, Sunray, that's much appreciated! But we did it together, so I have to thank you for your guidance throughout the whole thing. It was a good result in the end, I think, though I can see it was a hard decision for Nancy. I do honestly believe it was in her own interests, particularly having been in situations myself where I became too involved with an article. And I have to say that it was very nice working with you. :) SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 06:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)