User talk:Taiwan boi/Esoglou RFC

Scope of the RFC
There are two kinds of RFCs: content RFCs and user RFCs. Since this would be a RFC on a user, the focus of the RFC is on Esoglou's behavior and the scope of the RFC should not be limited to his edits to a particular article or interactions with a particular editor. That is, Taiwan boi doesn't "own" this RFC and does not have the right to limit the scope to interactions with him nor to edits to a specific article such as Immersion baptism. This opens the door to discussion of other edits such as LoveMonkey's disputes with Esoglou on other articles such asTheoria and Divinization (Christian). However, since technically this RFC hasn't gone live and is still in Taiwan boi's user space, I suppose he technically has a right to keep the content of the page whatever he wants it to be until it actually goes live.

I'm just thinking that, if there is a serious intent to make this a live RFC eventually, we may as well incorporate everybody else's complaints in one RFC (that is, there shouldn't be an RFC on Esoglou put out by Taiwan boi followed by a separate RFC on Esoglou put out by LoveMonkey). If there needs to be a discussion about Esoglou's behavior, all relevant points should be raised in a single discussion.

What do you think about this question, Taiwan boi?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Richard, I have not in any way claimed "ownership" of this RfC in the way you describe, nor have I claimed that the scope of the RfC should only be limited to a specific article. I mentioned that my objections to Esoglou's behaviour in this RfC were directed specifically towards his behaviour on the baptism and immersion baptism articles. Nor have I claimed that other edits and other editors cannot be discussed. What I object to is this RfC being misrepresented as an attack by LoveMonkey on Esoglou (it was even claimed that this RfC is being brought by myself and LoveMonkey, which is completely untrue), and my concerns being dismissed out of a preference to focus on the conflict between Esoglou and LoveMonkey. The conflict between Esoglou and LoveMonkey is their own business, and should be resolved in a separate RfC; since neither of them have shown any interest whatever in raising an RfC about the other, your fear of a separate RfC against Esoglou is unfounded. The contributions of LoveMonkey to this RfC have been utterly minimal, yet two editors have chosen to discuss his behaviour whilst writing to the effect that "I haven't really looked at Esoglou's edits, and I was never involved in the disputed article anyway, but I reckon he's probably right enough some of the time, so let's talk about my objections to LoveMonkey". I would like to see an explanation for this.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are content RFCs which are about the content of a specific article and the conduct of editors is considered out of scope.


 * There are user RFCs which is about the conduct of a specific user and there is no indication that user RFCs are to be limited to the scope of that user's conduct a limited set of articles. AFAICT, the scope of user RFCs is open to the entire range of edits made by a user in article space, Talk Page space, and any other space such as User talk space.


 * Moreover, although I asserted that we shouldn't dig up 3-year old edits, I haven't found anything in Wikipedia space that indicates that 3-year old edits are out of bounds. Bleeah.


 * So... this is an unclear point about user RFCs. This page says
 * If you're not sure if anyone else has had the same issues with the editor in question, consider some other method ofdispute resolution, such as Wikiquette Alerts.
 * If others have had the same or related issues with the editor in question, you may wish to create a draft in your own user space that you may jointly work on. This will help frame the dispute in a way that will get to the heart of the issue.
 * My reading of the above two points seems to suggest that all similar issues with the editor in question should be consolidated into a single RFC. Admittedly, it doesn't say "should".  It says "you may wish to".


 * WP:RFC says"
 * An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors.
 * Your draft RFC provides "Disruptive conduct as experienced by User:Leadwind" and "Disruptive conduct as experienced on the article by Editor LoveMonkey". Per the above, this makes the conduct of you, Leadwind and LoveMonkey all subject to "close scrutiny".  Now, my impression of Leadwind's interactions are not 100% positive but they are probably more positive than negative.  I just never thought much about it because, to my recollection, he hasn't been egregiously more opinionated or obstreperous than other the average editor.  The same is true for you although I have had less interaction with you than with Leadwind.  However, for LoveMonkey, I have the distinct impression that he is opinionated, biased, contentious, vitriolic and uncivil.  Not just some of the time... more often than not.  Thus, any report of disruptive conduct involving Esoglou and LoveMonkey has to be taken with a large grain of salt because there is likely to be misconduct on both sides.  I'm not saying that Esoglou is not going to be guilty assuredly innocent of bad behavior, just that interactions with LoveMonkey should be looked at carefully.


 * WP:RFC also says:
 * While an RfC doesn't create sanctions, it may provide justification for them by collecting information, assessing consensus, and providing feedback to the subject. Sanctions may then be created separately through the administrative,community sanction, or arbitration processes.


 * This essay indicates what are the possible and impossible outcomes of an RFC. Maybe you're already aware of this and plan on using an RFC as a way of collecting evidence in preparation for a request for a community ban per WP:BAN.  I think such a ban is unlikely but no one can stop you from pursuing one if you insist.  I think it's a humongous waste of time, talent and energy but you alone can choose how you wish to spend your time.


 * I'd rather be working on article content.


 * --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have said, I have never tried to restrict the scope of this RfC to a specific article. I have simply pointed out that my objections to Esoglou's behaviour in this RfC were directed specifically towards his behaviour on the baptism and immersion baptism articles. When people comment about my comments on Esoglou's behaviour on those articles, they need to actually read the links, assess my description, and explain their conclusion. And again, I have never tried to say that contributors to the RfC should not be scrutinized, including myself. What I object to is people coming along and commenting negatively and at length on the editor who has contributed the least to the RfC while saying nothing about the more detailed contributions of the other editors, and saying virtually nothing at all about the actual conflict which brought about the RfC in the first place. Quite apart from anything else, it looks very like an attempt to derail the RfC and make one of the contributors a target. I agree with your assessment of LoveMonkey. On the other hand, he consistently edits in good faith, is not disruptive, is not destructive, is not obstructive, and is readily guided by other editors. The same cannot be said for Esoglou.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, we disagree on the part of your assessment of LoveMonkey that starts with "on the other hand...". Curiously, I would generally apply that assessment much more to Esoglou than to LoveMonkey.
 * You've probably missed this but neither Phatius nor I have asserted Esoglou is innocent of the charges. I haven't looked at your edits in close detail but what I've seen does look troubling and worth a closer look.  I expect Phatius has looked more closely and he seems to think there are some issues with Esoglou's conduct.  It's almost as if we've jumped past the trial and moved to the sentencing phase where Phatius and I are pleading leniency on the basis of redeeming qualities and extenuating circumstances.
 * As for the focus on LoveMonkey (and I know you disagree with my view on this), my attitude is that if Wikipedia can put up with LoveMonkey, it can put up with ten Esoglous.
 * --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)