Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/WP:V RFC

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Verifiability
An RfC was opened here on October 5 to ask whether "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" should be removed. As this is contentious, it was understood that the RfC would be wiki-wide, would remain open for the full 30 days, and would be carefully closed by more than one uninvolved admin (who would read the comments) before being implemented.
 * [insert begins here]
 * Note: the link above should read that the RfC can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability Unscintillating (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * [insert ends here]

Sarek has just attempted to close it prematurely, and implemented the change himself. I have reverted this, in part because it was an early closure, and in part because I spoke to him not long ago about acting as an admin in situations in which he was involved. As I've been centrally involved in the discussion leading to the RfC, I would prefer that another admin, and preferably more than one, close this when the 30 days is up.

Is anyone willing to supervise this situation from now until November 5, read all the comments, then interpret consensus? SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * By way of context, please see also WP:AN, which makes this a lot less like Sarek taking this on unilaterally. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy to take this on if no-one else does; I haven't taken part in the discussion, and am neutral on the proposal itself. Black Kite (t)   23:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Black Kite. If a couple of admins could volunteer, that would be great. Also, I just noticed that no one had added the RfC tags for the bot (I have just added them), so it's not clear this was advertised properly. If it could be given some extra time to account for that, that would be appreciated. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The tags were removed by Sarek when he made the close, but they were there all along before that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it was added only to the RfC policy page. A key change to a core policy affects all kinds of articles. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, the tag for the RfC-policy page was there all along. One can make a subjective argument that this could have been spammed advertised on all the other RfC categories too, but to go from that to the conclusion that no one had opened the RfC is just ridiculous. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I could take a look at it if there's any need for a second opinion. However, I'm not completely neutral on the issue as I tended to support the WP:ATT proposal and at some points suggested that I approved of the status quo, but I don't recall taking part in the RFC and don't have strong feelings about it either way. Aside from that, I wonder why it's necessary for more than one admin to do this? causa sui (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My thinking is it would be easier for more than one admin to read the comments, and then discuss what they mean, rather than relying on numbers.


 * We had agreed (I thought) to have an RfC with two sections: (a) do you want this change? and (b) is the first sentence fine as it is? (See this exchange, for instance). The reason we agreed to this is that, during the long discussions that preceded the RfC, people were saying things like "I prefer the status quo, but if it will end this discussion, then I support the compromise." Even the editor who opened the RfC (Blueboar) said he felt this way. So I feel there has been considerable railroading, and I'm hoping the admins who close it will carefully read the comments to see how, or whether, that factors in. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weren't you one of the minority opposing the change? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The very recent sudden flood of "opposes" into an RFC that, ever since October 5, has looked like a straight pass for the compromise proposal, is making me feel very suspicious about what's going on. I do not recall a discussion in which it was agreed that this RFC would stay open for 30 days, and would be grateful for a link to it.  Since October 5, there has been plenty of opportunity for any editors who were concerned it was not widely advertised to raise the matter.  Starting on 26 October, with contributions tailing off, there was a discussion at the RFC about whether it would be appropriate to ask an uninvolved admin to close.  Several editors agreed that this would be appropriate, and none opposed, so on 27 October, User:North8000 put a neutrally-worded message on the administrator's noticeboard asking for a close.  SarekOfVulcan replied.  If SarekOfVulcan was involved, please explain how. I believe that SV's revert and her sudden rush of procedural objections three weeks into an RFC that wasn't going her way, followed by a demand that she be allowed to post notices to bring in new editors who were previously uninvolved, is nothing more than an attempt to derail a discussion that wasn't going her way, and I am feeling rather cynical about it.— S Marshall  T/C 00:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The "sudden rush" could be a consequence of the RfC finally being properly advertised today.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See Blueboar's reply below. It was well advertised, as evidenced by the fact that a lot of editors found it.  Look, Maunus, we don't do this.  If the discussion hadn't gone my way and it got closed against my wishes, I wouldn't be allowed to unilaterally revert the close and put notices all over the place to ask my wikibuddies to come and support me!  If I tried it, my talk page would go red with warnings within minutes, and I'd be summarily reverted.  But SlimVirgin appears to be not just getting away with it scot free but also getting away with accusing Sarek of bad faith in the process!  I've been on Wikipedia a long time and I've seen an awful lot of discussions, but I'd never previously seen such a blatant double standard.— S Marshall  T/C 02:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with SV and I think Sarek was involved. S Marshall, you may want to review Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2.  It is hardly a bad faith accusation. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * S Marshall, I'm in your corner and I agree with the tenor of your comments. However, if we put aside our strong feelings, I think we'll find that SlimVirgin's position is fairly well supported.  In other words, Sarek did previously comment on the RfC and express his POV earlier in October, and this makes him less than suited for closing a contentious RfC.  I would like people to extend more good faith to SlimVirgin in this regard. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But, Viriditas, there are all kinds of ways of dealing with it. If SV was concerned about Sarek's prior involvement, she could have raised it with him, or discussed it here.  That would have been appropriate.  But to revert his close without speaking to him is a quite different kind of behaviour.  Also note the sudden rush of "oppose" !votes: where has this been advertised, and by whom?— S Marshall  T/C 01:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We are in agreement. But I strongly believe, based on this evidence alone, that SV is acting in good faith, and we should honor her request for the RfC to remain open and for more voices to be heard.  In response, we should also inform the closing admin that there was a rush of opposes after discussion had wound down, making canvassing of one POV more than likely, but unproven.  Keep in mind, if the arguments are strong and the judgment of the closing admin wise, we should not concern ourselves with such things. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I haven't canvassed at all about this RfC. I've been posting neutral notices letting people know it is likely to close in a few days, e.g. here. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A message that amounts to "Hey, everybody, they're trying to rip the guts out of WP:V" isn't exactly neutral notification. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin is also edit warring to prevent Sarek's close being restored. Please will someone genuinely neutral step in and restore order.— S Marshall  T/C 01:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like some uninvolved admin to review Slim's Viriditas' claim that I "expressed my POV" on the discussion.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm neither uninvolved nor an admin, but I can look at the edit history just like anyone else and see that you previously expressed your opinion on this topic on October 7. Not sure why you closed this. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Viriditas, I got the signatures confused -- I was quoting you there, not Slim. However, I disagree that the diff you supplied shows involvement -- it's a comment on the differences between the versions. Really, I was personally leaning toward oppose, but that didn't affect my ability to read the discussion and see what it said.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this. Do you object to leaving the RfC open for 30 days and finding a more uninvolved admin than yourself? Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sarek, you expressed a view directly on the issue at hand during the RfC, came down on one side ("I don't think the old version addressed the issue any better, but the new version hammers more on the published RS side of things"), then three weeks later closed the RfC early and inserted the new version! That is what it means to be "involved."  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel this has to be the last straw in terms of Sarek's tendency to act as an admin when involved. He does it constantly, and his last reconfirmation warned him about it. But he has continued to do it, and not just here. I'm sorry, Sarek, I like you, but you seem to have no understanding or respect for the idea of an uninvolved admin. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: I've posted on WT:V  asking everyone to start to AGF about people's motivations regarding the RfC, so I want to practice what I preach by withdrawing the implication that Sarek realized he was involved when he closed it. I do believe his comment made him involved, but I fully accept that he had reason not to see it that way, or didn't recall that he'd left the comment. Either way, I want to make clear that I'm assuming good faith, and I apologize to him for having done otherwise. I'm really sorry, Sarek.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't want to repeat material which is covered there, but this was a very unrushed process....several months to develop the proposal, a long period for comments with extensive participation, advertised extensively (including centralized discussion) floating the idea to close (without opposition) for several days, comments trailing off to less tha one per day over the last several days. A request for closure that stayed a few days with no opposition, and the propoerly closed.  Also it had what most would consider to have a very strong if not overwhelming consensus. Now one or two people are trying to undo the results by inventing new non-existent rules because they did not like the results. North8000 (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion on this RfC is diametrically opposed to SV. However, we should, as good Wikipedians, make every effort to insure processes are fair and reasonable to all involved.  SV has observed that the RfC was not allowed to run for its recommended length, was not widely advertised, and was not closed by a neutral admin.  Her request for reopening the close and advertising the RfC is entirely reasonable, and we should accept it at face value. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was widely advertised, and had in fact attracted more than 90 separate contributors before Sarek closed it. And it's yet to be established whether Sarek was neutral, see his denial above.— S Marshall  T/C 01:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Answered above. He previously commented on the RfC on October 7 and put forward a POV that would later support the close. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In context, that diff shows Sarek asking a question of Quadell. Why do you see it as "putting forward a POV"?— S Marshall  T/C 01:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Quote: "I don't think the old version addressed the issue any better, but the new version hammers more on the published RS side of things." That disqualifies him from closing the RfC. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with that assertion. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So then you maintain that you were uninvolved? I see, so an admin can comment in an RfC discussion in favor of one side and then close it, favoring that side? Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd actually read what I said, you'd see that I was indicating that I was worried about the amount of weight the new wording seemed to be putting on "a Reliable Source published it, so we can pass it on".-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has been posting notifications about the RFC, asking people to vote soon because the RFC is going to close in days. I think there is a problem here. This invites people to vote based on their gut feelings instead of considering the discussions and thinking deeply about the issue. Particulary the people who would rather keep the "not truth" statement will feel that all is not lost if they are quick to oppose.

But this would undo all the work that BlueBoar has put in to find a good compromize. There is nothing wrong with opposing if you have considered this compromize seriously and then still come out against. But I don't think this is going to happen. We have to remember that an RFC simply on removing "Not Truth" was held previously and that doesn't have consensus, instead you're then stuck in a 50-50 quagmire. The consequence of that was never ending discussions on the talk page.

So, I think the best thing to do is to close the vote for week to allow for new discussions and then re-open the vote for, say, two weeks. Count Iblis (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Totally opposed to that. Totally.  We've been discussing this for nearly nine months now and, until a couple of hours ago, we had finally reached a consensus.  Suddenly SV decides that even though she's massively involved, it's appropriate for her to unilaterally revert another admin's close without speaking to him, and add neutrally-worded notifications made in selected places, which are somehow leading to a major influx of !voters supporting SlimVirgin's preferred wording, while she edit-wars to keep the discussion open so her chums can !vote.  It's all quite inappropriate and needs to stop.  What I think would be appropriate would be for someone to re-close the debate as Sarek found it, on the basis of the 90-odd !votes from the self-selected participants; I think that no account at all should be taken of the sudden rush of opposers who've appeared since SV started this behaviour.— S Marshall  T/C 01:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not only am I completely neutral admin, who doesn't really care if the proposal succeeds or not, but I wasn't even aware that the RfC was ongoing until I saw this thread on my watchlist. Thus, I have avoided forming an opinion on the issue itself. However (as a completely uninvolved, neutral admin who doesn't have an opinion), I've reached two conclusions: first, that if Viriditas' diff is the extent of Sarek's involvement, that he was not nearly sufficiently involved that he couldn't close it and second, that (based on a quick read through), his close seemed to be in line with consensus. That said, though, I would suggest leaving it a day or two now to let the fallout from this drama to subside, and to see what effect it has on the consensus, and then closing it when it appears everybody who wants to has given their opinion. I'm willing to take a look and close it then if a closer is needed. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess nobody even glances at WP:CENT anymore. I'm thinking of MfD-ing that as useless. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that this is a controversial change to a core policy and that the level of consensus is currently about 1 to 2 (wouldn't pass in a RFA). I think that this suggests that it is important to make sure that the wider community has time to comment and voice their opinions. As SlimVirgin notes the RfC has not been very widely advertised untill today. I think a hasty closure can only create problems for both sides.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been widely advertised and had attracted 97 !votes at the time Sarek closed it. At that time there were 66 supporters and 31 opposers.  At the time of typing, two more supporters and seven (!) more opposers have shown up, presumably attracted by this thread and SV's very neutrally-worded advertisements in carefully selected places.  This has muddied the waters considerably, but the discussion as Sarek closed it was clear.— S Marshall  T/C 01:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was widely advertised as you say, why is SV advertising the RfC? Can you demonstrate that it widely advertised? Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I left a Notice at the Village Pump when the RfC was opened... I also left similar notices on the talk pages of the other core policies (WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV). Sorry you missed them. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about "me", but I understand your confusion. The facts show that the discussion has been advertised at cent since October 6.  Does this or does this not qualify as widely advertised? Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can demonstrate that before all this interference, 97 people found it! Not exactly carefully-hidden, was it?— S Marshall  T/C 01:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not really an answer. I can demonstrate that 1,347 editors have Verifiability on their watchlist. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * While many RfCs are left open for a full 30 days, just as many are closed earlier. 30 days seems to be a rule that is ignored as often as it is observed. Also, there is no requirement that an RfC be closed by someone who did not express an opinion.  Nor is there even a requirement that RfCs be closed by an admin.
 * Now... perhaps this particular RfC should go 30 days, and perhaps it should be closed by someone who is completely uninvolved (has not commented in the RfC or in any of the talk page discussions that preceded it) and perhaps that person should be an admin, but let's be clear that all of that isn't a requirement. Sarek acted in good faith, whether you agree with his actions or not.
 * That said... as the author of the RfC in question, I have no problem with keeping it open a few more days. And given that this is a core policy we are talking about, I think having this particular RfC closed by a completely uninvolved admin (or group of admins) is a good idea. Blueboar (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sarek expressed an opinion on the key issue during the RfC, BB. That is what it means to be an involved admin. We need widespread notification of this RfC (you guaranteed that before you opened it), time for people to arrive and form a view, and then closure by at least two 'completely uninvolved and experienced admins (uninvolved in the discussion, no disputes with key participants, etc), so that everyone feels the closure is objective and informed. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Slim, considering you've been edit warring and canvassing non-neutrally, I'm not sure I buy your definition of "involved admin". And considering you're involved, why do you get to revert my close instead of going to an "uninvolved admin" to do it? A little consistency would be nice.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it was Slrubenstein who undid your close which was followed by an edit war involving S Marshall and yourself,, then later by SV and myself. Anyone with unclean hands here? Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec, to Sarek) I reverted because it shouldn't have been closed today, and it shouldn't have been closed by you. Sarek, how many times in your career as an admin have people complained about you being involved, even if you think they were all wrong? You promised during your reconfirmation (as I recall) not to do this anymore. Look at the person-hours now being spent discussing the meta issue. It isn't fair or reasonable to cause this expenditure of time and energy. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So if it isn't fair or reasonable, why are you doing it, Slim? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "I am closing this discussion as successful—as I believe the consensus is sufficiently in that corner—but with very strong counsel to SarekOfVulcan toward a much more strict interpretation of WP:INVOLVED than he has used in the past. The overwhelming reason for those opposing (far above any other) was due to concerns that he has regularly become involved as an administrator in areas where he was already involved to one degree or another as an editor; WP:INVOLVED cautions very strongly against this." Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's accepted that there may have been times, in the past, when Sarek didn't strictly follow WP:INVOLVED. But the past isn't at issue here.  The question is whether he was WP:INVOLVED today, in this particular matter.  And HJ Mitchell's already answered this one for you, above.  Sarek was uninvolved.  SlimVirgin, by her own admission, was involved.  Therefore, she as an involved admin should not have reverted Sarek's close without discussing it with him first.  I really don't know how I can make it any clearer for you than this, Viriditas.— S Marshall  T/C 03:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because you and HJ Mitchell do not get to decide who is or isn't involved. If there is any reasonable doubt about involvement he shouldn't close. Sarek was bold - but there was doubt and he was reverted. Sarek should be less bold and dedicate more attention to when he might reasonably be perceived to be involved.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell does get to decide, because he's a genuinely uninvolved person (and we need more of those in this discussion).— S Marshall T/C 03:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, no? Consensus decides. In this case whether or not HJ Mictehll agrees there is resonable doubt about whether he[Sarek] was involved and that requires discussion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps that's something to discuss then? Something to move on to? Instead of driving in circles over that piece of horse flesh? It's been undone, SoV has turned in his bit, and HJ has offered to step in. That's just my opinion, from following this since it's started. That would bring us to, "Does anyone have any reason for believing that HJ should be considered involved?" Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 03:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support the decision to revert the close. One more week to go... what's the harm in keeping it open for the recommended time? I was mildly sickened by the ambiguous language of the "Truth vs. Untruth" section once I saw it "live", and I hope that at least if the "verifiability, not truth" phrase is judged to be eliminated from the lead that this mess of a paragraph is not substituted for it as some sort of compromise. Doc   talk  05:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Sarek has an extremely poor sense of what "involvement" means — and one would think that he of all people would be cautious in this area after the multiple criticisms of him for this sort of behavior at his recent reconfirmation debate. Handy dandy guideline: If one participates in a debate AT ALL, they are involved and should not be closing a contentious matter. This seems very simple. Drama has been quadrupled here for no good reason. Per usual. Carrite (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * An interpretation of Sarek's general administrative abilities should not be any issue at all: any lone admin's decision to close this particular thread early should be judged on the decision alone considering the weight of the change. I don't fault Sarek or any other admin that would have potentially closed this: but that's just me. Doc   talk  06:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I rather think that an "interpretation of Sarek's general administrative abilities" was the whole point. It is not helpful to the project for a particular admin to so frequently and casually act against the spirit of WP:INVOLVED. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No comment on that issue. The RfC has generated additional "votes"/comments on both sides since its reopening, so until November 5th it should remain open. Doc   talk  08:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting comment:. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Just the facts, ma'am
The facts of the matter, as I see them, are:- I'm amazed and disappointed that she appears to be getting away with this.— S Marshall T/C 10:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin is the primary author of WP:V in its current form. She has opposed every substantial edit to WP:V for at least the past eighteen months, and the way it currently reads is clearly her preferred wording.
 * "Not truth" has been under discussion for more than eight months now. It's probably nine.
 * Blueboar came up with a compromise and began a RFC on 5th October. Contrary to the allegations above, he advertised it widely, posting notes on major policy talk pages.  Diffs of this have been provided above.  Also, Cunard added it to cent on 6th October (diff), so it has been linked from all centralised discussion pages since then.
 * Since 5th October there has been plenty of opportunity for anyone concerned about the advertising of this RFC, or the process used, to raise those concerns.
 * There was a consensus on the talk page to ask for a close, and on 27th October North8000 made a neutrally-worded post on AN to ask for an uninvolved closer.
 * Later on 27th October, Sarek closed it in favour of the compromise proposal.
 * Slrubenstein reverted Sarek's close, citing WP:BRD.
 * I reverted Slrubenstein, asking him to stop this behaviour and finally accept the result of the RFC.
 * Slrubenstein reverted me again.
 * Sarek reverted Slrubenstein, restoring Sarek's close.
 * SlimVirgin, an involved administrator, summarily reverted Sarek's close again without discussion.
 * North8000 reverted SlimVirgin, restoring Sarek's close.
 * Viriditas reverted North8000 and re-opened the discussion.
 * Now users are flooding in with a very different !voting pattern. At the time of Sarek's close, before all these shenanigans, there was a 32% "oppose" rate.  Since then, the "oppose" rate has exceeded 50%, indicating that the message is now reaching an entirely different audience.  In my opinion this is a WP:DUCK for off-wiki canvassing of some kind.
 * Shall we all start to behave like SlimVirgin? When a discussion I've been involved in doesn't go my way and has been closed, should I summarily revert the closer and post all over the place asking my WikiBuddies to come and !vote as quickly as possible?  How would you lot react if I did?


 * As I understand it, such shenanigans are SOP for our policy pages whenever there is an issue for which there is no real consensus. My view is that the Foundation should determine our core policies as they are essentially our terms of reference.  They would then be a given and we would just have questions of interpretation to settle. Warden (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A "duck" for off-wiki canvassing "of some kind". Are you serious about that half-baked accusation? Doc   talk  11:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a Fyi - if you have a look at the discussion page you will notice that the most heavy-duty influx of editors of editors on the 28th came after this section was started on the noticeboard. Perhaps it shook a few so far unaware editors awake, or perhaps there are simply more or different people here then the people who read WP:COIN? Please be a bit more considerate with those duck claims unless you have at least some evidence. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 12:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool! I just knew you'd agree after my clandestine e-mail to you regarding clandestine e-mail accusations at AN/I. So, what we need to do is... oh, wait! I said that out loud, didn't I? Nevermind... ;P Doc   talk  12:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Darn it Doc! Your are giving us away again! It will now take us weeks of wikilawyering to ensure that the masses remain blinded to the might of the cabal. Wait... why is this thing recording? Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 12:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As the author of the RfC, I don't think there was any canvasing. I think Excirial has it right... the change in voting pattern reflects the fact that a bunch of admins have only just now become aware of the RfC, and are rushing in to opine on it. Of course, that raises different issue... why is it that so many admins didn't know about this RfC before now?  Why are so many admins only now becoming aware of an issue that has been under discussion (for months) at one of our core policies?  I would think that an admin (who routinely has to make make decisions based on our policies and guidelines) would have the core policies on his or her watch list, and would keep abreast of any potential changes. And I would think they would follow what is posted on the Village Pump. I respectfully suggest that doing so in the future would be a good idea. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's important, but so is WP:WHEEL. 1 is quickly fixable, the other not so much. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 14:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, it's because that talk page has become unusable for the last eight months because of two people (not you) going on about this, to the point where people had stopped reading the page, or paying it any attention. I've been commenting on WT:V since 2005, and even I was driven away from it in September by this situation, which is why I only recently noticed that the RfC had not been widely advertised. This is why I requested in September that, if there was to be an RfC, that it be a wiki-wide one (i.e. not one on that talk page, but on a special RfC page), with very wide notification to make sure that the entire community knew what was being proposed. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment As an outspoken critic of Sarek's when it comes to taking admin action when he's already involved, I really don't see it in this case at all. In fact it looks very much like this accusation is being made to gain advantage by SlimVirgin, which makes it extremely unfortunate. I wholeheartedly oppose any action based on that accusation and think SlimVirgin deserves a TROUT slap if not more for using this tactic. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Disclaimers: I generally find myself on the opposite side of the discussion from SV and I generally find myself on the same side as Sarek and S. Marshall. In this case I don't support this change and feel pretty darn strongly about it. Sarek wasn't the ideal person to close this as he had commented on the discussion in a way that can reasonably be read as supporting the side he closed for.  I honestly think the discussion was really (unfortunately) very clearly in favor of changing the language and so no matter who closed it the closure was obvious.  SV's revert as an involved editor was bogus and troubling.  Her new notifications were fairly biased and IMO were therefore a form of canvassing.  I'm tempted to change my !vote just because this type of behavior shouldn't be permitted to be successful, but that seems like a WP:POINT violation on my part (and morally questionable to boot).  Given other behavioral  problems SV has had with attacking other editors and related violations of policy, I think an RFCU is due.  Hobit (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hobit, while I can see how a reasonable person can read that as supporting the way I closed it, I actually was expressing concern about the wording of the new version (as I noted upthread).--20:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand entirely. But ideally the closing admin wouldn't have been involved at all.  I don't see how it could have been closed any other way (even though it wasn't the way I wanted it to go), so I'm not seeing how anyone can really object. It certainly doesn't justify SV's revert as she was certainly involved even at that time.  Hobit (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * While I have not commented in the RfC, I have been seeing it listed on CENT. I find the claim that something that has been listed on CENT for that long not to have been widely advertised to be quite ridiculous. Lady  of  Shalott  21:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * When I look at the fact that Sarek resigned, I'm highly tempted to say that he isn't the only one who should have. Of course, the RfC was widely advertised. People who weren't aware of it weren't paying attention. Swanning over the claim that it was some kind of secret ploy to put something over on the community is utter nonsense. I think SlimVirgin's conduct (and I stipulate to the fact that she and I have a history of disagreements) smells very bad here. I'm saying this as someone who has never been convinced that V needed to be changed, who tepidly supported the proposal in a spirit of good will rather than enthusiasm, who very much expected the proposal to fail, who was impressed by the number of editors who supported the proposal more enthusiastically than I did, and who has no objection to continuing the RfC longer. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By "widely advertised" SlimVirgin is referring to the use of a MediaWiki "site notice", which this RfC did not have. I only just discovered that this is what she meant.  It would have been helpful if she had said this earlier. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Something that seems to me to be getting lost in all the hyperventilating about whether or not this was sufficiently widely advertised is that this wasn't even a proposal to change policy, just a proposal about how to word an explanation of how the policy works. I rather suspect that if most editors were to show up on ANI complaining bitterly that an RfC was being closed contrary to their wishes, they would have been told to drop it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's utter nonsense to say that this proposal was widely advertised. This whole process reminds me of Arthur Dent's protests about the proposals for the new bypass being on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused toilet with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard". New users aren't told of WP:CENT via the standard template, there's no mention of it in any other location that people might happen to look, so it seems to be a central discussion point for people "In The Know". Certainly here the unfounded accusations of off-wiki canvassing on behalf of the "Oppose" vote is risible given that so many of these votes came after this pseudo RFC was advertised in a location that people might actually read. It's far more probable that the prevalence of early "Yay" votes is down to the vote being posted on a dark and dusty corner of the site where only certain people might find it. This isn't the first time this kind of thing has been tried: in the relatively short time I've been on WP I've seen several attempts to change policy by posting on some obscure page and canvassing: the whole debacle about diacritics in article titles is the biggest such case. To my mind, for all the strident proclamations about consensus, it seems that WP is too often about working out how to circumvent it. The burying of an incredibly important discussion on an obscure talk page is simply the latest example. Absconded Northerner (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If the discussion doesn't go my way this time, am I as an involved user entitled to unilaterally revert the close and post in different places asking for further input?— S Marshall T/C 00:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * S Marshall, I appreciate your concerns, but I think you (and others) misunderstand the purpose of a request for comment. We want more users to comment, not less.  We want the discussion to be open for more time, not closed.  In other words, even if you could revert the close, there are enough editors who have expressed the concern that there was not enough input, and we are seeing them comment on the talk page at this time.  We aren't in any hurry to close an RfC, rather quite the opposite in fact.  For more information, see consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please would you answer the question, Viriditas? Do you think that it is appropriate for an involved user to revert a close, make posts inviting new editors to comment, and indeed rename the whole RFC partway through?  Or do you think that it is inappropriate?— S Marshall  T/C 01:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comment reminds me of a man who complained about his feet getting wet as his town was flooding and his house was being swept down the river. Please try to see the big picture here, S Marshall.  I know you are trying to make this about editors but it is actually about process.  There was a disagreement about an allegedly involved admin closing an RfC and his close was reverted by multiple editors.  When that happens, it's a good indicator that it is not a good time to close an RfC.  There's also a disagreement about whether the RfC was closed prematurely and whether it was widely advertised.  Please notice how I was able to frame this issue without naming a single editor. Viriditas (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your commentary. The fact that you don't wish to discuss a conduct issue doesn't mean that no conduct issue exists.  Just in case you feel like answering the question, I'll ask it one last time.  Do you think it is appropriate or inappropriate for an involved user to revert a close, advertise the discussion on different fora and rename the RFC, thereby reframing the discussion in such a way as to achieve her desired result?  Or would you think that she should have done this during the three weeks when the discussion was unclosed?— S Marshall  T/C 01:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The RfC should not have been closed, and the reverts demonstrate that the discussion wasn't over. This doesn't require another five months of discussion.  It requires widely advertising the RfC and letting it run its natural course.  You don't appear to understand this, and think that getting your way is more important than getting consensus.  Consensus is attained when discussion has ended.  You, nor any other editor, doesn't get to say "it has ended".  That is for the community to decide.  Judging by the increasing number of editors participating since the premature close was reverted, the community has decided. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, *I* wouldn't be getting my way if the close by Sarek stood and I see a huge problem here. The renaming of the RfC after 3 weeks, the biased notices and the undo of a close by an involved admin (without discussion) are all troubling.  Can't you  see the reason for concern here? Hobit (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your reasons for concern have been recently discussed on the policy talk page and found to be without merit. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of the editors in the discussion.  You may want to contribute in that thread. Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We seem to have a very different view on that discussion. I'd say it's split at best and doesn't cover all the topics I mentioned.  But I added my 2 cents.   Hobit (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're adding a lot of emotional content to an issue that doesn't need any more drama. Notice your choice of words—"hyperventilating, complaining bitterly, closed contrary to their wishes"—that isn't at all helpful.  I am completely opposed to SV's desire to keep the policy as it is, but if our positions were switched, and I felt that that an important policy RfC was not receiving wide attention, and I thought it could benefit from a so-called "relisting", I would do the same thing she is doing now. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been around here long enough to know that anyone who speaks truth to power on this matter will find that they will be made "the issue". So be it; I'm not surprised. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

editors changing the title of the WP:V RfC, and the description of the RfC at Template:Centralized discussion
Editors are altering the title of the WP:V RfC. This affects links placed elsewhere. There was a new rfcid tag issued today for the WP:V RfC, so another problem with changing the title of the RfC is that it technically creates a new RfC. Likewise, there is edit warring at Template:Centralized discussion to change both the link and the description that has been stable since October 6. Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, whatever they end up being, let's just make sure they match. Frankly, I think the new RFC name is more accurate and informational, but really....they must match.  Dreadstar  ☥  03:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For fuck's sake, people, pack it in. Concentrate on discussing the matter at hand or find something constructive to do. I'm sorely tempted to block the next person who does anything to the RfC that is not unambiguously constructive. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've requested full page protection for Template:Centralized discussion and WP:V through November 3. I've posted at three places the text from WP:TPOC at WP:Talk page guidelines, "Editing...others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection."  Unscintillating (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for admin supervision
In the last two days, what had been a very orderly RfC has suddenly descended into utter chaos. I am trying to assume good faith here, but it is increasingly hard to do so. I am especially concerned with people changing titles and language three weeks after the RfC went live. This is highly improper. More importantly, the changes often seriously mischaracterize the proposal, which was very carefully worked out by consensus and discussion before we went live with the RfC. I won't go as far as accusing anyone of deliberate misconduct... but there sure is an appearance of gamesmanship... a last ditch attempt to influence !Votes and comments. I must therefore request that a neutral and uninvolved admin supervise the page for the remainder of the time the RfC is open, and bring some order back to the process. (note... I also request that this admin NOT be the one designated to close the RfC when the time comes... the supervisor will, of necessity, become "involved".) Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is this considered acceptable?
Just now, after 2 days of a drama fest (and I'm fully aware of my own participation), after many of us think the RfC has been seriously damaged, after User:SarekOfVulcan has given up his admin tools, User:Slimvirgin wants to go on record that she's willing to AGF about Sarek. In my mind her actions sit at the bottom of all of this, and to date she hasn't received as much as a stern word from any uninvolved admins. Why is that? In my mind she needs to apologize to Sarek at the very least, not retroactively claim to be assuming good faith. This is absurd, and yet another example of how certain people get away with murder in this place when others are shown the door for breathing in the wrong direction.Griswaldo (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is make sure you have admins that will always back you and you can get away with pretty much anything, as long as you're not too blatant about it. Misuse of tools, canvassing, sockpuppeting, pretty much anything. Silver  seren C 23:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's grave dancing, disgusting. --Blackmane (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm indeed disappointed that so many of the Wikipedians I should be looking up to for guidance and calm are engaging in such hot-headed and in some cases transparently manipulative campaigns against each other. It erodes confidence that they're going to be careful and even-handed in their encounters with us civilians, and thereby undermines the respect someone like me would accord their opinions elsewhere, or my adherence to their actions.  I can see that more than one person is in the wrong here but for the life of me I can't easily figure out who, and I shouldn't have to.  Frankly, it doesn't matter if there's been a flood of new votes or campaigning, who's edit warred, or anything else, and it shouldn't matter whether the RfC was closed too early or stays open.  The strength of the arguments has not changed, and is unlikely to change however many "me too" !votes appear.  Neutral uninvolved administrators can take stock of the proposals in light of consensus and render their opinion.  The proposal itself lacks the gravitas that some people seem to read into it, but given the extent of discussion, best that it's one or more truly respected admins who are beyond any accusation of involvement or taint of dispute here.  Sound good?  - Wikidemon (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't fully reviewed this discussion, and I have no plans to&mdash;I have better things to do with my time than get involved with a dramafest of this magnitude. But suppose I did, and I determined that SV was guilty of WP:OWN / WP:CANVASS violations and dramamongering. What exactly would you want me to do that is "useful"? Give SV a stern talking-to? File a request for arbitration which won't be accepted or result in anything besides wasted electrons? Open a RFC/U? None of those seem like they are going to be useful. Implement a block? Fat chance of that sticking. NW ( Talk ) 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO, had most users acted like this it is likely they would have been blocked at the time. They certainly would have been warned sternly on their talk page to cease the disruptive activity or else be blocked. That didn't happen, and when certain well known admins behave like this I'd say it's par for the course, unfortunately. So what could have been done when blocking time was passed? Well someone could still make it clear to SlimVirin that this is unacceptable, and that reverting RfC closes and edit warring to get her way will result in a block in the future. When editors act with impunity there is nothing stopping them from doing it again. What happens is that arguments like yours (that there is no practical value in acting) are made again and again, every time an editor like SV pushes past acceptable behavioral boundaries, and so the behavior goes unchecked from here till eternity. How on earth is that a good thing? Especially when it reinforces the notion that some editors have special privileges that they should not have. So yes, I do think "a stern talking-to" could be done and would be productive. At least then when someone pulls this kind of crap others can say, "hey you've been warned about this in the past," and admins looking at the situation can take that into account and do something productive. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a reprimand and warning from / after deliberation by a group of admins would be VERY useful. She wrecked months of diligent hard work put in by many people, and that place will be a train wreck if she (and supporters) manages to stop the compromise proposal which has clear support.   Such would certainly help create the proper perspective going forward. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still happening by others.  Some are saying that it fails if it doesn't get a 3:1 majority. (75%) North8000 (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you need to get something VERY, VERY clear. I speak for myself here - I hope like the vast majority of contributors. The notion that I support a particular individual, in this case Slim Virgin, is a reprehensible slur. I oppose the proposal having come across the matter purely by chance, not because I support the stance taken by a particular side. The fact is this RfC has been badly managed, poorly communicated and is now a source of embarrassment. I'm not bothered either about how long you've spent pontificating over it at WP:CENT, which I'd never even heard of until I looked it up. Next time around try to do it properly and get comprehensive community support because I'll tell you now, and I would say this even if I supported the change, this looks like a case of WP:OWN to me. Leaky  Caldron  13:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved admin in this situation, I think SlimVirgin's behavior in reverting the close was unacceptable and is wheel-warring. She should have discussed the matter with Sarek. Then brought it to ANI with the request that someone else look at the matter. She should not have taken action herself. I do not think that Sarek's comment was enough to put him over the line into involved, but I do not fault anyone for bringing it up as a potential concern - it just should have been done with Sarek first. Karanacs (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am coming to this issue belatedly, I didn't weigh in on the RFC (and probably won't), but I am concerned that we are seeing the similar behaviors here from SlimVirgin that were in evidence in past arbcom cases. Under "Further review and sanctions", the arb findings state: "In the event that any of the parties, contrary to our hope and expectations, continues to engage in misconduct such as that identified in this decision, a request for a reopening of this case may be submitted on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration." I hope this will be revisited; it's time for an end to editing of policy pages to advance one's own goals or POV. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sandy, based on your RfC comment, you've misunderstood. This is not a proposal coming from me; I oppose the proposed change. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm involved and have been for some time in the WP:V discussions, but it seems to me that SV acted poorly in this instance many regards, and I'm very concerned that so few admins seem to see or care about that. Leaky caldron, can you point me to the instructions on how one is supposed to do this properly? It's a serious question, I'm trying to figure out where all of this is documented. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain what you mean Nuu, but if you mean the watchlist thing I have copied this from the WT:V page. They can be added by an admin at, after being asked for on the talk page there. Leaky  Caldron  00:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that's not it, sorry for not being clearer. Where is the requirement for how widely an RfC should be advertised documented? You said "The fact is this RfC has been badly managed, poorly communicated and is now a source of embarrassment", but the WP:RFC page suggests only that a policy oriented RfC should bear the template. I'm not trying to pick on you or criticize you, but some admins, including SV, are acting as tho there is a well defined procedure for properly advertising an RfC for a core policy, and I've been looking, but cannot find such a procedure. So I'm asking where it might be found. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. My words are a personal expression, I have no idea what the policy is for RfC communication. However, if I had spend 9 months defining a significant change to a core policy (WP:V is a core policy and changing the bold text in the lead is a significant change) I would personally have ensured the widest possible communication to avoid precisely the shambles that has occurred. Badly managed, again my choice of words but if I had a vested interest in something as big as this I would make sure that no one came along half way through and altered the very opening text of the RfC so that every reader seeing the page after that was likely to base their opinion on a different description of the proposal. Finally, an embarrassment, well I now prefer the word shambles. BTW, I oppose the change but my opinion on the RfC would be the same if I had supported it. The current RfC is virtually unclosable due to the way it has been handled since it was first closed. It should be closed, paused for a short while and brought back. There is no rush and if the community eventually desire the change it will happen. Leaky  Caldron  08:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a website based on crowdsourcing. You're making an unreasonable demand for order and management where chaos and leaderless organization rule.  You've been here since 2006, so you must know this.  I'm confused at your use of words like "shambles, embarrassment" and "unclosable".  This RfC was successfully relisted and attracted many more comments from the community after the site notice went live.  I'm not sure what you are asking for, but you won't find it on Wikipedia.  We don't want to enforce some kind of artificial order here.  We want the fluid, organic process to resolve itself.  That's what makes this place work. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not the only one who believes that this RfC in it's current form is a lame duck - see WT:Verifiability. While I'm pleased it was relisted I disagree that it was successfully relisted - the tens of thousands of words written since is a clear testament to that. I also disagree that we cannot have order in the discussions and debates about change. Fluid organic processes are fine - provided that there is a framework within which to operate. It does not need to be this chaotic. Leaky  Caldron  12:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would personally have ensured the widest possible communication to avoid precisely the shambles that has occurred. How would you have done that? I'm not picking on you, really, and I hope you won't take offense, but the only procedure I have found documented for RfC advertisement is to place the . That's it, no postings on any fora, no guidance on where to post. Blueboar is not an admin. He and dozens of other editors participated in long months of discussions, but it was only in the last few months that they were able to come together and craft an RfC that appeared to be a workable compromise in the wording to address most editors' concerns. Presumably, some of the people participating and watching the discussions were admins, and admins are supposed to help guide processes in a positive manner. In a conversation with Blueboar, SV expressed a desire that the RfC be advertised widely. It was, well beyond what is required. SV regarded that as in sufficient. Well and good, I can understand that people think wider advertisement is a good idea, seems like one to me. But this begs the question, if it is such common practice to advertise an RfC on core policy more widely, why did no admin, esp. SV, chime in that there needed to be more advertisements? Why did no one tap Blueboar on the shoulder and say, "you know, you should send out another round of posts"? Even at the end, if someone thought it wasn't widely advertised, why not post a note on the talk page asking for more time and wider postings? Instead, there were wails and gnashing of teeth, completely unnecessary drama, edit warring, changes made in the text of the RfC without discussion, arguably misleading advertisements, and I think the source of that is pretty obvious, narrow, and not Blueboar. Personally, I think Blueboard is due a number of apologies and there should be some trout flying about, but that's just me. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If I had spent 9 months formulating this RfC I hope I would have anticipated the inevitable drama that would follow. We have probably all seen drama arising from 9 minutes work, much less 9 months. Changing core policy isn't likely ever to be minor matter and to some people it appears sacrosanct, so anticipating that should have been obvious and one strategy for heading it off would be to advertise the proposal more widely than the minimum requirement you have referred to. I am certainly not personalising this to BB's involvement. There must have been a group of editors involved, including Admins. so you need to ask them why they did not "manage" for want of a better word, the interference has taken place.  Leaky  Caldron  12:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense, but you should read through the archives. There were months of discussion with virtually no progress, and about 4-6 weeks of work prepping the RfC, which went relatively smoothly, and then the RfC itself which was running pretty smooth for three weeks before SV came back to the discussion and all hell broke loose. As for asking why the "interference" wasn't better, that's why I came over to AN/I to ask about the procedures, but I see that we've been moved back to the article talk page. I take that as a sign that admins really want to deal with the questionable conduct issues. I take solace that a few admins have at least acknowledge that these are legitimate concerns, but I think apologies are due. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TLDR I will not be going back in time. Despite whatever preparations were undertaken, the RfC has failed to meet it's objective (so far). The fact that an apparently controversial Admin. had the balls to request the RfC be reopened is fine by me. Regardless whether I personally support or oppose the change, the fact that a wider section contributors has now had the chance to participate is great for the project. Leaky  Caldron  17:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * She did not "have the balls to request the RfC be reopened," she unilaterally reverted its close and filed a spurious complaint about the good faith attempt of the admin who closed it. Even if this should have been reoppened there is nothing at all redeeming about the way she went about it. Indeed what she did would have gotten me, or you, or pretty much anyone else blocked on sight. That's the issue raised in this sub-thread, and if you consider actually educating yourself enough to understand what happened "TLDR" then don't comment on this subthread. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I will comment about what I like, where I like and when I like. Your offensive tone both here and in the edit summary (twice) is noted. This is the way to WP:EQ. I might see you over there. Leaky  Caldron  21:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You can of course do as you wish, but my tone is a reaction to your attitude. Telling editors who you are criticizing that actually understanding the situation properly is TLDR is offensive. When you act like a know it all you better know at least some of it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read sufficient to justify my remark above. I was aware of SV's background and the claims & accusations that have been made. I'm also aware that reopening this has been beneficial. What I am not going to do is look through 9 months of posts in WP:CENT relating to the development of the RfC, hence WP:TLDR, or trawl through your postings to assess what your participation has been. I've read enough on here to see that you are opposed to the reopening. Getting bitter with anyone who takes the opposite view is not constructive. I don't believe I've criticised you anywhere, apart from your WP:POINTy comments telling me where I shouldn't edit and I'm fully entitled to do that. Leaky  Caldron  21:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification and timeline
I don't think it's productive to keep going over this, but I feel I have to defend myself, because people are accusing me of things that simply did not happen.

I do not edit the policy to advance my own goals (except that I do want to see majority and significant-minority views protected, without fringe views being promoted), and I have not acted as an admin on Verifiability, but as an editor. My concern is that removing "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth," from the lead is equivalent to removing "all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view" from the lead of NPOV. If people want to do it, fine, but it needs strong consensus.

Here is a timeline:


 * 1. I had deliberately stayed away from the RfC, after being assured it would be wiki-wide, well-publicized, and would present the current policy wording as a positive choice in a separate section; for example, see this exchange with Blueboar on September 14. I intended to put up extra notices a few days before closure (which I assumed would be 30 days, i.e. November 4) to make sure people were reminded to comment, then put up my own oppose.


 * 2. I was therefore taken aback on October 28 to see a revert war at the page between Sarek of Vulcan and others, with Sarek  and S Marshall  (one of the proposal's key supporters) trying to impose the proposed version of the policy six days before the RfC was due to end.


 * 3. I saw that Sarek had closed the RfC as successful (66 support, 31 oppose).


 * 4. I saw there was a discussion on Sarek's talk page, where he was being asked to revert himself and was refusing. I posted there to say that the RfC should remain open for the full 30 days.


 * 5. I reverted the change he had made to the policy, with another request in the edit summary that the RfC be allowed to run the full 30 days.


 * 6. I reverted the closure of the RfC.


 * 7. I went to AN/I to explain what I had done, and requested that uninvolved admins oversee the closure of the RfC. BlackKite and others agreed. I also saw others point out that Sarek had himself commented on the proposal when the RfC first opened, which underlined for me that it would have been better had he not closed it early, or at all.


 * 8. I saw that the RfC had been advertised on a relatively small number of pages, plus CENT, with the title "RFC - Compromise proposal re first sentence," which was both uninformative and misleading; this may have been a compromise between three editors on the talk page, but it's not a compromise for the community. I therefore changed the title so that people could see it was about "verifiability, not truth," then I requested a watchlist notice to alert people that it would soon close; discussion here. I posted further notification elsewhere (PUMP, NOR and NPOV talk, AN, and other RfC pages). The only RfC tag that had been added to it previously was the policy tag, though it clearly has an impact on content too; it had also been posted on the PUMP, NOR talk and CENT on Oct 5.


 * 9. Because more comments were starting to arrive, and people were saying they had not realized the RfC was taking place, I asked a bureaucrat (Kingturtle) to consider overseeing the closure too, because it was obvious there was significant community interest in the outcome.


 * 10. Having discovered Sarek had commented on the RfC, I regret my implication that he should have realized he was involved (or knew that he was). This was a failure to assume good faith on my part, because he clearly had reason to feel the comment didn't rise to the level of making him involved. I'm asking people to AGF of me, but I didn't extend that courtesy to Sarek, so I apologized to him for that yesterday by email, and posted an apology here on AN/I.

This is a proposal to make a significant change of emphasis, in a core content policy, of an iconic Wikipedia expression. The policy talk page has been taken over in the last eight months by polls and what I can only call filibustering by a small number of people determined to change it. They're entitled to do that, but the policy doesn't belong only to people who post on its talk page. The long discussions and repeated straw polls (none of which gained consensus for change) meant that people were driven away from the page. That made widespread notification of the RfC more important than it would usually be, together with a reminder before closure that people only had a few days left to comment, rather than a request to close it early. That's why I acted as I did. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a much smaller change to me. Different strokes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to closing the RfC
I've just returned to the wiki after a weekend away, and reviewed the above discussion, and would like to state (1) that the level of drama in this thread is absurd and is damaging, and (2) that I'll be glad to collaborate with the other uninvolved administrators who have offered to close the RfC next week. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hate to say it, but after this disaster, it probably needs to stay open longer.  Like at least 2 more weeks?  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a corrupted lame duck and should be closed and opened again with better communication and management to prevent the nonsense we've seen of people changing the proposal half way through. Leaky  Caldron  13:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A true flood of votes has come in now that the RfC is advertised on everyone's watchlist, so it should probably not be closed until the end of next weekend. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm away next weekend anyway, so how about November 10 (ten days from now) as a targeted closing date? I'll be pleased to work on the closing with Black Kite, who volunteered above, and any other uninvolved administrators who wish to participate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. -- J N  466  02:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Black Kite (t)   03:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment User:Black Kite is an involved editor at WT:V, as shown by the diffs posted in this diff.  Thus we can anticipate a BlackKite closing to be partial to the "no change" viewpoint.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We need this to be without question North8000 (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite, North8000 advised you that "We need this to be without question." I, for one, thought that that would be sufficient that you would not be further involved in closing this RfC.  Below, Viriditas draws additional attention to the highly prejudicial attitudes associated with your SPI investigation based on WT:V, and in his response Blueboar desires "neutral and uninvolved admins".  Within the last two hours, I learn that you are still involved.  Please stop now, even if you are part of a finding in favor of a change, I see no possibility that your work in this closing will be met with respect.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, I made my comment as a general one, I do not have an understanding or assessment of the particular situation. North8000 (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist options notification
OK... I am coming under a lot of criticism for not advertising the RfC widely enough. Apparently, posting a notice at the VPP, at NOR and NPOV, at WP:CENT, and at the normal RfC notice page is no longer sufficient. We now have a new standard (at least it is new to me) as to what constitutes "widely advertising" an RfC ... apparently, for an RfC to be considered "widely advertised" we now need to put a notice on the Watchlist options. I did not even realize that this was possible (and I suspect that most other non-admins would not know it was possible either), but I have been informed that this is what I should have done... so, OK... now I know. I can live with this new standard. But it raises a practical question... non-admin regular editors (like me) need guidance to tell them a) when an RfC rises to the level that it needs such "wide advertisement" and b) some instruction on how to do so. Is this something should be mentioned at WP:RFC, or what? Your thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As a reply from another non-admin, the true answer to your question is that what constitutes "sufficient" notification is a function of who it is that is complaining about there not having been enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin and never use my watchlist but was aware of the watchlist advertising. I suspect many non-admins who have been here a while and do use their watchlist would be aware of the feature since it isn't that rare that it's used. Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's simply a matter of my not paying close enough attention... but in all the years I have been editing, I have never seen an RfC advertised on my watchlist before (with the single exception of the ATT debate, which was a bit more than a simple RfC) ... Don't get me wrong... I actually think it is a good idea - at least for RfCs on the wording of major policies (we obviously don't want watchlist notifications for every RfC).
 * My concern is that its a new requirement. As such, it hit me as a surprise when people said I should have done it (as I said, I did not even know it was possible for a non-admin to post things this way). Then I realized that there is no place that tells a normal editor like me that it can be done, much less when it should be done, and no place that tells us how to do it.  I don't mind new requirements (especially when they make sense)... but we have to tell people that they exist.  I felt really sandbagged by this, and I don't want it to happen to others. Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, I think the misunderstanding came about in part because you were around for the ATT RfC, and you often said that had not been advertised widely enough. I therefore thought we had the same type of thing in mind when we agreed on a wiki-wide RfC with widespread notification (perhaps not as wide, but along similar lines). That was just a miscommunication, and I can't see that it matters. What's important is that the notification was made, even if only toward the end. So long as people have at least a few days notice, it's okay. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's really a pity that you were (not just felt, but were) sandbagged by it, given how hard you have worked to be constructive throughout the entire discussion. I remember that when I started WP:CDARFC, I asked for a watchlist notice to be posted, but I no longer remember how I knew to do it. On the one hand, it's undeniable that the listing now has brought more editors to the RfC; on the other hand, it's not at all clear to me that this particular RfC really needed to be advertised this way, based on how similar RfCs are announced. If it's a "requirement", I don't think anyone has articulated where the "requirement" does or does not apply. Maybe that's because there really isn't community consensus that it is a requirement. Just because some people demanded the additional announcements, we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that you or anyone else did things wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope that you are not suggesting anything inappropriate on my part. I suggested it and it was implemented by an Admin. That's all, end of. I have no idea what the reference to sandbagging is intended to imply in relation to my suggestion about using watchlist and I'd welcome an explanation. Leaky  Caldron  22:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean you, and I don't think Blueboar did either, so please don't feel that anyone found fault with you. (I didn't even remember that it was originally your suggestion.) It's more a matter of the overall situation in which an RfC that seemed to have drawn to a close was suddenly thrown open again. Blueboar tried very hard to do things the right way, and it came as very much of a surprise to find everything so abruptly called into question. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This entire section up to this point relates to the watchlist issue. BB's complaint about being sandbagged and your reinforcement of it above (It's really a pity that you were (not just felt, but were) sandbagged by it,...) is about the watchlist issue. You are now saying that you were talking about the point at which the RfC was restarted - a few days ago. That is conflating 2 entirely separate issues and isn't a convincing answer to my question, I'm afraid. For information, here is the diff. of the original suggestion. Now what I would like to know is how does "why not use....(watchlist)" get translated into "a new requirement" or "a new policy"? It was a suggestion. Leaky  Caldron  23:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I worded that badly. I didn't mean that I was talking about the specific point in time that the RfC was restarted, rather that it was the overall series of events following that specific point in time. And I think you will see that I do not think it is a requirement or a policy. I accept that you simply suggested the announcement, but I've seen other people in this talk and elsewhere treat it much more as a demand. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Blueboar definitely did nothing wrong. But if there's a debate about the suitability of this RfC for the watchlist, it feels like a solid candidate for inclusion. This RfC discusses the first sentence of a Wikipedia pillar, which means that it proposes to change the very first thing editors see when they're asked to read WP:V in content disputes. It's a million times more worthy of a watchlist message than trivialities like data modeling competitions. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * True that, about the coding competition! But (in the intricacies of this stuff) that was a site notice (by the Foundation), not a watchlist notice. As for watchlist notices, there's a whole spectrum of importance/triviality between the coding competition, the RfC here, and a potential RfC about something even more important. Please remember that, although you are quite correct that the proposal would change the first sentence of a "pillar", it wouldn't actually change the policy at all, just how the policy is explained. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a point here is that Blueboar went well beyond the basic requirements outline at WP:RFC, which only asks that one use the, but has been treated as though they violated some guideline and policy by not going far enough. I'm not arguing that wider advertisement is not a good idea, but where are the recommendations for what advertisements should made for an RfC, since it seems to me that WP:RFC only asks for use of the one template? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the point here wasn't to complain about being sandbagged... Yes, I do feel that way, but I have a thick skin and can deal with it. My point is that I don't want others to feel that way.  I completely agree that RfCs about core policies need very wide notification... and I completely agree that Watchlist notifications are a great way to achieve that.  If I had known that posting a Watchlist notification was possible, I would have done so when I started the RfC at WP:V.  The reason I didn't know is that it isn't mentioned anywhere!  And it should be.  I want Admin guidance on a) where it should be mentioned, b) what we should tell people (under what circumstances should people leave Wathclist notifications... we obviously don't want to swamp the system with every tiny RfC that comes along, but we do want to list big RfC that involve major policies) and c) what are the instructions we should give (do they request that an admin post the message... or can anyone do it).  Blueboar (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It could be placed somewhere on the RfC instructions page -- that when an RfC involves one of the five pillars, or a significant change to another important policy, people should consider requesting a watchlist notice. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:Publicising discussions, which is tagged with Wikipedia how to. It is linked by a number of pages; the most prominent appears to be WP:Canvassing. Flatscan (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added a subsection to WP:RFC suggesting advertising RfCs and pointed to Publicising_discussions. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What constitutes a consensus for policy change?
This is a question that we as a community should probably attempt to answer at some point in the near future, as the guidelines we currently have in place seem to break down when talking about Wikipedia wide involvement in policy change. For one, the concept of consensus "not being a vote" seems to mean little when we're talking about the involvement of a couple hundred editors in a dispute that clearly has merit on both sides. At the end of this particular RFC it is simply going to come down to a majority wins situation, but the question then is how much of a majority is needed to change a fundamental aspect of the way we're guided as editors? I'm firmly in the 70-75% camp, but I fully acknowledge that there are good arguments to be made for a number of lines to be drawn. So I ask, can we agree that policy change policy needs to be clarified, and what is the correct venue for such a discussion? N o f o rmation Talk  21:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS would be the right venue for the discussion. And it should probably get advertised widely (see above). Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Re Noformation's comment "At the end of this particular RFC it is simply going to come down to a majority wins situation, but the question then is how much of a majority is needed to change a fundamental aspect of the way we're guided as editors?"


 * In the RFC, at the end of the Rationale section,
 * "Conclusions: The goal of this proposal is not to change the meaning of the policy, but to clarify it ..."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Significant problem with the RfC
I posted diffs to the current version, the proposed version, and the difference between the two, directly under the title. Someone keeps removing them. This means it is not immediately clear what the RfC proposes, and the title doesn't say either.


 * Current policy
 * Proposed policy
 * diff

I strongly object to this. The diffs show clearly what is involved, and there is no good reason not to show them to people. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Try to build bridges and work with other editors rather than acting unilaterally. For example, try talking to Blueboar and other editors about adding the diffs. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've posted a proposal on talk to restore them. What concerns me is why anyone would want to remove links between the old and the new. On top of that the uniformative and misleading title ("compromise proposal") is back in place. I feel I'm having an uphill struggle here to stop the RfC being closed early, to get notification out so people know about it, and now to post diffs showing people what's proposed. And being attacked for it. It's very discouraging.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It was SarekofVulcan who removed them today.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 03:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Once. So what's with the "keeps removing" language? In multiple venues? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating removed them yesterday.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 03:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this contained in the policy talk page thread. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am concerned that including the diffs could bias the RfC... since changes are highlighted in bright red, but additions are not, someone looking at the diffs will have their attention inappropriately drawn to only part of the proposal... the proposed changes to the first paragraph... and they may completely miss the fact that the proposal also proposes adding a new section. That additional section is central to the proposal - it is where the phrase "Verifiability, not Truth" (the phrase that everyone is so concerned about) is being moved to.  I am concerned that someone looking at the diffs will assume (incorrectly) that the proposal seeks to remove V not T entirely (which it definitely does not do). Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable concern, which hadn't occurred to me (I can see both changes on my screen without scrolling, but appreciate that others may not). So if we include the diff, we should add a note saying, "Don't forget to scroll down, so you see both the change to the lead sentence, and the new section explaining "verifiability not truth". -- J N  466  15:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand why people think the RFC is biased if people have more information. Is there really something wrong with editors seeing the "current" and "proposed" policies? It seems almost absurd to object to this. Jayjg (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, It loaded up the front end of the RFC, before the reader even gets to the main part of the RFC, with things to read that may have been misleading (as indicated above by Blueboar), and the reader may go directly to making a comment without even reading the main part of the RFC. TL;DR.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand - it was a couple of lines that allowed editors to compare the proposed version with the current version - what could be "misleading" about that? Did we not want editors to actually see the difference? Jayjg (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban
In my opinion, the previous section shows that SlimVirgin has lost all sense of proportion regarding this RFC, and propose that she be topic banned from issues related to the RFC, broadly construed, until the RFC is closed. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as proposer. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BAIT much? You reverted SlimVirgin's changes to the talk page and then you try to set her up for a topic ban when she comes here to complain about it? Tsk, tsk. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You think I had any clue who, out of the hundreds of edits to that page over the past day, had added those? I didn't know until Slim complained. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sarek, I've apologized to you twice by email for assuming bad faith of you yesterday, and posted an apology here on AN/I too. Please accept those apologies. I don't want this to turn into a vendetta between us, and I'm literally being swamped by personal attacks for things that didn't even happen. Please let's put this thing behind us and work together from here on. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 03:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sarek, I apologize unreservedly ...! SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 04:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, that gets a *chuckle*, at least. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose A topic ban against someone on an issue, an RfC that you directly disagree with, looks unfair, sounds as though it is designed to silence any opposition and seems to me - an uninvolved observer to be completely out of line, I think this should be dropped...Modernist (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose, per Modernist, who says it well...this a completely unfair and totally unnecessary proposal. SV has acted in good faith throughout this affair and has been attempting to calmly and intelligently discuss the issue after trying to directly fix some real problems with the way the original RFC was advertised and worded.  Her versions and advertisements were far superior to what was originally done, perhaps the process of change could have been smoother - but in the extraordinarily hostile environment of that RFC, it's hard to imagine anything going smoothly that is actually accurate and fair.  The inappropriate angry comments and continued attacks on that page need to stop, this ill-conceived proposal is just encouraging that type of behavior.  SV's behavior is fine, leave her be and address the actual issues at hand with the policy and associated RFC. There's nothing wrong with the above section at all, much less anything that shows SV has "lost all sense of proportion"; that comment itself it out of proportion - the proposal to add those diffs for clarity and concise information at the beginning of the RFC is a good one.   Dreadstar  ☥  04:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose these sour grapes. Good faith policy dispute on a policy talk page, nothing for an admin to do here. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, speedy close, and a trout for Sarek for suggesting this. Really, this is utterly conduct unbecoming, Sarek. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * e/c Oppose and close - banning someone for a good faith disagreement on an RfC is only adding to the drama, and that's all it can do, since this has no chance of passing. First Light (talk) 05:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and in honor of the U.S. East Coasters in the dark, WP:Snowball close Snowpyramids.jpg and an icy, slushy trout. Sorry, Sarek, please reread WP:TIGERS (yes, I do comprehend the irony of me saying that), and graciously accept SlimVirgin's apologies, and both of you strike through the worst of what was written. Hell, man, a fruitfly just flew up my nose; that's the kind of shit to get royally pissed off about. Fuck. --Lexein (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, while I do not think this is a workable proposal I note the difference in reaction to Sarek's proposal and SlimVirgin's accusations (you know the ones that kicked off this thread and started this whole drama fest). You should all be ashamed of yourselves. A lot of people consider Slim's involvement here to be problematic, so at least Sarek's suggestion isn't baseless, which is much more than can be said for Slim's attacks. She claims to have apologized to Sarek in this thread, but I don't see it. I see her justifying what she did and retroactively assuming good faith. That's not an apology. Anyway this is a mind-boggling double standard in my opinion.Griswaldo (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Griswaldo is clearly and wholly correct here. Sarek isn't the cause of the drama.— S Marshall  T/C 12:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I fail to see any cogent rationale for this - much less meeting my usual opposition to Draconian solutions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sarek, you seem to be the one who has lost perspective. We do not topic ban people for expressing good faith concerns at an RFC. Jehochman Talk 15:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed we don't. However, when someone comes running to AN/I saying "I was reverted twice when I changed an RFC in mid-stream, and this is a huge problem", it's no longer expressing concerns in an RFC, it's requesting admin action when you didn't follow BRD first. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So many things to find fault with here, where to start? Sarek, a few days ago, I complimented you on your talk page for taking the high ground. Now, I think you have squandered that. As for a V topic ban, it's simply the wrong solution, and would have the effect of trying to stack the discussion while the discussion is still in progress. At the same time, I'm both appalled and unsurprised at most of the comments above. During WP:CDARFC, I was repeatedly lectured that the great unwashed population of Wikipedians would come after administrators like "a mob with pitchforks". In fact, the longer I edit here, the more I'm convinced that Wikipedia suffers from a population of vested contributors who show up like "a mob with pitchforks" whenever one of their own is called to task. Jimbo got it right on Sarek's talk page. It seems to me that there is a double standard. This is the wrong discussion to assess what SlimVirgin did or did not do, but it will be assessed. And the standard that should apply should be the same standard that would have been applied to a much less experienced editor, even if that isn't happening here. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I note that while SlimVirgin opened this RfC, it was to seek moderation concerning a conflict over the appropriate way to manage the RfC.  SlimVirgin's initial post made no suggestion of bad faith, and did not call for any blocks or sanctions.  A lot of people involved in this RfC have made errors of judgment, and most of them are trying to work back towards some constructive framework in which people can still vehemently disagree.  The proposed topic ban is certainly not called for (lots of other people have made errors of judgment) and inappropriate, in personalizing what, as SV tried to do initially, can be presented and handled as a set of procedural issues.  Several other editors who vehemently disagree with Slim Virgin have acknowledged that she acted in good faith.  The only way to rationalize this proposal is to make a great many assumptions, not just about SV but about the specific RfC at V and actually RfCs in general, that can only be sustained if one has lost all sense of proportion and perspective.  NOTE: Some may think I have a COI as it was I who initially reverted Sarek's edits to the V policy.  Maybe this opens me up to a topic ban!  But I explained my reasons on the talk page, and they were based on our WP:RfC guidelines.  Similarly, there is nothing SV has done that cannot be undone, and nothing SV has said that cannot be resoplved through discussion.  In the end the only conceivable wound is to have called into question Sarek's judgment a few days ago.  I grant that as with all matters of judgment, this is arguable, questionable.  But surely, wounded pride is not a bannable offense. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Probably not feasible as proposed, but something should be done about the immense out-of-line behavior that has occurred and damage that has been done. I think that something subtler such as just saying "that was wrong, don't do that again" would be effective with this individual. North8000 (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment A point I take from North8000's comment is that it is not actually useful to postulate that the sense of proportion has been lost, when what we know by observation is an appearance that the sense of proportion has been lost.  I encourage the nominator to withdraw this proposal, and make an objectively worded proposal.  North8000's proposal for a censure vote also has merit.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Something should be done about clear-cut disruption on such a huge scale, even if it is something mild as I suggested in my previous post. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Since when has attempting to add clarity and extend awareness been a hanging offence? If there is any spare Admin. resource available maybe they could look at this related matter which has been o/s here MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details and WP:AN for the best part of 24 hours. Leaky  Caldron  12:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks! Leaky Caldron  12:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The basis for this proposal is well founded and a long time developing.  In particular, WP:CONSENSUS policy is a key document, "the decision-making process involves an active effort to incorporate all legitimate editorial concerns".  Instead of participation and collaboration, SV's MO, for changes to the lede of WP:V, is to wait until consensus has been established before becoming centrally involved, and such involvement is never with the goal of building consensus.  The current episode is the third such episode in less than a year.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I do think that SV displayed a bit of an ownership attitude initially, but I don't think it ever reached the point where a topic ban would have been justified, and I think it has improved recently anyway. Hans Adler 15:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding comments with undue attitude, for maintaining stability at the WT:V RfC
Summary: request for comment is made regarding comments made to me at User talk:Unscintillating by User:Viriditas.

This post has to do with the follow-up to the edits to the WT:V RfC template originally added by SlimVirgin about three weeks after the start of the RfC. At that time, five RfC pages designed for Article RfCs were added to the template. I asked a question at WP:AN, but SlimVirgin never responded. A question was also asked at WT:V, WT:V, without much response. This took most of a week before the discussion went into the archive. While posting notices of discussion at WT:V/First sentence/Procedural on both WT:V and WT:V/First sentence, I then proceeded to restore the RfC, whereupon new objections were raised. The new objections were in turn considered, in particular the claim was made that the editors using the WP:Feedback request service have a "need" to receive notices of a policy discussion on RfC pages intended for Article topics. Editors at WT:Feedback request service rejected the idea, saying that if they want to get notices of the policy RfC discussions, they know how to sign up. Instead they agreed that the practice was "spam". I took this feedback to WP:V/First sentence/Procedural, believing that it was proper and timely to again restore the RfC. From my viewpoint, this was the point in time when the attitude problem began, I observed to User:Viriditas that using rhetoric such as "obstruction" did not strengthen his position, but I don't see that he/she was able to work with the feedback. Comments with attitude appear in edit comments in the edit history at WT:V; a small amount of content posted at WT:V, content at WT:V/First sentence/Procedural, and the content at my user page. I have continued to watch the posts that he/she made and no one is supporting his/her position, yet this evening I have received a new round of comments with undue attitude, and I am concerned by the threat to hold a grudge. I think I have acted with patience, provided for due process diligence, sought consensus, responded appropriately to User:Viriditas, and represented the RfC Working group; and I now request feedback as to what more I should have or can do now to protect the RfC working group, the encyclopedia, and my future with User:Viriditas. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Another false and misleading statement by a returning editor currently going under the user name "Unscintillating". The user has disrupted the RfC several times by removing multiple RfC notifications added and requested by several users, including SlimVirgin and User:Alanscottwalker.  The user currently known as "Unscintillating" has been asked many, many times to take their concerns to the appropriate thread on the talk page located at Wikipedia_talk:V.  The user has refused, instead choosing to discus the topic with himself on a subpage that nobody knows about (Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Procedural) and then to repeatedly claim victory and remove the RfC tags when nobody responds to the discussion between the user and himself.  This is clearly trolling and/or IDHT practiced at the highest levels.  To compound the problem, after repeatedly being asked to use the appropriate talk page and thread, the user then took the discussion to another unrelated page and claimed victory.  An SPI was recently performed to determine who this returning disruptive user was (see Sockpuppet investigations/Bob K31416/Archive) however the SPI was closed as no match.  I suggest that another checkuser needs to look into this user and its behavior a bit more closely. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * More unnecessary drama. Given that we have now reached November 10, which is the agreed upon closure date for the RFC  (see discussions above), complaining about what occurred in the past is now irrelevant.  At this point, all RFC templates and notices about this RFC should be removed.  However, this should be done by the neutral and uninvolved admins who volunteered to review and close the RFC, and not those who are involved. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to put this down to the heat of the moment? I cannot see any ill will on either side. The correct decision was to leave this RfC open - to achieve the widest possible participation and arrive at a true community consensus. A much narrower one based on those who watchlist policy pages or hang out in discussion areas isn't appropriate for core policy, headline, first sentence changes. My preferred route was close, pause and restart but provided the closing Admins. are able to make sense of it, the same objective should achieved. Unscint., please consider the respect you have gained for all the good work you have done here and just leave it. Leaky  Caldron  14:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thread moved
I have moved the thread to this subpage due to the length it was getting. As I said with my ANI edit any admin who has not participated in this discussion is free to revert. By participation I mean a comment of any form. Any other editor or admin may petition me with a reason why is should be undone and I will consider it on a case to case basis. Thank you and I hope you understand. Alexandria  (talk)  15:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)