Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 3

Deleting uncertified RFC's (again)
It used to be guideline that RFCs were to be deleted if not certified within 48 hours, but that wasn't actually enforced by anyone. Since policy and guideline are dictated by consensus, and consensus doesn't wish this enforced, it isn't guideline any more. Hence, the rewording of the template. Somebody is probably going to cite WP:POINT in the next couple of days, but the fact is that wording should reflect actual practice, if actual practice doesn't live up to theoretical wording. Radiant_* 14:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's apparent that you haven't read this talk page. This topic has been brought up before and dismissed.  Deletion of uncertified RFC's is preferred.  Do not assume that because this page has had little admin maintenance that it implies a change to a long-help practice is necessary. -- Netoholic @ 01:12, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence for your claims. To my best knowledge, that simply isn't the case. For instance, Requests_for_comment/Danny was never deleted by anyone, and a request on WP:AN yielded no response. Requests_for_comment/Kappa was considered by many to be improper, yet several people have refused to delete it on grounds that it's improper to delete any RFC. Radiant_* 07:29, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have left messages for both of those users asking if they want the respective RfCs kept. If not, I will delete them per policy.  SWAdair | Talk  06:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * See also Votes for deletion/Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, which many people argue should be kept despite being invalid (some people also argue that it isn't invalid, but that's not my point). Radiant_* 08:00, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hehe... Interesting but so far from ordinary that it can't be used as a precedent. Subject of RfC was the second certifier, VfD consensus was that this made it a valid RfC.  SWAdair | Talk  06:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC, which again is a failed attempt to have an uncertified RFC deleted. Radiant_* 11:45, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * The RfC was deleted. This was about whether a user had the right to keep a copy of an uncertified RfC in their user space.  SWAdair | Talk  06:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * See also WP:RFC/Stevertigo, which did not get any certification since its creation at April 9th (despite being in the relevant category) and hasn't been deleted in the past month-and-a-half. Radiant_* 11:47, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Deleted with the summary "Empty RfC created two months ago in the wrong namespace." SWAdair | Talk  06:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Use your browser's "Find" function and search for "delet" on this page and /Archive 2. You will see that deletion is a long-held practice with no consensus for change, when it was proposed before.  Your examples only show that recently the page has lacked admin attention -- they do not show that opinions about deletion have changed. -- Netoholic @ 12:48, 2005 May 30 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just did that, and it proves you wrong. The above has you as the sole defendant on deleting RFCs, and on Archive 2, Michael Snow says that Removed has meant, in practice, only that the listing is removed from RfC. and in the later discussion a sizeable amount of people do not want them deleted, once more with you as the most vocal defendant, and JGuk as the only one backing you. The recent events I've repeatedly pointed out to you don't just show that no admins archive this page, but also that if brought to their attention, they are entirely unwilling to delete invalid RFCs. Radiant_* 13:31, May 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * If you disagree, then ask the question directly, prove consensus. In the meantime, stope revert warring, because the page should remain in its original state until this is settled.  Few people have that page on their watchlists, and your change is somewhat sneaky. -- Netoholic @ 01:22, 2005 May 31 (UTC)


 * I did ask my question directly on AN/I and nobody responded. This has nothing to do with sneaky since I explained it in this talk section. The earlier conversations you pointed out show that there is no consensus for deleting RFC pages, nor is it a valid deletion criteria anywhere in deletion policy. There have been several RFCs in the past half year that were invalid, but none were deleted. The RFC template is simply misleading. Radiant_* 08:11, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's take this example... Requests_for_comment/Uncle_G. It is not certified, and is presently two and a half days old. Now if you are correct about RFC procedure, then it will be unlisted and deleted as soon as it's brought to the admins' attention (which would be relatively easy; there are likely some admins who read RFC regularly, and otherwise putting it on AN/I, or adding a {db} tag, would do it). We'll see what happens. Radiant_* 08:58, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have left a message on Uncle G's talk page asking if he wants the RfC kept. If not, I will delete it per policy.  SWAdair | Talk  06:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, SWAdair. I've in the past tried to get a couple of them deleted, but have not met with any success. Thus I'm not sure where consensus lies. But personally I think that uncertified RFCs are close to personal attacks and should be removed. Radiant_* 11:06, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Then, why in the hell were you arguing the opposite at the top of this section? -- Netoholic @ 13:31, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
 * No swearing please. If SWAdair can delete them without raising opposition, that would show there's less opposition than I originally thought. You have not shown any evidence - he has, by doing that. Also, I find his civil and polite words more convincing than your hostile responses. Radiant_* 13:39, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I ask again, why, if you agree that uncertified RFC's should be deleted, did you argue the opposite and try and change this established procedure even after I pointed out that you were mistaking lack of admin attention for consensus to change and declaring "it isn't guideline any more". -- Netoholic @ 20:10, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
 * Because there is a difference between what I agree with, and what consensus thinks - and obviously, the latter takes precedence. Radiant_* 07:38, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Policy and practice should be in agreement. Radiant found that they weren't being deleted, even after prodding, so he correctly concluded that the official procedure was not being applied and should therefore be rewritten. Kappa 20:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That argument escapes my understanding. WP:TFD often lacks admin attention... should we then infer that the standards for template deletion should change? -- Netoholic @ 20:51, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
 * If, after repeatedly asking people, those people still would not do what TFD claims to be official procedure, then in that case the procedure would be wrong. WP lives by consensus, not bureaucracy. Radiant_* 07:38, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am more than happy to look after the uncertified RFCs, if they want deleting. smoddy 20:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I can do them myself, too, as of this morning. Radiant_* 07:38, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I just added a note that a person who is the subject of the RfC should not delete it, but should allow or request an neutral admin to do so. This seems obvious, but a recent example shows that it ought to be spelled out. DES (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Archiving RFC
The vast majority of RFCs are never officially closed as 'resolved', people just stop editing them when the answer is satisfactory (or, but rarely, when there's no point in continuing it). This has lead to the RFC page becoming overly long with old listings. I have been manually cleaning it out every couple weeks, by taking a bunch of old ones and moving them into the archive, and nobody has objected so far.

I would think it sensible to employ a bot for this work. It seems possible to have it come by weekly (for instance) and look at all RFCs linked from this page, and archive any of them that have not been edited for two weeks. I think it's reasonable to assume that if an RFC is dormant for two weeks, it will not continue very often (and in the rare cases where it does, moving it back is trivial). Any thoughs? Suggestions? Objections? Radiant_* 08:13, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are no objections up to now. If there aren't any in the next couple of days, I will ask the botters to go ahead and automate. Radiant_* 11:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I completely object to a bot running on this page. Disputes do not expire after two weeks - this task requires a human touch. -- Netoholic @ 01:09, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
 * What I mentioned was after two weeks of inactivity, not two weeks after creation. How else do you propose we solve this mess? Very few people ever close an RFC or unlist it; the list of article RFCs, in particular, had over a hundred old entries before I started archiving them. Now I just manually check, if it's been edited recently, and if not, archive it. That's eminently bottable. Radiant_* 09:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * The proposition is flawed, but I agree you're moving in the right direction with it. What should be done with a bot is to archive all RfCs, regardless, 30 days after creation. It doesn't matter whether there is recent activity or not; no new ideas come to the table after that point, only the same voices going around in the same circles. 30 days and out. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 10:52, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. An RFC that drags on too long is probably 1) repetitive and pointless, or 2) grounds for RFAr. In those few cases where it isn't, it's a simple matter of re-activating it. Radiant_* 11:29, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object the process is annoying enough without adding yet another layer of annoyance to a human editor having to fight a bot. There are plenty of edit disputes that go on for months, plural, and having a previous RFC is evidence that an editor, or group of editors, are not going to resolve the problem. Pushing things "down the memory hole" for the sake of a clean page is unwiki. Stirling Newberry 17:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

So what's the current plan? I see some article disputes that have long-since been resolved. There's no link to an archive to move them to, which we used to have. Are we just deleting them? -Willmcw 11:35, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, policy here is now unclear. The RFC on DreamGuy is effectively closed and should probably be archived, but we've currently got User:-Ril- trying to speedy delete it. -- Solipsist 11:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

time you split
page big time to fix. rfc of people and rfc of content and rfc of other.

Splitting article RfCs by topic
On the RfAr/RFC page, Maurreen suggested splitting the article RfCs into the main Wikipedia catergories, Culture, Geography, History, Life, Mathematics, Science, Society, and Technology. Could be a way of getting more responses, by breaking down the list into more digestable sized chunks, and allowing people with specific interests to pick up on items which may be of interest. Thoughts? Dan100 22:58, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we try and clean out some old entries from the list before we see if this is needed? - Mgm|(talk) 15:17, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * This might also have the benefit of encouraging people to write RFCs about topics rather than people. I'm begininng to suspect that few of us are big enough to react well to being the named target of an RFC. Bovlb 04:35, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC) (cc'ed from VP by Dan100 (Talk))


 * There is talk of installing a bot to remove all inactive RFCs. I'd wager that only the top dozen or so are actually active. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 07:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason I suggested splitting is to make the RFCs more active, to draw more attention to them. Maurreen 13:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I would support splitting. &mdash; mark &#9998; 08:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree there is a problem, RFC currently draws way too little attention, but I'm not sure splitting it up would help, Mathematics wouldn't get any RfCs at all and culture and history would get lots. I'd prefer removing items from the list sooner. --W(t) 11:20, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

I'll probably have a go at this tomorrow morning my time (UK) when the wiki's quieter. Weyes, I was going to combine a few of the topics together otherwise I think it would be too many. Is that ok? BTW I'm trying to keep on top of old articles - but 48hrs ago I went through all of them, and I couldn't believe how many active disputes there were - and that's only the ones which have gone to RfC... Dan100 (Talk) 19:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I tried to use the WP categories but they're pretty muddled, so I made up my own system. Fiddle around with them as you see fit. Dan100 (Talk) 22:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Aha! This is indeed an improvement. I initially thought RFC was to be split among different pages, and I'd say that's a bad idea. Different sections on one page, though, that's useful. Possibly the 'article title' dispute section should be deprecated in favor of this one, esp. since people tend to misfile title and content disputes. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * That seems like a good idea, as it does look somewhat untidy the way it's formatted at present. Hiding 14:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'deprecate', do you mean drop having a seperate section for title disputes, and put them in with content RfCs? If you do, I'm kinda split - the current layout is very focused - content issues are normally quite different to title disputes. Content disputes can often be sorted out by applying the appropiate policies, where as Title disputes are a bit of a nightmare. I can't help but wonder if a lot of people are not unlike me - only interested in content disputes, and I think they could just clutter up the Content section. Title disputes also seem to go on forever - again, I'd quite like to keep the rapid turn-over in Content. So I'm sort of reluctant to see them combined. Dan100 (Talk) 20:50, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Dan, this looks good. Thank you. Maurreen

Wikipedia talk:Content labeling proposal
The discussion on the above looks pretty dead, but it's still listed right at the bottom of the page under General convention and policy issues. I would remove it but does it need to be archived or something? --Hiding 20:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I worked it out all by myself. Hiding 22:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

dispute with ... Mel Etitis
Hi everyone I am not sure if I am in a right place, but I am having a dispute with ... Mel Etitis on a subject and I would like to have a second opinion on the matter or see if someone else can look into this matter. He is clearly not following the guidelines. The way this site is designed, there is no room for improvement by users IF The administator is not accepting the changes. And what happens if the administator lack knowledge????? - Farvahar 14:30, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Is the page Ali Shariati, as it appears from Farvahar's edit history, or is it some other one? Has Mel Etitis used administrator powers? It looks like he just reverted on Ali Shariati; administrators are allowed to edit, like anybody else. Septentrionalis 16:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Yes I know he has the right to edit, but shouldnt he give a reasonable and logical explanation for doing that? The dispute is actually about two things, first this quote: “I have no religion, but if I were to choose one, it would be Shariati's.” (Jean-Paul Sartre) I asked what is the source of this quote? He is refering me to OTHER websites. This is ridiculous!!!! I know that this quote is false and has been made up by Shariati's supporter to make him big. The other thing is his degree from university of Paris, he dose NOT have a doctorate in philosophy and sociology!!!!!! What is the policy here, things that been entered here once, stays forever???? And we as readers should produce evidence to prove YOU wrong? Or should you provide evidence for YOUR claims? Mel Etitis has taken my criticism kind of personal, so he is not doing his job correctly, which is to try to find out if the information is correct or not. If you base your information on other website, then I am sorry, nobody will take you seriously.


 * In addition to removing the quote you removed all the categories from the article and made several nonsense edits. You don't really have the credibility to question the article when you are vandalising it.  Make some good-faith edits, acquire some credibility, and then maybe people will take you seriously.  Guettarda 28 June 2005 04:47 (UTC)

Well, same BS as before, WITHOUT answering the questions. Hellooooo, answer the question. Its you and your childish attitud that makes people vandalise the atricles. You put whatever nonsense on your site without having any clue what they means, then your lack of knowledge which makes it even worst. Forget about MY action, DO YOUR god damn JOB. Why dont you get that. Your actions should NOT be dependent on my or other people actions. This is like a more boddy boddy club then an educational organisation, provide evidence for the information you are puting out there.

Bad people dont take seriously RFC anyway, do they?
Okay, this is just an "I'm curious" kind of questiion. I think request for comment on mean and nasty users is great but I really wonder...does it do any good? I have seen a few of the people up for RFC flat out say they couldnt care less what was said about them, what decesions were made, and they would continue to edit regardless of whatever resolution was made. One user, as I recall, told the RFC to go screw itself, got banned for it, and simply created a new user account and continued with business as usual. This isnt a negative post, I really am very curious. What do other people think? Does it really do any good? -Husnock 28 June 2005 04:39 (UTC)


 * I think results vary. The one RFC I filed on another user seemed to have some positive effect. Maurreen 28 June 2005 04:59 (UTC)


 * If the subject takes the RfC seriously, all well and good. If they don't, then it can be a good way to get evidence in order for an RfAr. --Carnildo 28 June 2005 05:28 (UTC)

As far as I am concern, administators of this site are not any better then bad users. They dont provide any evidense or reasons for thier comments either, it seems they lack konwledge on the subjects.

Well said Carnildo "If they don't, then it can be a good way to get evidence in order for an RfAr" Why dont you help your friends to get the evidense for the quote above?

Provide evidense for the quote or REMOVE it
Provide evidense for this quote or REMOVE it:

“I have no religion, but if I were to choose one, it would be Shariati's.” (Jean-Paul Sartre)

Religion of Shariati is Shia Islam, for those(administators) who are not familiar with this religion, its the same religion as Khominie´s religion. I dont know if you see the problem, but this is an insult to Jean-Paul Sartre. Stop spreading lies and stop acting dumb like you dont get the question. Its your fault why poeple start to vandalise.

New related proposal
See a new related proposal at Disruptive User. Vote! Howabout1 Talk to me! 00:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Changes to RfC
I'd like to see a substantial change to the procedure of RfCs, or at least a second kind of RfC added. Right now, RfCs are basically a punitive procedure, which is strange, since they have no actual consequence. Which means that they're a frustrating mix of obligatory part of dispute resolution and waste of time. Here's what I'd like to propose.

First, do away with certifications. Second, do away with "endorsing summaries." Instead, an RfC should be phrased as a request - an opportunity for people to comment on a situation. The comments should be individual - no "signing off" on someone else's comments (Although saying "X has it about right" would be fine), and should be made with the goal of being helpful. "X is a troll who should be banned" is exactly what we don't need on an RfC. "X is very knowledgable, but I wish he would work more with the other editors and not try to overwhelm the article with his POV" is more useful. Or "X makes very good edits, but I wish she'd get outside support when she deals with users she sees as being a problem instead of being so hostile on the talk pages." Or "I wish X would warn users before blocking them and give them a chance to explain."

My rough idea here being that RfCs should be an occasion to get input on something - not an obligatory step on the way to arbcomming people. To do this, though, they need an identity distinct from punitive procedures (Arbcom) and direct involvement in a dispute (Mediation).

Thoughts? Snowspinner 16:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the emphasis on constructive vs. punitive. I have no opinion on the specifics. Do you want to try a draft? Maurreen 16:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we should encourage people to establish more RFCs about specific content issues rather than editors. Having said that, the procedures for the former are woolier.  Any does anyone feel that they work? Bovlb 18:29:51, 2005-07-12 (UTC)

I've started a version of what I'm talking about here at Wikimediation. If people want they can try migrating the process over here - otherwise, it's happy to exist where it is. Snowspinner 20:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I assume this is referring to RfCs about people, not articles, right? Dan100 (Talk) 20:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure. Though I bet article RfCs could be done in the Wikimediation format too. Snowspinner 20:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * "RfCs should be an occasion to get input on something - not an obligatory step on the way to arbcomming people" I absolutely agree. An RFC should be only what it's name says: a request for comments. The current RFC system could be renamed something more formal, such as an "Incident report" or something, and have all its formal requirements for evidence of disputed behaviour, certifying users, etc. An "Incident report" could then become the prerequisite for entering mediation. There should be no possible punitive outcome of an RFC, which might mean that wikipedia policy would forbid evening mentioning an RFC or anything said in an RFC in any of the punitive stages: incident report, mediation, arbitration. The request for comment form could be quite a bit more relaxed than an incident report, because it really is just trying to get outside, uninvolved comments about some event. If the talk page for an article explodes from an edit war, and every single editor on the article has taken one side of an argument or the other, an RFC would be a way to bring in some unbiased people to weigh in, make suggestions, comments, whatever might fix things. To help define what is "unbiased", it would be interesting if it could list all the editors currently involved in the dispute, and then anyone who posts a comment would have a number listed by their comment that would somehow indicate how many pages they contribute to that the editors in the dispute also contributed to. Or how many edits per overlapping page, or something. Anyway, it would simply be a numeric indicator of how uninvolved that commentor is with all the people in the dispute, versus how much history they might be dragging into their comment. It wouldn't prevent them from commenting, but it would help the editors judge just how neutral the commenter really is. the opinion of someone who hasn't interacted with any of the editors would likely be more neutral than someone who has been working with one editor on another page for a long time. Something like that, combined with the fact that there can be no punitive outcome would do a lot to encourage unbiased editors from making honest comments on an RFC. FuelWagon 06:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute"
I've recently commented on three RfCs on Users, all three of which were improper in much the same ways. The main problem was that in none of the three case (RfCs on Striver, Melissadolbeer, and SlimVirgin) had any real attempt been made to resolve the dispute before the RfC was brought. Where diffs are given in the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" sections (omitted altogether in the Melissadolbeer case), they're simply examples of the complainants' side of the argument (and often couched in aggressive tones, to the point of personal attack). Thus the RfCs were being used simply as weapons in editing disputes.

This seems to involve a deep misunderstanding of what RfCs are for; unfortunately, in one of the three case (SlimVirgin) the RfC has been endorsed by an editor who's been around long enough to know better, who's an admin and a bureaucrat. The problem is that having had an RfC on one, even when it foundered for lack of support, can constitute something of a black mark. What can be done to discourage this sort of thing? perhaps a small group of people (call them a committee, if you like) who examine RfCs, and remove those that have been brought improperly or prematurely? Any other thoughts? --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment regarding the SlimVirgin RFC. The diffs for "trying to resolve and fail" have been changed to better examples. FuelWagon 23:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, the diffs that are there now are better examples? They're not examples at all, and I explain why in detail in my endorsement of SlimVirgin's summary. They're also not by two different people! If there have genuinely been two attempts at resolution and discussion, please document them before the 48 hours are up. If there haven't been, this RFC needs to be removed. Bishonen | talk 00:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There haven't been, so I removed it. Uncle Ed 12:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

(PS &mdash; I suppose that this isn't unconnected with the previous section. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC))
 * I agree with Mel's comments, and would like to add the RFCs on DreamGuy (which is OK now but started as a 'quickpoll' to get him banned), and several others I've deleted recently for being uncertified and rather messy, or borderline personal attacks ,.
 * I think that the current RFC process isn't working at all and should be scrapped entirely in favor of something else. The first problem is that some people don't use the template provided, but simply start writing somewhat incoherently. The second problem is that the template focuses heavily on evidence and policy transgressions. Basicaly, it's saying "I accuse User:SomeUser of this and that; all in favor, say aye".
 * Mediation would be reasonable. Unfortunately, we now have four such processes (WP:RFM, WP:TINMC, Mediation (2005)/Requests for mediation and Wikimediation) and none of them seem to be helping much.
 * What I think would help a lot, is focusing on the conflict rather than the user. People often claim that User:AnnoyingPerson is making a lot of mistakes, but generally the point is that said user himself has a conflict with the other user, and in most cases both parties have a point but are both somewhat stubborn. A sample template might look like this,
 * Location of the dispute: MyFavoriteArticle
 * People involved: User:AnnoyingPerson and User:Me
 * Opinion of User:Me (please restrict to 100 words or less, and provide 3-5 diffs as samples; do not cite policy)
 * Opinion of User:AnnoyingPerson (ditto)
 * Proposed solution by User:SomeOutsider (involved parties should be hesitant about adding their own solution, and any solution like 'User:AnnoyingPerson should be banned' must be stricken).
 * Okay, that was my $.2 - comments welcome, of course. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * On the User:Striver business, I don't think you should take my (unfortunate) habit of obessing on my own edits as evidence that no one has tried to work things out with him. I am guessing this is just a case of me not supplying the proper links. (First timer on this.)


 * For evidence that people have indeed tried and failed to work things out with User:Striver, see, [] and many other pleas from more tactful and less self-obsessed editors than me. BrandonYusufToropov 17:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Radiant, I haven't had much experience with RFCs on people, but I have had experience with article RFCs and have to say I feel they're thoroughly inadequate, mostly because they're thoroughly overlooked; most get few if any visitors. I think the RFC process can be of tremendous help in resolving article disputes, IF anybody bothers to take one on.  I've begun making a habit of picking a couple of article content RFC's and trying to help them to resolutions, with some measure of success.  I'm not sure that more strictures are what's needed, though -- I feel like it's a less cumbersome process than, say, mediation, and possibly more effective in certain circumstances because of it.  I'm not sure even that the structure of the RFC process (again, for article content disputes) needs to be changed, but maybe there needs to be more of a centralized effort to involve editors in "patrolling" for ones they can weigh in on.  There are already committees atop committees, but maybe a group of people who monitor listed RFCs and are ready to step in and help on one or two a month, say, in areas in which they have some interest.  I've been thinking about this very thing for some time now. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 01:25, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

The RfC process was doubtless intended to be a way of making a user aware that the community disapproved of her actions, in the hope that that would take the place of more authoritarian, punitive processes. The trouble is that there are two sorts of RfC: those that are frivolous, malicious, or just ill-advised (see above for examples), and those that are correctly brought, and have no effect on their subjects. It's possible (perhaps more than just possible) that the existence of the former contributes to the failure of the latter, though the roots of the problem are deeper.

The problems is that, as with the rest of the Internet, and indeed the world, there are many people who simply don't care what others think of them. ther are many reasons for this: sometimes it's a personal arrogance, sometimes an arrogance born of their adherence to a cause (religiou, political, or whatever), sometimes it's probably some form of autism &mdash; but whatever the reason, it leaves us with a problem.

Now, I'm a philosopher; I'm good at distinguishing and explaining problems. I need rather more time and help to try to solve them. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

first step towards punitive measures
I placed the following warning on the RFC page: FuelWagon 06:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that an RFC is generally considered a prerequisite for entering mediation, and mediation is generally considered a prerequisite for entering Arbitration, and Arbitration can impose binding solutions including a ban from wikipedia, removal of administrator priveledges, etc. Therefore, when you file an RFC, some may view it not as a simple request for comments, but as the first step towards punitive measures against an editor.


 * But that is not really correct. Mediation is supposed to be far more informal than RFC. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:36, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon, I can't see anything about RfC as a prerequisite for mediation on the page you link to, in fact I can't see any mention of RFC. I have also never heard of such a thing, it sounds extremely unlikely: mediation is the first step in dispute resolution, as far as I know. If I'm missing something on the page you link to, could you please point to it? If you've made a mistake, could you please remove it from the RfC page as soon as possible? It's not the kind of misconception one would like to see spread to new users. Bishonen | talk 13:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The process is fairly clearly outlined at "resolving disputes". RfC is not a precursor for mediation, though a potential mediator may well want to see an RfC so he knows what the dispute is about. I think Fuelwagon should also take on board that the aims of both RfC and mediation are to resolve disputes, without punishment.  A lot of people get this wrong, particularly with respect to RfC.  A RfC is just a chance for both parties to outline their problems and to get third party views.  Although it can be as formal as you like, an RfC can be something as simple as a single sentence outline of the dispute on WP:RFC. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

well, just above, Snowspinner wrote


 * RfCs should be an occasion to get input on something - not an obligatory step on the way to arbcomming people.

So there seems to be anecdotal evidence that it is obligatory.

I'm not sure what the absolute, spot-on wording should be. I was trying to use "generally considered" to indicate it wasn't formally required, but that there is a strong linkage. I'll use Tony's wording that "a potential mediator may well want to see an RfC" so it is more clear that is is not a hard requirement. let me know if that is still incorrect. FuelWagon 18:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it to use Tony's wording. Hopefully this is more clear that an RFC is not a formal requirement to mediation, but still indicates the effects of their linkage. The diff is here. FuelWagon 18:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We seem to be at cross-purposes. Yes, there is an informal or "soft" requirement for an RfC to be done before a request for arbitration. It's certainly dispensed with in egregious cases, but arbitrators, if you ask them, are likely to say "better do an RfC first." That doesn't have anything to do with Radiant's protest or with mine, above, where we object to your claim that RfC is required before mediation. There's no hard nor soft requirement for anything at all before mediation, it's much better to get mediation just as soon as you can. It takes long enough to find a mediator as it is, that's why it bothers me that you're making people see extra, non-existent obstacles on the path to it. I've removed your reference to mediation altogether on the project page, please see if you approve. Bishonen | talk 19:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, I double checked where I got that information from. this says Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes Mediation is likely to help. The first time, I misread it to say "if it hasn't gone through mediation, they'll first recommend mediation." Checking it again now, I see that I missed the "if it believes mediation is likely to help" on the end. FuelWagon 23:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to reference mediation in the "warning." My understanding is that mediation is intended to be positive and RFCs are not intended as a preliminary.
 * I'm not wild about the "warning" anyway. Maurreen 23:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon, I wonder what your point is here. You appeared to intend the RfC against me to be punitive, as evidenced by these entries on your talk page. SlimVirgin (talk)  23:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm through trying to convince anyone of my motives. I can't give you a CAT scan of my brain and say "See, look there, that proves what I was thinking." Everyone has already made up their mind anyway. For giggles, though, you can ask Ed and any of the other administrators to see if I ever said you should be blocked or de-admined or punished in any way. Even while I was serving time on my fourty-hour block, I never emailed him and said "SlimVirgin should be blocked too" or whatever. And if you're really bored, you can comb through the talk page archives and see that the only thing I ever actually said I expected from you was an acknowledgement to the effect of "Yeah, I, SlimVirgin, made a bad edit" and "Yeah, I accused you, FuelWagon, Duckecho, Neuroscientist, etc of some things you guys didn't actually do". There were some references to "Fonzi" in that regard, because Fonzi could never say "I'm Sorry". Whatever. Believe what you want. I don't care anymore. The only point of the warning is so that some poor sap of a greenhorn doesn't run into a problem and accidently file an RFC without knowing that some will view it as going to defcon 3, which is exactly how some people view it. FuelWagon 00:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm sorry, but in the meantime, we really can't have your confused and confusing instruction on the RFC page. It's hard enough to do a proper RFC without a tripwire like that. OK, I believe you added it in good faith. But you're quoting irrelevant policies *for mediation*, and adding your own statement that the mediation procedure "includes an RFC" in amongst the quotes. No, it doesn't include an RFC. I'm sorry, I've tried twice to explain this politely, but you just don't seem to be listening. Your "instruction" is a mess (it doesn't help to quote if you quote irrelevant stuff). And it's factually *wrong* (because of the bit you added from yourself). I've removed it. Bishonen | talk 01:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * you're quoting irrelevant policies *for mediation*, and adding your own statement that the mediation procedure "includes an RFC". What I put in the article was this:
 * "a mediator will check that other alternatives of dispute resolution have been tried." [1], which includes an RFC.
 * "other alternatives to dispute resolution" includes an RFC, third opinion, and surveys. Or am I misreading that? I just listed RFC because it was the only one directly relevent to the RFC page.
 * I am not inventing a tripwire where none exists. There is a truth to what I'm trying to put in the article here. I'd appreciate it if you didn't delete the whole thing because I haven't expressed it exactly right. Yeah, the last version was "messy", but that was only because you said my paraphrase of the rules was wrong, so I tried quoting, which added a lot of text. I put a basic version in the article now, which doesn't get into all the rules, since I can't seem to explain them right. Does this version work? FuelWagon 11:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with that one. Bishonen | talk 13:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool. FuelWagon 13:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me if I un-indent this thread; I can't think this "deeply".

FuelWagon, you wrote in the project page:


 * a mediator will check that other alternatives of dispute resolution have been tried." [1], which includes an RFC

This is incorrect. I've been on the Mediation Committee from the beginning, and this was never a requirement for Mediators. It is within our discretion to take on a Mediation, even if users haven't jumped through all the hoops.

Perhaps you are misinterpreting the dispute resolution process. In my interpretation, one should try the simplest, most "low-level" means of resolving a dispute. But I do not think this requires users to get bogged down in paperwork. You got a problem, come to me (I say this to everyone). If I can't solve it for you, I'll refer you to someone who can - or even form a special team if that's what it takes.

If you are interesting in improving Terry Schiavo or other articles, all well and good. But if you go after other contributors demanding apologies (which is uncivil) or start messing around with policy pages (which is disruptive), I'm going to have to ask you to leave. The choice is not a difficult or unreasonable: please pick one and stick to it. Uncle Ed 12:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * "if you go after other contributors demanding apologies (which is uncivil)"
 * Uhm, wait a minute, now I'm totally confused. When you stepped in as mediator on July 12, you blocked me because I swore at SlimVirgin a bunch of time and didn't apologize. I had actually started going through the talk page to remove all my personal attacks, but you blocked me, citing "unrepentant" personal attacks. And the example behaviour you cited was me saying "I won't apologize". I assumed I was blocked because I wouldn't apologize.


 * "messing around with policy pages (which is disruptive),"
 * Ed, could you assume good faith on my part just once? After my block for unrepentant personal attacks against SlimVirgin expired, I opened a request for comments on SlimVirgin's edit and her comments on talk against other editors. My view was she did a reckless edit (An out of the blue editor making a large number of changes containing many errors on a page marked "controversial" and in Mediation) At first you tentatively endorsed the RFC as mediator saying she moved "too far, too fast" and then you withdrew that remark and suggested the RFC was "gaming the system" and "bullying". Several editors who had been working on the Terri Shiavo page prior to her edit supported the RFC. But most outside comments ignored her edits/comments and spoke specifically to the RFC being abusive and an attempt to take someone to the "wikipedia woodshed". Since no one outside the article was actually commenting on SlimVirgin's edit/comments, I withdrew the RFC. I see this morning that you have also proposed another block on my account, citing "harrassment of SlimVirgin", "gaming the system", and representing her edits as "reckless" and "personal attacks". Since my block expired, the only interaction I've had with SlimVirgin was to answer a question she directly asked me above. I haven't emailed her or modified her talk page except to inform her of the RFC. I filed a request for comments about her edits. That was it. And it wasn't to "demand an apology" from her. After her edit, the talk page pretty much exploded and everyone had taken sides. The only reason the edit warring stopped was 3RR slowed things down, and then you stepped in as mediator and blocked me, and later locked the page for a while. But there was never any actual agreement about anything. Peace was achieved by force alone. I filed the RFC because I wanted to get some outside, uninvolved comments about SlimVirgin's edit so that some sort of actual agreement could be reached rather than working under the constant threat of blocking and page locking from the mediator. So, I am not "messing around with the policy pages", I am trying to warn other editors who may be unfamiliar with the system that filing an RFC may be considered bullying, harrassment, and gaming the system, and it might even get their account considered for suspension. FuelWagon 16:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This is getting silly. You're trying to interpret why the people who endorsed my summary did so. The fact is that the Schiavo talk page "exploded," as you put it, with your personal attacks, and it's not the only one to have done so. Your calling people "you arrogant cuss" isn't confined to me or to the Schiavo talk page.  You haven't apologized for the language, either to me or (so far as I know) to anyone else, or for having filed an inappropriate, and arguably bad-faith, RfC. Changing your attitude would be more helpful than changing the policy page. SlimVirgin (talk)  17:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * You haven't apologized
 * That's the first time you mentioned it. I assumed a 40-hour block was enough to restore integrity. Since this is getting off the topic of RFC, I'm forking this thread over to your talk page. (continued in a moment.) FuelWagon 18:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I should butt in, but just a thought, maybe the best thing would be for everyone to just move on to something else. Or start over. Maurreen 02:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Article naming & popular culture
Wikipedia articles on popular music and other popular entertainment are seething with naming problems (not to mention poor English, poor formatting, and the worst kind of fanzine-gush and journalistic hyperbole). The problem is that these articles are often watched over and defended by their creators, who are completely uninterested in either correct English or Wikipedia style, and whose aggression, belligerence, and determination makes life very difficult for any editor trying to clean things up.

Japanese and Korean-based articles are a particular problem, as editors often insist that the typography of CD sleeves is followed exactly &mdash; so if an album title is printed in capitals on the sleeve, it has to be that way in Wikipedia, etc.

There are times when I find myself thinking: "To hell with it; who cares how articles on music that I dislike are written and presented..." &mdash; but whether I like the stuff or not, whether I think the subject is interesting or not, is irrelevant. Still, I'm spending far too much time dealing with this instead of with more productive matters; does anyone have any ideas about how to improve the situation? --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 07:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * For article content, no - that's something that has to be decided on case-by-case. Article titles, however, are easy, and we do have some standards for that (e.g. no all-caps). We can protect them against being moved, if necessary. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * yes, I thought so. the trouble is that most experienced editors steer clear of these articles (and I can't say that I blame them).  At the moment I'm fighting a depressing battle against a few editors (mainly  and, who seem to be working in close concert}}), who simply revert wholesale my attempts to bring articles into line with accepted style (use of surnames, spelt-out numbers, correct use of quotation marks, naming conventions for song titles, etc.), and who respond with belligerence to my attempts to reason with them.  One or two other editors seem to have run into them too (to judge by their Talk pages), but no-one seems able to dent their self-assuredness and determination to have things their own way.  And that pattern can be found throughout this area of Wikipedia.  Perhaps we could split them off into "Wikipop", and have done with them... --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipop -- sounds good, but I don't know how feasible it is.
 * Another possibility: Find an appropriate tag to label the article. That way, it's clear that the article isn't up to snuff, but hopefully it won't bring about a fight. Maurreen 02:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You haven't seen these kids in action. They revert everything that changes their style; they insist on incorrect naming of articles (see List of Number 1 Hits (United States) for an example, in which one of them cuts and pastes a move just to get back to the wrong name), on incorrect internal links, numerals, wrongly-formatted lists, grammatical mistakes, etc. A template would be reverted with all the rest. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * For some users, it seems like we need a big stick or a police patrol.
 * Maybe whenever the validation feature is active, that will help. Maurreen 14:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * One thing that would probably help is the presence of more editors; looking at their Talk pages, it seems that every so often an editor stumbles across one of the articles, corrects it, and gets drawn into a battle with the fans who have taken ownership. In the past, the editor has finally given up; I'll not do so, but I'm finding myself bogged down in ridiculous edit wars.  The presence of more editors on the scene might get through to them that I'm not some rogue editor with peculiar ideas (as they say that they believe, and perhaps genuinely do), but that their position genuinely is untenable. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll look in on one of your if you'll look in at the category discussion on Talk:Agriculture. Maurreen 16:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Maureen, please don't get fooled by Mel. Most of the issues are content and style disputes. Like he want to remove song headers and put the time of a song at 3' 39'' instead of 3:39. Isn't that confusing? I think a WikiPop possibility would be good, that way, everyone would be happy. We try to compromise with Mel, but he always insults us, like just above he calls us "kids". We try to talking peacefully and he rants and doesnt listen to our points. Please remember there are always two sides to each story OmegaWikipedia 20:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You might want to look at Through the Rain, Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song), It's Like That (Mariah Carey song), Crazy in Love, Love Takes Time, and List of number-one hits (United States). In the first five, the majority of the changes he's reverting (as with a long list of articles that he reverts) are to corrections of Wikilinks, bringing headings into Wikipedia style by removing excess capitals, changing a list made using HTML to one using Wiki-bullets, and so on. On the last one, he has now twice moved the page by cutting and pasting, despite my explanation that this isn't allowed, and my advice concerning how he should go about arguing for the move. A glance at my Talk-page discussions with this editor and one or two others involved, will demonstrate the truth of the matter regarding our interactions.

And now I suppose I have to go and look at Talk:Agriculture. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * My beef isn't what the caps. If you want to do that go for it. They just get changed back when reverting. Mel is guilty of doing the same exact thing. Mel is also using inconsistent notation with normal music articles and having tantrums when we point out his errors. I moved the page because Mel should not have moved it in the first place and his move was borderline vandalism. OmegaWikipedia 21:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) You're reverting every change that I make.
 * 2) You've just done so again on a number of articles, violating 3RR to add to your vandalism in reverting corrections.
 * 3) Please provide the diffs for my tantrums; I could do with a laugh. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

/Gabrielsimon - certified properly?
The RFC on Gabrielsimon has been certified properly. Four users have signed in the section Requests_for_comment/Gabrielsimon. This is the standard place for users to certify an RFC. It is contained within the RFC - it is not "somewhere else." Asking other editors to look there, as I did in this edit summary - - is completely appropriate. Because this RFC has been certified, standard procedure dictates that it should now be listed on Requests for comment under the heading Approved pages - have met the two person threshold. FreplySpang (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

when it was dreamguys second one, there were three sigs on that page, in the right place, and it still got deleted. thus i thought iot had to be directly on this page. Gabrielsimon 21:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know what that RFC looked like at the time it was deleted, but the certifying signatures definitely go in an RFC under the heading "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". They have to be right there, not just nearby, to count. FreplySpang (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

do not take lightly
There is nothing on the RFC page that supports the imperative to editors to "not take an RFC lightly". The page describes an RFC as something to be used to get comments from outside readers, to break a deadlock, resolve a dispute, etc. There is nothing punitive or negative in this description that would beseech the editor to take an RFC any more serious than that. That some editors view an RFC as punitive is fact supported by a number of comments on the RFC talk page to change the dispute resolution system so that RFC's aren't viewed as part of teh punitive system,


 * RfCs should be an occasion to get input on something - not an obligatory step on the way to arbcomming people Snowspinner

but it is not the design or intent of an RFC to do anything other than get outside comments, break deadlocks, and resolve disputes. There is nothing on the RFC page describing an RFC that supports the imperative that an RFC is "not to be taken lightly". This conflicts with everything else that the RFC pages says about RFC's. And this imperitive to editors to take an RFC as something more than it is is unsupported. Please stop inserting it. FuelWagon 19:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, the imperative in question is shown here. FuelWagon 20:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * In theory it is should be used that way; in practice, it is seen as punitive, and frankly is sometimes a step towards an Arbitration Committee hearing. There's no point in denying the reality of practice, regardless of the ideals of the procedure. Jayjg (talk)  20:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the usage of the page is mixed. When articles are listed here, it really is the case most of the time that was is being sought out is new eyes to help out with an article that's having problems. Articles tend not to take offense; their feelings are not easily hurt. Editors are a different matter entirely. Putting an article up for RFC can indeed be taken lightly. Putting an editor up for RFC is generally (and correctly) taken as a request for (at least) chastisement. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Right. Article RfCs are seen pretty neutrally; editor RfCs are seen as a negative statement about the editor. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * a request for (at least) chastisement. Jpgordon, where does it say this on the RFC page? I've read it a number of times now, and the description says nothing of the sort. That people take an RFC as chastizement is their reaction, not a function of the description. This (chastisement) is a combative view of requests for comments, not supported by the description of RFC's. If this view is correct, then the RFC description needs some serious rework. Otherwise, the view needs to be changed, not the page. I made a suggestion in a thread above that an RFC ought to be completely removed from any punitive measures process, to the point where you cannot even mention an RFC when you're in arbitration. This would allow people to comment more objectively without fearing some punitive repercussions further down the road. But in any event, the current description of an RFC doesn't say anything that supports the idea of it being punitive. That appears to be a cultural norm in wikipedia. So, either the RFC descrption needs to be brought in line with what everyone thinks an RFC is, or the culture should be shifted to reflect what an RFC really is. FuelWagon 20:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that mediation is intended to be positive and RFCs are not intended as a preliminary. Maurreen


 * ''the aims of both RfC and mediation are to resolve disputes, without punishment. A RfC is just a chance for both parties to outline their problems and to get third party views. Tony Sidaway

There is nothing in the wikipedia policy towards RFC's that say they are any more serious than a way to request comments. Everything written about RFC's says they're for resolving disputes, non punitive, informal, blah, blah, blah. Inserting a line that says "Do not take lightly" changes the policy, and gives the editor nothing to base their decision on. 'well, I just want a comment, but this says "don't take lightly", but it doesn't say how to take it seriously, I just want a comment, so how do I file a request for comment any more lightly than by filing a request for comment' You have changed policy from "an rfc is just a request for comments, informal, non punitive" to "an rfc is all that, but you must not take it lightly". And you give a new editor unfamiliar with the system no yardstick to measure against as to what is "lightly", which will do nothing but discourage RFC's out of some unknown, unexplained boogeyman. You cannot have it both ways. Either an RFC is really an informal, non punitive, request for comments, or it is something to be taken as a very serious endeavor. FuelWagon 20:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * For editors, it is 100% the latter. For articles, it's 100% the former. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It was FuelWagon who added that RfCs are perceived as the first step toward arbitration and possibly punitive action. I've added that filing an RfC shouldn't be done lightly, which FW keeps deleting.


 * The reason I added this is that I've recently seen three RfCs filed where there had been no prior attempt, or an inadequate one, at dispute resolution, and the RfCs were deleted because of that, but not before causing considerable trouble and wasting time. One was FuelWagon's, and there have been two since then. It's important that editors understand that other steps must be tried first, and don't jump to the RfC option as a first step. It's also important that they understand that RfCs can have serious consequences for all parties, and may sometimes backfire and become RfCs on the nominator. For all those reasons, advising editors not to go into the process lightly is good advice. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * causing considerable trouble and wasting time ... RfCs can have serious consequences  All of this is part of the culture of wikipedia and how editors react to an RFC. none of it is actually in the description of what an RFC is. Either the description needs to be updated, or the culture needs to be realigned to match the description. The description of RFC's describes nothing like what you are saying. FuelWagon 20:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's because you keep deleting it. Regardless of how you want it to be, we also have to pay attention to how it is. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If it is that way, fine, then the RFC page ought to be changed to say what exactly an individual RFC is for. Saying "An rfc is informal, nonpunitive, way to resolve disputes" in one section and then saying "do not take it lightly" in another section, just doesn't make sense. It doesn't give the editor anything to judge what is lightly and what is sufficient for an RFC. if an RFC is really an informal request for comments, then it is by definition "light". If it really is a formal process for chastizement, then it ought to say that so that "lightly" has some sort of context. As it is, it is an oxymoron, two statements at complete odds against each other. FuelWagon 21:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * RfCs are becoming frequently used for revenge. Sometimes it is revenge against a particular disfavored edit of an article.  Most times it is revenge against a particular editor whose attitude or techniques one dislikes.  There is no punishment to the initiator for not attempting to meet the terms of the RfC.  And there is no punishment to other editors for misleading or lying "certifications" or other statements that were done solely for revenge.  Other editors who have no knowledge of that particular dispute chime in as their opportunity to get even.  As long as this is the case, it is the perfect tool for revenge: lots of harm to the target with no consequences towards the initiator or other editors.  --Noitall 21:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * RFC's should be designed for resolving something between editors who have come to a deadlock about an issue. They should be designed for editors operating in good faith but who completely disagree on some dispute. Since RFC's would assume editors operating in good faith, they should be designed so that "revenge" isn't possible by editors acting in bad faith when they file the rfc. This would mean that RFC's cannot be punitive, they cannot be used in arbitration, they cannot be referred to by an arbiter or whoever saying "well, you failed this RFC, so we're going to ban you" or something. And RFC should be nothing more than an informal request for comments and it shouldn't be able to go any further than that. As long as your dispute resolution system makes it an implied/assumed/suggested/whatever step to arbitration, then you have a vengeance system. What the RFC page describes is an informal, non-punitive way to resolve disputes. But the way RFC's are designed into the system, they can be step 1 in some punitive dispute, and therefore vengeful. If someoen files an RFC in bad faith, the editor ought to be able to ignore it and nothing bad should come of it. The whole point is for resolving disputes between editors working in good faith, but completely deadlocked on some issue. If they're not acting in good faith, then some alternative is needed. But what the RFC page describes and the "vengeance" system you just described do not match and one of them needs to be adjusted. If the pages says its an informal system for getting outside comments, but an RFC is used for vengeance, then there is something in the design of the system that doesn't match what the description says it is. My experience with RFC's outside of wikipedia have always been for informal comments, I'm not sure how it got turned into a vengeance system on wikipedia, but if that's the case, then the page ought to reflect the reality of the system, or the system ought to be changed to match the actual description of what an RFC is supposed to be. FuelWagon 21:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You are correct. It is a catch 22: an RfC designed to simply get comments happens on talk pages already.  A simple dispute mechanism needs no rules such as certification.  Also, as you state, a true dispute mechanism means that anyone can ignore the RfC and nothing would come of it. --Noitall 22:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * nothing would come of it. Well, that's not true. If a bunch of editors are acting in good faith but have become have become embroiled in an edit war/dispute/whatever, then a number of comments from outside editors who have no relationship to the article/editors in question could snap them out of their deadlock. The idea is to have a piece of the dispute resolution system for editors working in good faith but at a deadlock around some issue/editor/whatever. Outside comments should snap good faith editors out of their deadlock. it will likely accomplish nothing if an editor is acting in bad faith. And a bad faith editor needs to be dealt with in a different system/approach. FuelWagon 22:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * But, of course, everyone wants something to come of an RfC. So then you have a revenge system, not a dispute system.  --Noitall 22:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Uhm, well, no, not everyone. If that's the case, then wikipedia ought to get rid of RFC's immediately. If a disagreement has been unable to find resolution on a talk page(s), then an RFC would be a good way to bring in some outside, unbiased editors to give a quick opinion about soemthing. For a page rfc, this might bring in some editors who aren't involved in a long-standing edit war and who can bring some unbiased commments. For a user rfc, this could bring in some unbiased editors who can bring in some unbiased comments about the editor. In either case, if the editor(s) involved are acting in good faith, then a number of comments from outside observers might snap them out of their deadlock and some sort of resolution might be possible. If the editor(s) are acting in bad faith, then the RFC is useless and its time to move to step 2, whatever that might be. My point is that it is only a vengeance system in part because it is designed as a possible first step to arbitration/punitive measures, in part because people are using it for veangeance, and in part because it is designed that way. See an alternative design. FuelWagon 22:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * And thus the requirement for two editors involved in the same dispute to certify an RfC on an individual -- at least it takes two people to keep a Revenge for Comment alive. I'd be half-tempted to push to get that threshold increased to three. Mind you, in most cases, an RfC is just a bitchfest, and the subject of an RfC might be well advised simply to ignore it; let other people do the commenting and responding. But I don't think I could do that either. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't with the number of certifiers, the problem is that the system is punitive and therefore can be used in bad faith. If the RFC system isn't punitive, then a bad faith RFC can be simply ignored. FuelWagon 22:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Do not take lightly, but make distinctions
I think that a caution to Wikipedians that any process should not be taken lightly is reasonable. Some Wikipedians take formal processes lightly, and some do not.

There is a distinction, as I see it, between an RfC about article content, and an RfC about editor conduct. The latter should be far more formal, and should not only not be taken lightly, but should be "taken heavily". The procedures for an RfC about article content and an RfC about user conduct are completely different. In either data modeling or business process engineering, this implies that there are different business rules. This means that it is misleading to call them by the same name. An RfC about user conduct is meant to be punitive, or at least a prior step to punitive action.

It might be useful to use different names for what are really two very different sorts of inquiries. Robert McClenon 04:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

"Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute"
I've recently commented on three RfCs on Users, all three of which were improper in much the same ways. The main problem was that in none of the three case (RfCs on Striver, Melissadolbeer, and SlimVirgin) had any real attempt been made to resolve the dispute before the RfC was brought. Where diffs are given in the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" sections (omitted altogether in the Melissadolbeer case), they're simply examples of the complainants' side of the argument (and often couched in aggressive tones, to the point of personal attack). Thus the RfCs were being used simply as weapons in editing disputes.

This seems to involve a deep misunderstanding of what RfCs are for; unfortunately, in one of the three case (SlimVirgin) the RfC has been endorsed by an editor who's been around long enough to know better, who's an admin and a bureaucrat. The problem is that having had an RfC on one, even when it foundered for lack of support, can constitute something of a black mark. What can be done to discourage this sort of thing? perhaps a small group of people (call them a committee, if you like) who examine RfCs, and remove those that have been brought improperly or prematurely? Any other thoughts? --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment regarding the SlimVirgin RFC. The diffs for "trying to resolve and fail" have been changed to better examples. FuelWagon 23:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, the diffs that are there now are better examples? They're not examples at all, and I explain why in detail in my endorsement of SlimVirgin's summary. They're also not by two different people! If there have genuinely been two attempts at resolution and discussion, please document them before the 48 hours are up. If there haven't been, this RFC needs to be removed. Bishonen | talk 00:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There haven't been, so I removed it. Uncle Ed 12:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

(PS &mdash; I suppose that this isn't unconnected with the previous section. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC))
 * I agree with Mel's comments, and would like to add the RFCs on DreamGuy (which is OK now but started as a 'quickpoll' to get him banned), and several others I've deleted recently for being uncertified and rather messy, or borderline personal attacks ,.
 * I think that the current RFC process isn't working at all and should be scrapped entirely in favor of something else. The first problem is that some people don't use the template provided, but simply start writing somewhat incoherently. The second problem is that the template focuses heavily on evidence and policy transgressions. Basicaly, it's saying "I accuse User:SomeUser of this and that; all in favor, say aye".
 * Mediation would be reasonable. Unfortunately, we now have four such processes (WP:RFM, WP:TINMC, Mediation (2005)/Requests for mediation and Wikimediation) and none of them seem to be helping much.
 * What I think would help a lot, is focusing on the conflict rather than the user. People often claim that User:AnnoyingPerson is making a lot of mistakes, but generally the point is that said user himself has a conflict with the other user, and in most cases both parties have a point but are both somewhat stubborn. A sample template might look like this,
 * Location of the dispute: MyFavoriteArticle
 * People involved: User:AnnoyingPerson and User:Me
 * Opinion of User:Me (please restrict to 100 words or less, and provide 3-5 diffs as samples; do not cite policy)
 * Opinion of User:AnnoyingPerson (ditto)
 * Proposed solution by User:SomeOutsider (involved parties should be hesitant about adding their own solution, and any solution like 'User:AnnoyingPerson should be banned' must be stricken).
 * Okay, that was my $.2 - comments welcome, of course. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * On the User:Striver business, I don't think you should take my (unfortunate) habit of obessing on my own edits as evidence that no one has tried to work things out with him. I am guessing this is just a case of me not supplying the proper links. (First timer on this.)


 * For evidence that people have indeed tried and failed to work things out with User:Striver, see, [] and many other pleas from more tactful and less self-obsessed editors than me. BrandonYusufToropov 17:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Radiant, I haven't had much experience with RFCs on people, but I have had experience with article RFCs and have to say I feel they're thoroughly inadequate, mostly because they're thoroughly overlooked; most get few if any visitors. I think the RFC process can be of tremendous help in resolving article disputes, IF anybody bothers to take one on.  I've begun making a habit of picking a couple of article content RFC's and trying to help them to resolutions, with some measure of success.  I'm not sure that more strictures are what's needed, though -- I feel like it's a less cumbersome process than, say, mediation, and possibly more effective in certain circumstances because of it.  I'm not sure even that the structure of the RFC process (again, for article content disputes) needs to be changed, but maybe there needs to be more of a centralized effort to involve editors in "patrolling" for ones they can weigh in on.  There are already committees atop committees, but maybe a group of people who monitor listed RFCs and are ready to step in and help on one or two a month, say, in areas in which they have some interest.  I've been thinking about this very thing for some time now. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 01:25, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

The RfC process was doubtless intended to be a way of making a user aware that the community disapproved of her actions, in the hope that that would take the place of more authoritarian, punitive processes. The trouble is that there are two sorts of RfC: those that are frivolous, malicious, or just ill-advised (see above for examples), and those that are correctly brought, and have no effect on their subjects. It's possible (perhaps more than just possible) that the existence of the former contributes to the failure of the latter, though the roots of the problem are deeper.

The problems is that, as with the rest of the Internet, and indeed the world, there are many people who simply don't care what others think of them. ther are many reasons for this: sometimes it's a personal arrogance, sometimes an arrogance born of their adherence to a cause (religiou, political, or whatever), sometimes it's probably some form of autism &mdash; but whatever the reason, it leaves us with a problem.

Now, I'm a philosopher; I'm good at distinguishing and explaining problems. I need rather more time and help to try to solve them. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

first step towards punitive measures
I placed the following warning on the RFC page: FuelWagon 06:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that an RFC is generally considered a prerequisite for entering mediation, and mediation is generally considered a prerequisite for entering Arbitration, and Arbitration can impose binding solutions including a ban from wikipedia, removal of administrator priveledges, etc. Therefore, when you file an RFC, some may view it not as a simple request for comments, but as the first step towards punitive measures against an editor.


 * But that is not really correct. Mediation is supposed to be far more informal than RFC. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:36, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon, I can't see anything about RfC as a prerequisite for mediation on the page you link to, in fact I can't see any mention of RFC. I have also never heard of such a thing, it sounds extremely unlikely: mediation is the first step in dispute resolution, as far as I know. If I'm missing something on the page you link to, could you please point to it? If you've made a mistake, could you please remove it from the RfC page as soon as possible? It's not the kind of misconception one would like to see spread to new users. Bishonen | talk 13:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The process is fairly clearly outlined at "resolving disputes". RfC is not a precursor for mediation, though a potential mediator may well want to see an RfC so he knows what the dispute is about. I think Fuelwagon should also take on board that the aims of both RfC and mediation are to resolve disputes, without punishment.  A lot of people get this wrong, particularly with respect to RfC.  A RfC is just a chance for both parties to outline their problems and to get third party views.  Although it can be as formal as you like, an RfC can be something as simple as a single sentence outline of the dispute on WP:RFC. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

well, just above, Snowspinner wrote


 * RfCs should be an occasion to get input on something - not an obligatory step on the way to arbcomming people.

So there seems to be anecdotal evidence that it is obligatory.

I'm not sure what the absolute, spot-on wording should be. I was trying to use "generally considered" to indicate it wasn't formally required, but that there is a strong linkage. I'll use Tony's wording that "a potential mediator may well want to see an RfC" so it is more clear that is is not a hard requirement. let me know if that is still incorrect. FuelWagon 18:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it to use Tony's wording. Hopefully this is more clear that an RFC is not a formal requirement to mediation, but still indicates the effects of their linkage. The diff is here. FuelWagon 18:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We seem to be at cross-purposes. Yes, there is an informal or "soft" requirement for an RfC to be done before a request for arbitration. It's certainly dispensed with in egregious cases, but arbitrators, if you ask them, are likely to say "better do an RfC first." That doesn't have anything to do with Radiant's protest or with mine, above, where we object to your claim that RfC is required before mediation. There's no hard nor soft requirement for anything at all before mediation, it's much better to get mediation just as soon as you can. It takes long enough to find a mediator as it is, that's why it bothers me that you're making people see extra, non-existent obstacles on the path to it. I've removed your reference to mediation altogether on the project page, please see if you approve. Bishonen | talk 19:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, I double checked where I got that information from. this says Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes Mediation is likely to help. The first time, I misread it to say "if it hasn't gone through mediation, they'll first recommend mediation." Checking it again now, I see that I missed the "if it believes mediation is likely to help" on the end. FuelWagon 23:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to reference mediation in the "warning." My understanding is that mediation is intended to be positive and RFCs are not intended as a preliminary.
 * I'm not wild about the "warning" anyway. Maurreen 23:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon, I wonder what your point is here. You appeared to intend the RfC against me to be punitive, as evidenced by these entries on your talk page. SlimVirgin (talk)  23:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm through trying to convince anyone of my motives. I can't give you a CAT scan of my brain and say "See, look there, that proves what I was thinking." Everyone has already made up their mind anyway. For giggles, though, you can ask Ed and any of the other administrators to see if I ever said you should be blocked or de-admined or punished in any way. Even while I was serving time on my fourty-hour block, I never emailed him and said "SlimVirgin should be blocked too" or whatever. And if you're really bored, you can comb through the talk page archives and see that the only thing I ever actually said I expected from you was an acknowledgement to the effect of "Yeah, I, SlimVirgin, made a bad edit" and "Yeah, I accused you, FuelWagon, Duckecho, Neuroscientist, etc of some things you guys didn't actually do". There were some references to "Fonzi" in that regard, because Fonzi could never say "I'm Sorry". Whatever. Believe what you want. I don't care anymore. The only point of the warning is so that some poor sap of a greenhorn doesn't run into a problem and accidently file an RFC without knowing that some will view it as going to defcon 3, which is exactly how some people view it. FuelWagon 00:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm sorry, but in the meantime, we really can't have your confused and confusing instruction on the RFC page. It's hard enough to do a proper RFC without a tripwire like that. OK, I believe you added it in good faith. But you're quoting irrelevant policies *for mediation*, and adding your own statement that the mediation procedure "includes an RFC" in amongst the quotes. No, it doesn't include an RFC. I'm sorry, I've tried twice to explain this politely, but you just don't seem to be listening. Your "instruction" is a mess (it doesn't help to quote if you quote irrelevant stuff). And it's factually *wrong* (because of the bit you added from yourself). I've removed it. Bishonen | talk 01:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * you're quoting irrelevant policies *for mediation*, and adding your own statement that the mediation procedure "includes an RFC". What I put in the article was this:
 * "a mediator will check that other alternatives of dispute resolution have been tried." [1], which includes an RFC.
 * "other alternatives to dispute resolution" includes an RFC, third opinion, and surveys. Or am I misreading that? I just listed RFC because it was the only one directly relevent to the RFC page.
 * I am not inventing a tripwire where none exists. There is a truth to what I'm trying to put in the article here. I'd appreciate it if you didn't delete the whole thing because I haven't expressed it exactly right. Yeah, the last version was "messy", but that was only because you said my paraphrase of the rules was wrong, so I tried quoting, which added a lot of text. I put a basic version in the article now, which doesn't get into all the rules, since I can't seem to explain them right. Does this version work? FuelWagon 11:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with that one. Bishonen | talk 13:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool. FuelWagon 13:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me if I un-indent this thread; I can't think this "deeply".

FuelWagon, you wrote in the project page:


 * a mediator will check that other alternatives of dispute resolution have been tried." [1], which includes an RFC

This is incorrect. I've been on the Mediation Committee from the beginning, and this was never a requirement for Mediators. It is within our discretion to take on a Mediation, even if users haven't jumped through all the hoops.

Perhaps you are misinterpreting the dispute resolution process. In my interpretation, one should try the simplest, most "low-level" means of resolving a dispute. But I do not think this requires users to get bogged down in paperwork. You got a problem, come to me (I say this to everyone). If I can't solve it for you, I'll refer you to someone who can - or even form a special team if that's what it takes.

If you are interesting in improving Terry Schiavo or other articles, all well and good. But if you go after other contributors demanding apologies (which is uncivil) or start messing around with policy pages (which is disruptive), I'm going to have to ask you to leave. The choice is not a difficult or unreasonable: please pick one and stick to it. Uncle Ed 12:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * "if you go after other contributors demanding apologies (which is uncivil)"
 * Uhm, wait a minute, now I'm totally confused. When you stepped in as mediator on July 12, you blocked me because I swore at SlimVirgin a bunch of time and didn't apologize. I had actually started going through the talk page to remove all my personal attacks, but you blocked me, citing "unrepentant" personal attacks. And the example behaviour you cited was me saying "I won't apologize". I assumed I was blocked because I wouldn't apologize.


 * "messing around with policy pages (which is disruptive),"
 * Ed, could you assume good faith on my part just once? After my block for unrepentant personal attacks against SlimVirgin expired, I opened a request for comments on SlimVirgin's edit and her comments on talk against other editors. My view was she did a reckless edit (An out of the blue editor making a large number of changes containing many errors on a page marked "controversial" and in Mediation) At first you tentatively endorsed the RFC as mediator saying she moved "too far, too fast" and then you withdrew that remark and suggested the RFC was "gaming the system" and "bullying". Several editors who had been working on the Terri Shiavo page prior to her edit supported the RFC. But most outside comments ignored her edits/comments and spoke specifically to the RFC being abusive and an attempt to take someone to the "wikipedia woodshed". Since no one outside the article was actually commenting on SlimVirgin's edit/comments, I withdrew the RFC. I see this morning that you have also proposed another block on my account, citing "harrassment of SlimVirgin", "gaming the system", and representing her edits as "reckless" and "personal attacks". Since my block expired, the only interaction I've had with SlimVirgin was to answer a question she directly asked me above. I haven't emailed her or modified her talk page except to inform her of the RFC. I filed a request for comments about her edits. That was it. And it wasn't to "demand an apology" from her. After her edit, the talk page pretty much exploded and everyone had taken sides. The only reason the edit warring stopped was 3RR slowed things down, and then you stepped in as mediator and blocked me, and later locked the page for a while. But there was never any actual agreement about anything. Peace was achieved by force alone. I filed the RFC because I wanted to get some outside, uninvolved comments about SlimVirgin's edit so that some sort of actual agreement could be reached rather than working under the constant threat of blocking and page locking from the mediator. So, I am not "messing around with the policy pages", I am trying to warn other editors who may be unfamiliar with the system that filing an RFC may be considered bullying, harrassment, and gaming the system, and it might even get their account considered for suspension. FuelWagon 16:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This is getting silly. You're trying to interpret why the people who endorsed my summary did so. The fact is that the Schiavo talk page "exploded," as you put it, with your personal attacks, and it's not the only one to have done so. Your calling people "you arrogant cuss" isn't confined to me or to the Schiavo talk page.  You haven't apologized for the language, either to me or (so far as I know) to anyone else, or for having filed an inappropriate, and arguably bad-faith, RfC. Changing your attitude would be more helpful than changing the policy page. SlimVirgin (talk)  17:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * You haven't apologized
 * That's the first time you mentioned it. I assumed a 40-hour block was enough to restore integrity. Since this is getting off the topic of RFC, I'm forking this thread over to your talk page. (continued in a moment.) FuelWagon 18:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I should butt in, but just a thought, maybe the best thing would be for everyone to just move on to something else. Or start over. Maurreen 02:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Article naming & popular culture
Wikipedia articles on popular music and other popular entertainment are seething with naming problems (not to mention poor English, poor formatting, and the worst kind of fanzine-gush and journalistic hyperbole). The problem is that these articles are often watched over and defended by their creators, who are completely uninterested in either correct English or Wikipedia style, and whose aggression, belligerence, and determination makes life very difficult for any editor trying to clean things up.

Japanese and Korean-based articles are a particular problem, as editors often insist that the typography of CD sleeves is followed exactly &mdash; so if an album title is printed in capitals on the sleeve, it has to be that way in Wikipedia, etc.

There are times when I find myself thinking: "To hell with it; who cares how articles on music that I dislike are written and presented..." &mdash; but whether I like the stuff or not, whether I think the subject is interesting or not, is irrelevant. Still, I'm spending far too much time dealing with this instead of with more productive matters; does anyone have any ideas about how to improve the situation? --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 07:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * For article content, no - that's something that has to be decided on case-by-case. Article titles, however, are easy, and we do have some standards for that (e.g. no all-caps). We can protect them against being moved, if necessary. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * yes, I thought so. the trouble is that most experienced editors steer clear of these articles (and I can't say that I blame them).  At the moment I'm fighting a depressing battle against a few editors (mainly  and, who seem to be working in close concert}}), who simply revert wholesale my attempts to bring articles into line with accepted style (use of surnames, spelt-out numbers, correct use of quotation marks, naming conventions for song titles, etc.), and who respond with belligerence to my attempts to reason with them.  One or two other editors seem to have run into them too (to judge by their Talk pages), but no-one seems able to dent their self-assuredness and determination to have things their own way.  And that pattern can be found throughout this area of Wikipedia.  Perhaps we could split them off into "Wikipop", and have done with them... --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipop -- sounds good, but I don't know how feasible it is.
 * Another possibility: Find an appropriate tag to label the article. That way, it's clear that the article isn't up to snuff, but hopefully it won't bring about a fight. Maurreen 02:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You haven't seen these kids in action. They revert everything that changes their style; they insist on incorrect naming of articles (see List of Number 1 Hits (United States) for an example, in which one of them cuts and pastes a move just to get back to the wrong name), on incorrect internal links, numerals, wrongly-formatted lists, grammatical mistakes, etc. A template would be reverted with all the rest. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * For some users, it seems like we need a big stick or a police patrol.
 * Maybe whenever the validation feature is active, that will help. Maurreen 14:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * One thing that would probably help is the presence of more editors; looking at their Talk pages, it seems that every so often an editor stumbles across one of the articles, corrects it, and gets drawn into a battle with the fans who have taken ownership. In the past, the editor has finally given up; I'll not do so, but I'm finding myself bogged down in ridiculous edit wars.  The presence of more editors on the scene might get through to them that I'm not some rogue editor with peculiar ideas (as they say that they believe, and perhaps genuinely do), but that their position genuinely is untenable. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll look in on one of your if you'll look in at the category discussion on Talk:Agriculture. Maurreen 16:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Maureen, please don't get fooled by Mel. Most of the issues are content and style disputes. Like he want to remove song headers and put the time of a song at 3' 39'' instead of 3:39. Isn't that confusing? I think a WikiPop possibility would be good, that way, everyone would be happy. We try to compromise with Mel, but he always insults us, like just above he calls us "kids". We try to talking peacefully and he rants and doesnt listen to our points. Please remember there are always two sides to each story OmegaWikipedia 20:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You might want to look at Through the Rain, Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song), It's Like That (Mariah Carey song), Crazy in Love, Love Takes Time, and List of number-one hits (United States). In the first five, the majority of the changes he's reverting (as with a long list of articles that he reverts) are to corrections of Wikilinks, bringing headings into Wikipedia style by removing excess capitals, changing a list made using HTML to one using Wiki-bullets, and so on. On the last one, he has now twice moved the page by cutting and pasting, despite my explanation that this isn't allowed, and my advice concerning how he should go about arguing for the move. A glance at my Talk-page discussions with this editor and one or two others involved, will demonstrate the truth of the matter regarding our interactions.

And now I suppose I have to go and look at Talk:Agriculture. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * My beef isn't what the caps. If you want to do that go for it. They just get changed back when reverting. Mel is guilty of doing the same exact thing. Mel is also using inconsistent notation with normal music articles and having tantrums when we point out his errors. I moved the page because Mel should not have moved it in the first place and his move was borderline vandalism. OmegaWikipedia 21:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) You're reverting every change that I make.
 * 2) You've just done so again on a number of articles, violating 3RR to add to your vandalism in reverting corrections.
 * 3) Please provide the diffs for my tantrums; I could do with a laugh. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

/Gabrielsimon - certified properly?
The RFC on Gabrielsimon has been certified properly. Four users have signed in the section Requests_for_comment/Gabrielsimon. This is the standard place for users to certify an RFC. It is contained within the RFC - it is not "somewhere else." Asking other editors to look there, as I did in this edit summary - - is completely appropriate. Because this RFC has been certified, standard procedure dictates that it should now be listed on Requests for comment under the heading Approved pages - have met the two person threshold. FreplySpang (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

when it was dreamguys second one, there were three sigs on that page, in the right place, and it still got deleted. thus i thought iot had to be directly on this page. Gabrielsimon 21:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know what that RFC looked like at the time it was deleted, but the certifying signatures definitely go in an RFC under the heading "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". They have to be right there, not just nearby, to count. FreplySpang (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

do not take lightly
There is nothing on the RFC page that supports the imperative to editors to "not take an RFC lightly". The page describes an RFC as something to be used to get comments from outside readers, to break a deadlock, resolve a dispute, etc. There is nothing punitive or negative in this description that would beseech the editor to take an RFC any more serious than that. That some editors view an RFC as punitive is fact supported by a number of comments on the RFC talk page to change the dispute resolution system so that RFC's aren't viewed as part of teh punitive system,


 * RfCs should be an occasion to get input on something - not an obligatory step on the way to arbcomming people Snowspinner

but it is not the design or intent of an RFC to do anything other than get outside comments, break deadlocks, and resolve disputes. There is nothing on the RFC page describing an RFC that supports the imperative that an RFC is "not to be taken lightly". This conflicts with everything else that the RFC pages says about RFC's. And this imperitive to editors to take an RFC as something more than it is is unsupported. Please stop inserting it. FuelWagon 19:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, the imperative in question is shown here. FuelWagon 20:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * In theory it is should be used that way; in practice, it is seen as punitive, and frankly is sometimes a step towards an Arbitration Committee hearing. There's no point in denying the reality of practice, regardless of the ideals of the procedure. Jayjg (talk)  20:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the usage of the page is mixed. When articles are listed here, it really is the case most of the time that was is being sought out is new eyes to help out with an article that's having problems. Articles tend not to take offense; their feelings are not easily hurt. Editors are a different matter entirely. Putting an article up for RFC can indeed be taken lightly. Putting an editor up for RFC is generally (and correctly) taken as a request for (at least) chastisement. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Right. Article RfCs are seen pretty neutrally; editor RfCs are seen as a negative statement about the editor. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * a request for (at least) chastisement. Jpgordon, where does it say this on the RFC page? I've read it a number of times now, and the description says nothing of the sort. That people take an RFC as chastizement is their reaction, not a function of the description. This (chastisement) is a combative view of requests for comments, not supported by the description of RFC's. If this view is correct, then the RFC description needs some serious rework. Otherwise, the view needs to be changed, not the page. I made a suggestion in a thread above that an RFC ought to be completely removed from any punitive measures process, to the point where you cannot even mention an RFC when you're in arbitration. This would allow people to comment more objectively without fearing some punitive repercussions further down the road. But in any event, the current description of an RFC doesn't say anything that supports the idea of it being punitive. That appears to be a cultural norm in wikipedia. So, either the RFC descrption needs to be brought in line with what everyone thinks an RFC is, or the culture should be shifted to reflect what an RFC really is. FuelWagon 20:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that mediation is intended to be positive and RFCs are not intended as a preliminary. Maurreen


 * ''the aims of both RfC and mediation are to resolve disputes, without punishment. A RfC is just a chance for both parties to outline their problems and to get third party views. Tony Sidaway

There is nothing in the wikipedia policy towards RFC's that say they are any more serious than a way to request comments. Everything written about RFC's says they're for resolving disputes, non punitive, informal, blah, blah, blah. Inserting a line that says "Do not take lightly" changes the policy, and gives the editor nothing to base their decision on. 'well, I just want a comment, but this says "don't take lightly", but it doesn't say how to take it seriously, I just want a comment, so how do I file a request for comment any more lightly than by filing a request for comment' You have changed policy from "an rfc is just a request for comments, informal, non punitive" to "an rfc is all that, but you must not take it lightly". And you give a new editor unfamiliar with the system no yardstick to measure against as to what is "lightly", which will do nothing but discourage RFC's out of some unknown, unexplained boogeyman. You cannot have it both ways. Either an RFC is really an informal, non punitive, request for comments, or it is something to be taken as a very serious endeavor. FuelWagon 20:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * For editors, it is 100% the latter. For articles, it's 100% the former. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It was FuelWagon who added that RfCs are perceived as the first step toward arbitration and possibly punitive action. I've added that filing an RfC shouldn't be done lightly, which FW keeps deleting.


 * The reason I added this is that I've recently seen three RfCs filed where there had been no prior attempt, or an inadequate one, at dispute resolution, and the RfCs were deleted because of that, but not before causing considerable trouble and wasting time. One was FuelWagon's, and there have been two since then. It's important that editors understand that other steps must be tried first, and don't jump to the RfC option as a first step. It's also important that they understand that RfCs can have serious consequences for all parties, and may sometimes backfire and become RfCs on the nominator. For all those reasons, advising editors not to go into the process lightly is good advice. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * causing considerable trouble and wasting time ... RfCs can have serious consequences  All of this is part of the culture of wikipedia and how editors react to an RFC. none of it is actually in the description of what an RFC is. Either the description needs to be updated, or the culture needs to be realigned to match the description. The description of RFC's describes nothing like what you are saying. FuelWagon 20:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's because you keep deleting it. Regardless of how you want it to be, we also have to pay attention to how it is. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If it is that way, fine, then the RFC page ought to be changed to say what exactly an individual RFC is for. Saying "An rfc is informal, nonpunitive, way to resolve disputes" in one section and then saying "do not take it lightly" in another section, just doesn't make sense. It doesn't give the editor anything to judge what is lightly and what is sufficient for an RFC. if an RFC is really an informal request for comments, then it is by definition "light". If it really is a formal process for chastizement, then it ought to say that so that "lightly" has some sort of context. As it is, it is an oxymoron, two statements at complete odds against each other. FuelWagon 21:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * RfCs are becoming frequently used for revenge. Sometimes it is revenge against a particular disfavored edit of an article.  Most times it is revenge against a particular editor whose attitude or techniques one dislikes.  There is no punishment to the initiator for not attempting to meet the terms of the RfC.  And there is no punishment to other editors for misleading or lying "certifications" or other statements that were done solely for revenge.  Other editors who have no knowledge of that particular dispute chime in as their opportunity to get even.  As long as this is the case, it is the perfect tool for revenge: lots of harm to the target with no consequences towards the initiator or other editors.  --Noitall 21:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * RFC's should be designed for resolving something between editors who have come to a deadlock about an issue. They should be designed for editors operating in good faith but who completely disagree on some dispute. Since RFC's would assume editors operating in good faith, they should be designed so that "revenge" isn't possible by editors acting in bad faith when they file the rfc. This would mean that RFC's cannot be punitive, they cannot be used in arbitration, they cannot be referred to by an arbiter or whoever saying "well, you failed this RFC, so we're going to ban you" or something. And RFC should be nothing more than an informal request for comments and it shouldn't be able to go any further than that. As long as your dispute resolution system makes it an implied/assumed/suggested/whatever step to arbitration, then you have a vengeance system. What the RFC page describes is an informal, non-punitive way to resolve disputes. But the way RFC's are designed into the system, they can be step 1 in some punitive dispute, and therefore vengeful. If someoen files an RFC in bad faith, the editor ought to be able to ignore it and nothing bad should come of it. The whole point is for resolving disputes between editors working in good faith, but completely deadlocked on some issue. If they're not acting in good faith, then some alternative is needed. But what the RFC page describes and the "vengeance" system you just described do not match and one of them needs to be adjusted. If the pages says its an informal system for getting outside comments, but an RFC is used for vengeance, then there is something in the design of the system that doesn't match what the description says it is. My experience with RFC's outside of wikipedia have always been for informal comments, I'm not sure how it got turned into a vengeance system on wikipedia, but if that's the case, then the page ought to reflect the reality of the system, or the system ought to be changed to match the actual description of what an RFC is supposed to be. FuelWagon 21:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You are correct. It is a catch 22: an RfC designed to simply get comments happens on talk pages already.  A simple dispute mechanism needs no rules such as certification.  Also, as you state, a true dispute mechanism means that anyone can ignore the RfC and nothing would come of it. --Noitall 22:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * nothing would come of it. Well, that's not true. If a bunch of editors are acting in good faith but have become have become embroiled in an edit war/dispute/whatever, then a number of comments from outside editors who have no relationship to the article/editors in question could snap them out of their deadlock. The idea is to have a piece of the dispute resolution system for editors working in good faith but at a deadlock around some issue/editor/whatever. Outside comments should snap good faith editors out of their deadlock. it will likely accomplish nothing if an editor is acting in bad faith. And a bad faith editor needs to be dealt with in a different system/approach. FuelWagon 22:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * But, of course, everyone wants something to come of an RfC. So then you have a revenge system, not a dispute system.  --Noitall 22:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Uhm, well, no, not everyone. If that's the case, then wikipedia ought to get rid of RFC's immediately. If a disagreement has been unable to find resolution on a talk page(s), then an RFC would be a good way to bring in some outside, unbiased editors to give a quick opinion about soemthing. For a page rfc, this might bring in some editors who aren't involved in a long-standing edit war and who can bring some unbiased commments. For a user rfc, this could bring in some unbiased editors who can bring in some unbiased comments about the editor. In either case, if the editor(s) involved are acting in good faith, then a number of comments from outside observers might snap them out of their deadlock and some sort of resolution might be possible. If the editor(s) are acting in bad faith, then the RFC is useless and its time to move to step 2, whatever that might be. My point is that it is only a vengeance system in part because it is designed as a possible first step to arbitration/punitive measures, in part because people are using it for veangeance, and in part because it is designed that way. See an alternative design. FuelWagon 22:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * And thus the requirement for two editors involved in the same dispute to certify an RfC on an individual -- at least it takes two people to keep a Revenge for Comment alive. I'd be half-tempted to push to get that threshold increased to three. Mind you, in most cases, an RfC is just a bitchfest, and the subject of an RfC might be well advised simply to ignore it; let other people do the commenting and responding. But I don't think I could do that either. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't with the number of certifiers, the problem is that the system is punitive and therefore can be used in bad faith. If the RFC system isn't punitive, then a bad faith RFC can be simply ignored. FuelWagon 22:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Do not take lightly, but make distinctions
I think that a caution to Wikipedians that any process should not be taken lightly is reasonable. Some Wikipedians take formal processes lightly, and some do not.

There is a distinction, as I see it, between an RfC about article content, and an RfC about editor conduct. The latter should be far more formal, and should not only not be taken lightly, but should be "taken heavily". The procedures for an RfC about article content and an RfC about user conduct are completely different. In either data modeling or business process engineering, this implies that there are different business rules. This means that it is misleading to call them by the same name. An RfC about user conduct is meant to be punitive, or at least a prior step to punitive action.

It might be useful to use different names for what are really two very different sorts of inquiries. Robert McClenon 04:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

disclaimer rewrite
I've attempted another rewrite of this disclaimer, in light of recent events. The diff is here. FuelWagon 19:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

example user RFC instructions
I've tweaked the instructions on the "example user" RFC. The diff is available here. Since an RFC is viewed as a tool for revenge by some and since it can be a soft requirement for entering arbitration, I changed the instructions to say a user RFC is for one specific user. Looking at all the archived RFC's, only one user RFC was against two users, and I found that RFC to be highly questionable. This also ought to help prevent an "RFC within an RFC" from occurring, which also happened on the two-user RFC. The other piece added was to clarify that there are three sections (statement of dispute, response, outside comments) and users signing/voting/endorsing one section should not edit the other sections. The two-user RFC, by the end, had people who were endorsing the RFC also putting statements into the "response" section, disputing the views of users who posted in teh "outside comment" section. This didn't help resolve any dispute, it only helped to widen who was involved in the dispute. Finally, the bottom of the RFC says, all discussion should go to the talk page, and I added a clarification to say, no, really, all discussion should go to talk. Everytime I've seen threaded replies occur on an RFC, it only escalated the dispute, rather than resolve it. The idea that all responses should go to talk is intended to at least give everyone some space on the RFC page to state their side fo things without the opposite side getting in their face about it. FuelWagon 14:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Added requirements for user conduct RFCs
Several weeks ago, this section was added:

===User conduct RfC===


 * For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by diffs showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours. The diffs should not simply show evidence of the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The two users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it. (However, an RfC subject to deletion for lack of evidence should not normally be deleted by an editor whose conduct it is discussing, but rather by a neutral Admin.)
 * An RFC is considered a soft requirement for entering Arbitration, which can bring punitive actions against an editor. However, do not open an RFC simply to better your odds at getting into arbitration and punish another editor. An RFC is intended to operate in and of itself as a means to resolve a dispute. An RFC is not arbitration application paperwork. An RFC is a tool for resolving a dispute. Use it as such.

There was no vote or discussion that I am aware of, and in addition to some instruction creep, this adds a requirement for diffs. I don't think such a requirement is called for, because it has the effect of stifling discussion. In some cases there may not be any clear diffs, as when discussion occured via email or IRC. I removed the section from the project page and invite discussion here.

The original purpose of the certification mechanism, where two users must certify, was to reduce the volume of frivilous RFCs from vandals and trolls. It was not intended to make RFC a mechanism of last resort. RFCs serve a purpose in that they provide a central point of discussion. People will discuss things they're upset about, either here, or at the village pump, or the administrator's noticeboard, or on the mailing list. Let's continue to have RFC be a suitable forum for somewhat less formal discussion, and leave the diffs and evidence-gathering to RFAr where it is more appropriate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC) The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the removal. Maurreen (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Also agree with the removal. The requirement could just be to have certification by 2 real distinct editors - for the basis of a legitimate Request for Discussion of the matter, only.. --Mysidia 19:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Maintenance collaboration
I've nominated the RFC page at Maintenance collaboration of the week. Maurreen (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding Biff Rose entry, and User:willmcw
I have had some issues with willmcw and the edits he reverts on the Biff Rose page. As it stands it is frozen with eidts I agree with. I ask that people research the lyrics of Biff Rose, and his websites, which include many of the offending racist and anti semitic statements as well as the lyrics from some of his songs. It is important to get a whole overview beyond that of Rose himself.

I will abide by the findings, however they play out. I would ask that willmcw would no longer post on my user page as he is insulting and making me out to be something I am not. It effects my relation with other wikipedia users. ThanksSteve espinola 07:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello. I have witnessed several of these "edits" and let's be clear: Espinola removed a significant number of cleanup tags I had placed in the process of migrating the old cleanup archives to the new ones. Willmcw reverted many of those back to their proper place.  If any thing, there needs to be a RfC on espinola himself, just see his talk page for more on this. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The time limit used for Uncertified RFCs

 * By the way, is anyone aware of the rationale for choosing 48 hours as the time limit? Perhaps 72 hours or greater would be the more appropriate time limit for certification, so that people can actually notice an Rfc before the time has already been called.  This important, since not just any user can notice, research, and get an Rfc certified... other actual parties to be involved in a similar dispute with the user have to notice -- it could therefore take a while for them to become aware, especially if they don't log on every day, or is the Rfc process only designed for situations where disputes involve dozens of users?


 * Users are able to build Rfcs in their own userspace (i've seen it happening), perhaps calling people to get their Rfc certified before they move it to Wikipedia: namespace... I don't know, perhaps this is standard practice, or just smart, but I think of it more as an undesirable reaction to the time limit than a good practice, as it limits the amount of comment... Instead of delete RFCs after 48 hours, I think the rule should be made de-list RFCs after 48 hours, with an option to re-list, provided the party re-listing

is also certifying the listing, but do not delete the pages unless they were just patent nonsense... --Mysidia 19:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion about the time limit. The important thing is to have a mechanical means of delisting material that is clearly just a single user's grudge. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought the practice was to delist and not to delete. Maurreen (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The rationale behind it is that one should research the matter and have a second opinion before posing the matter to the community. So yes, starting an RFC in userspace is a good idea. In theory it prevents such RFCs as User:Idiot is an idiot, and gets them removed swiftly if they don't have backing (and yes, they generally are deleted). However, that's the theory behind it, and in fact it's not a workable system. To my knowledge there are presently seven mediation-type systems, of which two are in fact working (RFAR and 3O), and the other five (this one, RFM, TINMC, WMI and M2005) are not. The latter five should be merged into some workable form. I believe the entire category of user-complains is generally about intra-user squabbles, and requires a different procedure than RFC - at present it's simply "say bad things about a user and see who agrees" and only rarely constructive. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 07:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a minor point, but I think that we have one pre-mediation system, five mediation-type systems, and one judicial system. Of them, three are working, and four are not.  The three that are working are RfC, as a pre-mediation system, 3O, as an informal mediation system, and RfAr, which is judicial.  I agree that the formal mediation systems are not working, and would be interested to know what exactly is wrong with them.  Robert McClenon 12:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced that an RFC on a person does give productive results; generally, its subject either ignores it, or states why he thinks the certifiers are wrong. If I am wrong in this, please point me to some RFCs that had a productive response.
 * I believe that merely by providing a suitable forum for users to criticise each other, RFCs serve a purpose. Before we had RFCs, people would post similar critical material all over the Wiki, most often at RFA (in the form of de-adminship requests), or at the Village Pump, or at Requests for de-adminship.  While it is most unusual for the subject of an RFC to make substantive changes in their editing pattern as a result of the RFC, a purpose is nonetheless served. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Why all mediations don't work? I guess you'd have to ask the mediators. But generally it seems to boil down to lack of enforceability. Whenever editors are courteous and friendly, there isn't need for mediation. Whenever they're not, they are unlikely to listen. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Mediation rarely works, either at Wikipedia or elsewhere. It does not work here because the mediators are not taken seriously; as a group they are not seen as being community leaders whose insight and judgement are among the best of those at Wikipedia.  There are various reasons for this, many of them historical.  The mediators do not act as a unified group; they lack strong leadership, and as a result do not speak with a single voice.  Part of the problem IMO is that they have accepted intractable cases which they should have left to others.  Part of the problem is that their confidentiality standards make it difficult for them to take proper credit for those disputes where they have had a positive influence.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate Signatures
There is a current RfAr concerning the complaint that a user has an inappropriate signature. (At least, the summary says that that is the issue, but there seem to other complaints about the user's conduct.) An RfAr seems to be a drastic step to deal with a complaint about a signature. Should inappropriate signatures be dealt with under inappropriate user names, or should there be a separate section of this page? Robert McClenon 11:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's part of user conduct. Only, of course, if you've asked the user and that didn't help. The issue doesn't come up often enough to warrant its own section, and username conflicts are usually about simple vandalism and impersonation attempts. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comments on individual users - how is it supposed to work?
A translation of the example for an RfC on an individual user was transferred to svwiki some time ago, and I have a few questions regarding how it is supposed to function.


 * If I opened the RfC, can others change the description that I made? What if others have already signed it?
 * Can the person whose conduct is questioned, change or add his statement after it is posted? What if others have already signed the previous version, who might not like a new addition?
 * Is it possible to sign at several places? What if an "outside view" too me sounds very relevant, but I have already signed in the first section?
 * This question is relevant, only if it is possible to sign more than once. The notion that you should not edit in a section if you signed a summary in others - does this mean that if I signed the first description of the persons behaviour (or even wrote the first version of it), can I not sign in the section for "outside views"?

I am extremely grateful for explanations on how it is supposed to work. Trial and error is fine, but if we can learn as much as possible from enwiki that is great. Thanks. / Habj 10:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not necessarily a good system, and it will likely be reworked in the next few weeks. Anyway, to answer your questions - people should never change existing text in an RFC, only add to it (obviously fixing typoes is allowed, as is adding links or extra examples etc). Any substantial addition to a paragraph that people have already signed for should go in another section - you cannot assume that people also agre with that part.
 * You can sign in multiple places and endorse multiple views. This is common. They are generally not mutually exclusive. Note that the whole point of RFC is not to get many people to endorse things - the point is to get outside opinions and see what consensus is and what can be done about undesired behavior (if any). This is precisely one of the reasons why the current system isn't good.
 * I don't really understand the point of your last question but the answer is no, per instruction creep and WP:NOT a bureaucracy people aren't forbidden to edit or sign anywhere in an RFC.
 * HTH! Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:25, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * It does, thanks! Regarding my last question I was thinking about the repeated instruction that you should not edit more than one section. This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. etc. I understand that it says "should not" not "must not". I was wondering if "edit in a section" here referres to writing summaries, or also signing to agree with other people's summaries.
 * We have had some kind of RfC for a while, but pretty much without any form at all. Generally, it has ended in discussions where the antagonists just continue to quarrel and in the end, no one else bothers to read the page. As I have understood the point of this form, it is to keep the different sides separate and make them explain their views rather than argue with each other. / Habj 10:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that the rule about not editing other sections can be understood as a rule against censoring or "refactoring" a view with which you disagree. The originator may not edit the defense presented by the subject.  The subject may not edit the statement by the originator.  With regard to third views, it makes sense that they should only be edited by the originating third party.  It also makes perfect sense that anyone can sign any number of views.  They can even sign views that are inconsistent, but then someone may notice that.  Robert McClenon 11:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

RFC has been split!
The RFCs on article content had been split a while ago among nine topic areas. These have now been moved to subpages. This will allow experts in a certain area to keep that subpage on their watchlist, and contribute to what they know best. There is also a central page that transcludes them all. Please comment here, and tell us if you think the current subject areas are too narrow, broad, overlapping, confusing, or if any are missing. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Requests for comment/All" does not indicate the topics. Maurreen (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see the problem... the RFCheader uses the PAGENAME string, so it doesn't work on /All. It should have a parameter instead. I'll fix it tomorrow if nobody else has by then. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 19:18, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, on the one hand, we can now categorize the topic sections. But on the other hand, it splits the people RFCs and users must now go to multiple pages to start the RFC. Maurreen (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It's one extra click for people filing an RFC. On the other hand, it now allows people to watchlist the section(s) they are interested in; that wasn't feasible before. More comments welcome, of course; I was just being bold but would like to hear what people think. Or we could always try it out for a week or two and see if it's useful or awkward. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 19:17, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Damn. A bunch more pages I need to find to add to my watchlist. --Carnildo 04:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Splitting up
I disagree with all the splitting up and subpages. This page used to be simple -- one page. Now it's scattered. Maurreen (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * People that prefer the old layout can still use Requests for comment/All. The splitting allows people versed in a subject area to watchlist that particular area and keep track of developments. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * The old format allowed for easy watchlisting, while /All doesn't. --Carnildo 19:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Only if you're interested in every single issue, which most people aren't (and even then, you could watchlist all subpages; they're not that high-traffic, and many people have 100+ pages watchlisted anyway). However, you could use Special:Recentchanges. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Or we could return things to the way they were. Maurreen (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So, how should we resolve this, have an RFC about the RFC page? Maurreen (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * A meta-RfC. Yes.  Fun for logicians, and reasonable for other Wikipedians. Robert McClenon 18:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what the problem is. The RFC page was getting rather large, and like several other pages that had grown large in the past, has been split. Basically, this provides extra options for users, with no loss of earlier options: people who had RFC watchlisted can now simply watchlist the subpages (yes, I know there's eight of them, but most watchlists are so large anyway that people won't notice the difference). People who wish to visit a single page with all requests together can still do so, at the /all page. I've had a couple of good reactions, and most people simply adapt, watchlist what they're interested in, and keep going. The complaints here seem mostly based on conservatism - but by its very nature, the wiki evolves. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:28, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

This seems unnecessarily complex. Articles are placed on RfC in the hope they will receive immediate attention; it is counterproductive to split the list into subpages which will divide that attention. Additionally, typical disputes mainly concern editorial issues, not the specific field of study of the articles in question. &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [ &#5200; ] 11:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment on a disambig page
I'm looking for second opinions on a rewrite of ABC (talk). Where should I go to request comment? --Smack (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest here. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 07:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Archives
Does anyone know what happened to the dispute archives? Maurreen (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There's one at Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive. The Requests for comment/Article content disputes archive has dropped out of use since last june, since nobody had been really bothering to keep a proper archive for a long time (it consisted of simply cut/pasting the entries there, and nobody ever seemed to read them that way). The Requests for comment/Everyone using a username which is against policy/archive even more so, it hasn't been updated since 2004. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:24, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Kemal Ataturk
Article on Kemal Ataturk is blatantly POV, especially the "criticism" section. Words like "evil" are used to describe Armenians. Section ends with "Long live Ataturk!"
 * Added to appropriate section. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:00, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Added category
I added a category for language and linguistics, since I know there have been heated disputes about it before and I simply could not see this fitting in any other category. My hope is that it won't actually be used and can be deleted later on, but I doubt it. A lot of people have a lot of opinions about language and not all of them are either well-informed or civil.

Peter Isotalo 22:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Where is Requests for comment?
I see some discussion about deleting it, but no decision was made. Yet it is gone. Do the missing RFCs have to be replaced. Or do I look around until I find out where the dispute on Cricket (sport) vs Cricket (insect) was placed? Nereocystis 23:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In general, renaming issues go in the appropriate section (e.g. renaming of a historical figure goes in history). In this case, I'd add it to both sports and science, since it is one of those rare cases where it concerns both. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

How does your computer show this?
Over at the Hindi language user tag project, which is a sort of a sub-project of the Babel project, myself and a few other editors who happen to be Indian are engaged in a discussion about how others on Wiki might view the Hindi language tags on their computers. This view can vary, depending on whether or not a given Wiki user is using several correct variables, such as correct operating system, correct language script pack, etc. etc..


 * Side comment: there is of course no one "correct" operating system! I'd say, "This view can vary depending on several variables, such as which browser and operating system a given Wiki user is using, and on which fonts or language script packages are installed, how the various locale or language variables are set, etc.". Steve Summit (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

So, the question is;
 * "Could you please comment on whether or not you see all question marks in the Hindi language tags, or if you might see special Hindi script characters instead in the vari-colored Hindi language tag boxes on the right side at the Hindi language user tag project?"

If your system is compatible, you will see hindi language characters in the boxes. If not, you will see a series of question marks, something like this "यह सभ्य हिन्दी भाषा में प्रारंभिक कक्षा का प्रदान कर सकते हैं।" in the boxes. As many comments from as many different users as possible over the next few days would be most helpful for this, as such comments will give us a much better sense of how well (or poorly) the Hindi language tags are working for other Wiki users in general. Please leave your observation comments on the actual project talk page in the observations section of that page.

Thanks,

Scott P. 23:52:33, 2005-08-20 (UTC)

Anonymous IP certification
Should an anonymous IP count towards the 2 user threshold for certification of an RfC? Since we generally don't count IP votes on RfA or VfD votes, it doesn't seem like we should allow them to certify. Specifically, I'm referring to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:Robert McClenon, where the creator and first certifier was User:24.147.97.230. I think it would set a bad precedent and possibly encourage abusive sockpuppets to allow RfCs to be certified by one (or more) anonymous IPs. Carbonite | Talk 00:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Several anon IP addresses are very well known as specific editors. So the answer is, it depends. Anons can vote on VfD, btw. SchmuckyTheCat 02:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I find it dubious, at best. I'm not sure what policy is regarding an RFC. I did find this, though. "In some votes, guidelines require you to be a registered user for it to be considered." FuelWagon 05:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It is somewhat dubious, yes. It depends on the edit history of the IP in question. Please see Suffrage. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:36, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * On the one hand, to the extent that Wikipedia is "bound by precedent", it would indeed make a bad precedent to permit anonymous certification, precisely because it would encourage abusive sockpuppets. On the other hand, since Wikipedia is not "bound by precedent", it is not really important whether the RfC is considered to be "properly certified".  I did raise the issue of whether it has been properly certified in my Response.  The RfC is a revenge RfC aimed at retaliation against my filing of a previous RfC against the anonymous editor.  The endorsing signatures in support of the anonymous editor on both RfCs are almost entirely those of admittedly first-time users who have created accounts for the purpose of supporting the anonymous editor.  It does not matter much whether the RfC is "properly certified" because a user conduct RfC, as I understand, serves two purposes.  The first is as a means for obtaining community input about a user's conduct that might enable him to change his behavior.  There has so far been no such constructive input, only new accounts supporting the anonymous editor, and frustrated Wikipedians saying that this anonymous editor is out of control.  The second purpose of an RfC is as a preliminary step toward arbitration.  When the response to my RfC about the anonymous editor was belligerent, I filed an RfAr.  I trust that when the ArbCom does accept the case, which largely does involve whether there is sockpuppet abuse, they will have the sound judgment to distinguish between real and unreal editors.  Robert McClenon 11:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal = Vandalism?
Erwin Walsh, someone I opened a RFC on, deleted the link to the RFC from the RFC main page. The evidence is found here. I don't know if it counts as vandalism or not. Acetic Acid 20:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * The deletion was accompanied by an edit summary saying "48 hours". That meant that there had not been a second signature to the RfC within 48 hours after you posted it.  I checked the times, and it was slightly more than 48 hours.  I think that Erwin Walsh was guilty of poor judgment in deleting the RfC on his own conduct, but that it was not vandalism.  Robert McClenon 20:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Be serious now. He wants nothing to do with that RfC. Hence why he keeps removing the notification of it from his talk page. He attacked the validity of the RfC on the talk page. You're being a bit too lenient with him. Acetic Acid 21:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * The RFC was created on August 20 05:30 (UTC), with Acetic Acid's signature. Gorgonzilla added his signature certifying on August 21 14:05 . That's well within 48 hours. Mr. Walsh in fact struck out Acetic Acid's signature from the RFC, apparently believing (from what I read on the talk page) that Acetic Acid was in "no position" to certify the RFC. He then removed the RFC from the main page , tagged it for speedy deletion  and a short while after removed all modifications to the RFC with edit summary "test" , without, however, restoring the RFC link on the main page. A puzzling sequence of edits to say the least. JRM · Talk 21:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In looking at the additional diffs, it does appear that there has been conduct that is either vandalism or similar to vandalism. I still do not understant what the original issue was (as I noted in an outside opinion to the RfC).  However, I would suggest that a revised RfC be refiled, including the diffs cited by JRM.  The deletion of the RfC link itself is not the conclusive evidence.  Robert McClenon 22:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This was a simple misunderstanding, and is obviously not vandalism since I undid the edit. WP:AGF  Erwin 

First step toward arbitration
FuelWagon, it may be the first step toward arbitration, which is true and is what I wrote. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it "may" be, but an RFC is not a causal link to arbitration. I know of at least one RFC that was filed specifically because the person thought, in part, that he needed to do an RFC before he could get into arbitration. I had posted a comment that said somethign to the effect of


 * "An RFC is a method of dispute resolution unto itself. Do not fill out an RFC as an "arbitration application", rather use it as an opportunity to resolve the dispute at hand".


 * Except that comment got reverted. The "RFC 'may' become Arbitration" setence is not clear. It actually makes the linkage more confusing, not more clear. And a version of it was quoted at least by one RFC filer to mean he needed to file an RFC before he could get into arbitration. That's not the sort of behaviour I want to encourage around RFC's. FuelWagon 00:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear, and the last time we had this discussion, other editors agreed. The arbcom often asks for an RfC before accepting a case, so it's definitely true that an RfC may be the first step toward arbitration. It's important to have a statement making clear this is a serious step because of the number of frivolous RfCs that are posted. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, uninvited company removed the two bullets you just reinserted and his removal was supported by a couple of editors and opposed by no one.. So, I don't think "consensus" can be declared here. As for the number of "frivolous" RFC's, yes, they are a problem, but I would assert that the editors who are making a problem out of them are doing so specifically because they think an RFC will punish the target in some way and/or get them into arbitration. you're sentence only encourages that behaviour by implying a link where none exists. And a version of your sentence was quoted by one editor who filed what I woudl call a bad-faith RFC as the very reason he filed it: to get to arbitration. If you want to reduce these sorts of bad-faith RFC's, then tell bad-faith editors taht an RFC is a mechanism for dispute resolution unto itself and should be used as such, tell them to NOT file an RFC as an "arbitration application". don't imply a linkage. Explicitely break the linkage and tell them to not relate to an RFC as a means to get into arbitration. The mentality of bad-faith RFC's seems to be "If I get enough of my friends to vote my way on this RFC, then the arbitration committee will simply rule in my favor and ban the other user." Implying a linkage only encourages this mentality. If a bad faith editor goes to teh RFC page and sees "An RFC may be the first step to arbitration", they'll think, "yeah, that's exactly what I need". If they go to the RFC page and see "An RFC is a method of dispute resolution unto itself, use it as such." That should short circuit some of the bad RFC's. If it also says "Do not file an RFC as an "arbitration application"", that should actually derail a few editors from filing a bad-faith RFC. I agree the problem exists. I'm saying this sentence makes the problem worse. FuelWagon 00:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Filing an RfC as the first step toward arbitration is not doing it in bad faith. It's quite normal to do that and in fact is one of the purposes of an RfC. And we did have a consensus before to leave my edit as it was. I can ask the same editors again whether they still support it, but I hope you won't ask me to. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * It was only the requirement of diffs that TUC objected to, because dispute resolution may have taken place by e-mail, so I've removed that, and stated the provision of diffs as preferable but not required. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your insistence on the "cure" doesn't make sense to me given the "disease" you claim to wish to fix. Your adamancy that it be your specific language, and that you'll call in the troops if it isn't, occurs to me as strange for a wiki. I agree that the problem of bad-faith RFC's exist. I just happen to think your "cure" will only encourage the trolls looking for something to beat over the head of another editor. "Oh look, an easy way to arbitration." Are you telling me you find no other wording acceptable? Are you telling me that you'll jump right over any possible negotiation and go straight to a poll for your wording? I had suggested the sentence: "Do not fill out an RFC as an 'arbitration application'. An RFC is a method of dispute resolution unto itself. Use it as such". And you're telling me this doesn't work in any way? It may not discourage a bad-faith editor looking to punish someone, but it won't encourage them the way "An RFC may be the first step to arbitration" shows them a way to trounce another editor. As for "good-faith" editors filing an RFC as step-one to arbitration, I dispute that interpretation. An RFC should be used as a dispute resolution mechanism in and of itself. If any editor files an RFC solely to get into arbitration, they are misuing the RFC system and should be honest about their intentions and simply go straight to arbitration. The thing that separates "good faith" RFC's from "Bad faith" RFC's is simply whether or not the editor is using it to resolve a dispute or whether they are using it in preparation for something else. No good-faith editor should relate to an RFC as simply a "formality" before getting to arbitration. for a good faith editor, an RFC is step one to arbitration the way flossing is step one to oral surgery. Good faith editors should relate to an RFC as preventitive, not punitive, so your sentence is not needed for good faith editors. But for bad-faith editors, your sentence is like waving a red-cape in front of an angry bull. They're already steamed and looking for something to charge, and you just gave them a target to aim for: arbitration, and a means to get there: RFC. If the sentence really is intended to wave off an editor from filing a bad faith RFC, I think something like "Do not fill out an RFC as an 'arbitration application'. An RFC is a method of dispute resolution unto itself. Use it as such" will do a much better job of difusing the sitation, rather than inciting the bull to charge. FuelWagon 01:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't say I'd call in the troops, simply that I could ask the editors who agreed with me before when they still do. The fact is that the arbcom does sometimes (or even often) ask for, or look for, an RfC before they will accept a case, so it is sometimes or often a first step toward arbitration. And sometimes it isn't. Hence the words may be. I honestly don't see a problem with it. But the important parts of the edit for me are (a) that it's clear two certifiers have to show evidence of their separate attempts to resolve the same dispute (because lots of RfCs are filed without this and end up having to be deleted, but not before causing trouble for all concerned); and (b) that editors understand they should not post an RfC lightly.


 * However, I also think it's important to point out that the link to arbitration may exist, so that editors are aware of it. Just because an RfC is posted by someone who doesn't want to go to arbitration, that doesn't mean the RfC evidence won't later be used in arbitration by someone else. We can't always control the consequences of our actions on a wiki. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe there needs to be a policy for deleting RFC's at some point. I already proposed the idea that an RFC should be disallowed from arbitration as one possibility, but you're now addressing a different problem. I'm talking about a bad faith editor looking for a way to punish another editor. And in that situation, that an RFC hangs around for a long time is even more incentive for punishment. Here's the story:


 * An editor has just been involved in a revert war with someone else. A couple of other editors get involved, and the only thing that keeps the article from churning ad infinitum is the 3RR policy. There are two possible responses: George acting in good faith wants a way to resolve the dispute. Pete acting in bad faith wants a way to punish his opponents. Both George and Pete go to the RFC page. They see one of two alternatives:
 * (1)"An RFC may be the first step toward arbitration, which can bring punitive actions against an editor. It is therefore not a step to be taken lightly."
 * (2)"Do not fill out an RFC as an 'arbitration application'. An RFC is a method of dispute resolution unto itself. Use it as such"
 * Good-faith George doesn't care if it's (1) or (2). He's looking for a good-faith way to resolve the dispute. Punitive Pete is looking for a way to punish the editors who opposed his changes to the article. If Pete sees (1), he sees "step one to arbitration" and sees a way to get what he wants. A bad-faith, punitive RFC is filed. If Pete sees (2), he isn't offered a path to punishment, and is offered a way to resolve the problem non-violently. He may still be so steamed that he files an RFC anyway. but at least he was admonished to cool off and to use the RFC for finding a resolution, rather than getting to arbitration. Anyway, that's how I see it. real world calls. FuelWagon 01:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see your point, but the fact remains that the arbcom does ask for RfCs as a first step toward arbitration. I was involved in taking a case through arbcom last year, and before I filed it, I was advised that I might be asked to post an RfC first in order to use it as evidence. In the end, I didn't have to, but the suggestion was made by more than one member of the arbcom, and is quite common. If you want to change that, it can't be done on this page, but will have to be taken up with them, or elsewhere (village pump, mailing list, for example).


 * Regarding deleting them after a period, I agree with you, but there was a wide-ranging discussion about this some months ago, and there was a strong consensus to keep them without time limit, so long as they'd been properly certified. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * If arbcom asks for an RFC, then there is no need to warn the user that an RFC "may be the first step to arbitration", because they already went to arbitration and were asked to go back and get an RFC. What you're actually doing with this warning is discouraging good faith editors from filing an RFC because as you said "We can't always control the consequences of our actions". Your warning "It is therefore not a step to be taken lightly" will discourage good-faith George from filing a reasonable RFC because only a good-faith editor would heed a warning to "not take it lightly". But your warning will do nothing against punitive-Pete who is specifically looking for "consequences", specifically looking for a way to punish another editor. And the fact that if he gets one of his buddies to certify his RFC, then it will stay around forever is only more incentive for him. If Pete can get enough RFC's agaisnt an editor, then he can push it to arbitration and attempt to get his opponent banned. Your warning encourages bad-faith RFC's and discourages legitimate RFC's. I am trying to encourage good faith editors to use an RFC as a way to resolve a dispute and I'm trying to discourage bad faith editors from filing an RFC as an application to get into arbitration. Bad faith editors don't want an RFC to resolve anything. They want to make their case, get a bunch of signatures, and push into arbitration where punishment can be metted out. FuelWagon 14:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your willingness to compromise. FuelWagon 13:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I also appreciate your honest and forthright edit summaries regarding this matter as well. "Restoring deleted material" is probably the best and most accurate representation of this discussion. FuelWagon 13:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, FuelWagon, that what you want to add just isn't accurate. RfCs are regarded as potentially a first step toward arbitration by most, if not all, editors who file them. Perhaps they ought not to be, but they are. They're also so regarded by the arbcom to the best of my knowledge. If you want to add to the edits I've made to the page, by all means do so (so long as they're not contradictory), but please don't delete what I've written. As an admin, I'm involved in deleting frivolous RfCs where no one has bothered to follow the rules for filing them, and there are too many. I therefore want to make sure that people know early on that an RfC is a serious step, not to be taken lightly. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 14:04, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Outside View by McClenon
FuelWagon: You have a point, but I respectfully suggest that you take a break from arguing it. You and SlimVirgin are both on the side of trying to maintain reasoned discussion. Please do not waste so much time arguing with her about terminology.

It is my own opinion that an RfC has either or both of two purposes. It can be a method of seeking outside comments (as its name implies) as a means of dispute resolution in itself, especially with good-faith editors. It can also be a step toward arbitration, especially against bad-faith editors. It is also a method of determining whether the subject is a good-faith editor or bad-faith editor.

I disagree that SlimVirgin's warning encourages bad-faith RfCs. There will be bad-faith RfCs anyway. Also, bad-faith editors do not only file RfCs in order to get into arbitration. They also file bad-faith RfCs in order to intimidate and threaten.

I suggest that my own situation should be a case in point. I trust that FuelWagon and SlimVirgin will agree that the RfCs that I recently posted were filed in good faith, and that a bad-faith RfC was then filed against me. The value of SlimVirgin's warning is to good-faith editors who are afraid of confrontation. It says, in essence, "Think before you post. You might make the subject of the RfC angry, and here is why." Her warning would not have discouraged me from filing, and it would not have encouraged the bad-faith filing against me, which would have happened anyway. It is a statement to the faint-hearted not to cross this step. Robert McClenon 12:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's clear that SlimVirgin finds her warning to be non-negotiable. I've tried different wording in an attempt to satisfy her concerns. She reverts to her original wording. And her edit summaries clearly indicate this is non-negotiable. No mention of a dispute over wording, no mention of attempting to resolve anything. Just "restoring deleted material". Nice teamwork there. I appreciate the wiki-spirit that SlimVirgin consistently inspires. FuelWagon 14:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As for the idea of warning good-faith editors of a possible angry reaction to an RFC, that's different than "don't take it lightly". "don't take it lightly" is saying don't do it, and gives no real reason other than a vague reference to "step one to mediation". If you want to warn good faith editors they may get an angry reaction to their RFC, tell them that. Telling a good faith editor "don't take it lightly" is like warning someone "danger ahead" on a roadsign. Should they stop? should they keep going? Is the bridge out? is traffic reduced to one lane? Is it simply road crews working on the shoulders? "danger ahead" says nothing to the driver that helps them make a decision to continue or not, to slow down, to maintain speed, or to turn around. FuelWagon 14:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've mentioned this before, but SlimVirgin simply "restores deleted material". No variations. No attempts to find some wording to deal with this concern. no negotiations. No attempts at resolution. nothing. Standard stonewalling procedures. FuelWagon 14:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There are two different warnings here. one for good faith editors to warn them of possible angry reaction to their RFC. one for bad faith editors to warn them to not relate to an RFC as paperwork, as case-building wikilawyering in preparation for arbitration. And apparently, SlimVirgin has decided which warning is important and how it should be worded. I love wikipedia. FuelWagon 14:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Since she has effectively made this non-negotiable, I'll take your advice and "take a break" from it. FuelWagon 14:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'll try one last alternative. I'll leave Slim's non-negotiable warning in place, and I'll add my own. Her reaction will indicate where this is going. FuelWagon 14:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please don't start the ad hominem comments again, FW. I can live with your addition, I think. Two things: first, an RfC filed in good faith may also be a first step toward arbitration, as it's a prior step in the dispute-resolution process, so I slightly reworded what you wrote to allow for that. Going to the arbcom isn't a sign of bad faith, and nor is filing an RfC for that purpose. Secondly, this sentence: "It is intended to be a way to resolve disputes between editors. Use it as such." When you say "it is intended," who do you mean intends it this way? I know that since I've been editing, I haven't see any disputes resolved using an RfC. On the contrary, I've only seen them cause bad feeling. Well, I suppose you could count editors leaving as resolving the dispute, and I've seen RfCs that have caused that, but I don't think that's quite what you meant. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 15:23, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * My comments have been directed solely at your behaviour around this. If there was a personal attack on your character, let me know. As for your recent edit, please don't call something a "copyedit" in the edit summary unless you're correcting grammar and spelling. You have a tendency to downplay your changes in your edit summaries. "restoring deleted material" is a nice way of casting yourself as fighting a vandal. FuelWagon 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As to your continued insistence on saying that an RFC "may" be step one to arbitration, you conveniently ignore the intent of a good-faith editor filing a good-faith RFC. That isn't the point of my warning. My point is that even if someone files an RFC in complete good faith, and even if that will eventually turn out to resolve the problem and be the end of teh issue, some people will react to the initial filing of the RFC as punitive. That was the point I was tryign to make in rewording your warning, but you've made it clear you will accept no other wording. 'Now you go and edit my warning, after I left yours in place. So, it seems to me that you really intend for this to be non-negotiable. it is your warning, and no other wording is allowed. You already have your warning that says an RFC may be step one to arbitration. I dispute the accuracy of your warning, but rather than continue to fight it, I'm wiling to leave your warning in place, and simply put my own warning up. You on the other hand, have insisted that your warning remain unchanged, and are now take it upon yourself to change my wording. So, I'm left with the continued impression that you view this as non-negotiable. FuelWagon 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, I've explained this more than once, and I don't know what other words to use. An editor may file an RfC not intending it as a first step toward arbitration. But afterwards, another editor might come along and use it as a first step toward arbitration. Because the arbcom DOES accept RfCs as first steps, and this is a wiki, so whatever you intend with an RfC, is not necessarily what will end up happening to it. It is therefore true that every single RfC, regardless of the intentions of the certifiers, MAY be a first step toward arbitration. I don't know why you're trying to pretend otherwise. I can only assume for personal reasons because of the RfC you filed. But your personal views can't outweigh the cold, hard facts. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 15:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * "It is therefore true that every single RfC ... MAY be a first step toward arbitration." Fine. I dispute that claim, but I'm not so hard headed that I'll insist on changing the wording to your warning to say otherwise. You perceive it to be a problem, and your warning deals with the percieved problem. You've got your warning. I don't know why you can't be happy with that. I'm actually trying to deal with something else. The wording is different because it's addressing a different problem than yours. FuelWagon 18:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not understand what FuelWagon is saying. What problem is he addressing?  Robert McClenon 18:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Good Faith and Bad Faith
I think that I either do not understand or do not agree with FuelWagon's concept of good-faith and bad-faith RfCs. If FuelWagon is implying that filing an RfC as a preparation for filing an RfAr is bad faith, then I strongly disagree. If a user is disrupting Wikipedia, and previous efforts to reason with the user do not work, then requesting arbitration may be necessary. Is that bad faith, or is that respect for due process? On the contrary, I would characterize a user conduct RfC as being in bad faith if the originator knows that he has no intention of going on to the RfAr stage, and is only filing the RfC in order to harass.

As SlimVirgin observes, filing a user conduct RfC probably will cause hard feeling. It is not a friendly action to take. It should only be done when friendly methods of dealing with an editor, such as discussion on article talk pages, have been ineffective. In an ideal world, a user conduct RfC might be a way to resolve disputes. In an ideal world, we would not have disruptive editors who cause disputes that need to be resolved.

It is not clear to me what FuelWagon is trying to say. I think I understand what SlimVirgin is saying. "Do not file a user conduct RfC unless you understand that it is typically a step toward arbitration," or "Filing a user conduct RfC will typically cause hard feelings. Do it only if it is your judgment that the benefit to Wikipedia outweighs the harm of the hard feelings."

I do not understand FuelWagon's concepts of good faith and bad faith. Robert McClenon 18:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "If FuelWagon is implying that filing an RfC as a preparation for filing an RfAr is bad faith" No. That isn't what I'm implying. If an editor files an RFC and has no intention of using it to resolve anything, then that is a bad faith RFC. An RFC is a method of dispute resolution unto itself. It should be used as such. The bad-faith RFC's I've seen were filed by people who completely avoided any attempt to resolve the issue with an RFC. I've commented on RFC's and had editors go "Oh, well, yeah, maybe I did have a part in creating this problem." and then the problem is solved. I've commented on other RFC's and the person who created it would get aggressive and say "No! It's HIS fault! This isn't about ME! I am RIGHT! He is WRONG! And you are WRONG for saying I am wrong." That's a bad-faith RFC. The person filing it simply wants to "convict" the other side of some policy violation and wants to completely ignore any violations they may have committed in the process. There is a difference between
 * (1) filing an RFC, hoping it resolves a problem, and if it doesn't, going on to arbitration and
 * (2) filing an RFC, getting the blanks filled in, ignoring any and all comments (or attacking them), being unwilling to allow the RFC process to resolve anything so that you can then request arbitration.
 * An RFC is part of the dispute resolution process, it isn't paperwork to be filled out and ignored and then move on to arbitration. I don't know how else to explain this. FuelWagon 18:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a good way of putting it and it isn't consistent with the view of it being the first step toward arbitration (with the hope of there being no second step). So I added it to page. But I disagree with this: "If an RfC is filed in good faith, the editor filing it would be attempting to resolve a dispute by airing differences and inviting outside comments. But even an RFC filed in good faith may be viewed by some to be the first step toward arbitration and punitive measures, so be aware of the possible reaction you may receive, and make that part of your decision as to whether to file or not." It's unclear, and arguably false because of the good faith/bad faith presumptions (and we're not mind readers), and also because it says "may be viewed" as though this would be a minority view. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:44, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm also confused and FuelWagon has been making this point for weeks, yet I still don't get it. An RfC is like putting someone in the stocks. In my view, it's a horrible process, and I would only do it to POV warriors and trolls who couldn't be blocked for disruption. I've never seen good come from an RfC. That's just my perception.


 * Neverthless, an RfC is a recognized step in the dispute-resolution process, widely seen as the step to take before arbitration. If the RfC alone will sort it out, then fine. But if you want to go to the arbcom, you usually have to precede it with mediation or an RfC, and the mediation committee is stalled, so an RfC is currently just about the only option.


 * Therefore, there is no bad faith implied in using an RfC in that way. And as Robert points out, it could be argued that an RfC that is NOT intended as a first step toward RfAr is the bad-faith one, because it's unnecessary.


 * FuelWagon shouldn't say anything on the RfC page that implies otherwise, because it would amount to his personal view &mdash; original research and wishful thinking &mdash; and not consistent with the way other editors, admins, and the arbcom perceive and use the RfC process. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:33, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, the real problem is that you are still holding onto that RFC I filed against you a couple of months ago as a "bad faith" RFC and you are holding it as a grudge against me even now. That is why you relate to this as non-negotiable. And as long as you refuse to see that there was any merit at all in that RFC, you're going to cast me as the bad-guy here, and tell everyone I'm doing "original research", "wishful thinking", "pretending", making "ad hominem attacks again", and whatever else you've come up with. You are too invested in this for any discussion to come to any sort of useful outcome. I'm wrong and you're right, and that's the end of the conversation. You want to get some honesty in this conversation, stop pretending this is all about some warning on the RFC page I put up today or a week ago, and get some honesty about how much of this is about you begrudging me for filing an RFC against you a couple months ago. Until then, we're just going to keep dancing around the real issues. FuelWagon 19:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that you're trying to insert what you feel ought to be the case, instead of describing what is in fact the case. You were the one who started changing the contents of this page after your failed RfC (and no credible editor, other than you, saw the merit in that RfC, so perhaps it is you who needs to learn from it). From memory, Jayjg, Jpgordon, Mel, and I opposed your edits. And now Robert is also questioning them. And yet you continue. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:17, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please. My RFC was supported by 4 other editors. Ed Poor even gave it partial support initially, but then he retracted it, probably after some other admins contacted him privately. One person who endorsed it was a neuroscientist, an editor who pointed out several neurological-related errors in your edit, but rather than acknowledge any errors on your part, you actually argued against an expert and then accused him of having a nasty tone. Neuroscientist was as credible as they come. So, do you want to retract the "no credible editor, other than you, saw the merit in that RfC" statement? I'll cue the chirping crickets now. I'd let this stay buried, but if you're gonna start rewriting history, then I'll be damned if I'll let you lie about some good editors who left wikipedia in disgust. You either bury this hatchet or you tell the truth about it. FuelWagon 21:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Response below. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon, please explain to me (on my talk page) why you filed a user conduct RfC against SlimVirgin. If you filed a "good faith" RfC against her in order to try to reason with her, then I understand what is happening.  If you did that, and did not think that she was disrupting Wikipedia, then you simply made a mistake based on failure to understand how the rest of the Wikipedia community views user conduct RfCs.  Why not read your own user page, and apologize for having done something that you did not mean to be aggressive, but was viewed as such?  Robert McClenon 19:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon, in reality an RfC is often a necessary step before a RfAr. The Arbitration Committee insists that people try to work out problems in other ways before filing an RfAr, and that generally means an RfC.  Ideally the RfC resolves the problem, but often it does not, and an RfAr is then a logical next step.  This is simply the reality of how the dispute resolutions mechanisms at Wikipedia work. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  00:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, I point out the difference between the two following approaches: (1) filing an RFC, hoping it resolves a problem, and if it doesn't, going on to arbitration and (2) filing an RFC, getting the blanks filled in, ignoring any and all comments (or attacking them), being unwilling to allow the RFC process to resolve anything so that you can then request arbitration. I mentioned this above. FuelWagon 03:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon|FuelWagon does have a valid point that an RfC is not being properly used if the originator is not interested in listening to the comments (as the name of the process indicates). My point is that there are at least two different types of bad-faith RfCs.  There are the ones that FuelWagon mentions in which the originator is only filling out paperwork with the intention of going to arbitration.  Then there are the ones in which the originator has no intention of going to arbitration.  Perhaps they are both similar in that they are both being used simply as blunt instruments to try to intimidate another editor, since the ArbCom is not likely to accept an RfAr if it is clear that the originator is not trying to resolve the dispute.  However, what SlimVirgin is trying to caution about is another type of RfC, which is a user conduct RfC that is posted without a recognition that it will be seen as confrontational, when an article RfC would be more appropriate.  A user conduct RfC is seen by the Wikipedia community as more serious than an article content RfC.


 * There is a consensus among the Wikipedia community that a user conduct RfC is viewed as a serious action, and is seen as a step toward arbitration. FuelWagon may disagree, but there is a consensus on this point.  Could FuelWagon simply accept that he is in a minority?  A user conduct RfC is an empty threat and thus bad faith if there is no intention to go to arbitration if necessary.


 * There do appear to be mutual hard feelings between FuelWagon and SlimVirgin. At the same time, they are both on the same side of trying to maintain civility and develop an encyclopedia, and of agreeing that occasionally disruptive editors must be dealt with by the RfC and RfAr processes.  Can we move on and agree that SlimVirgin's caution is not so much "non-negotiable" as the summary of consensus?   Robert McClenon 11:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "There is a consensus among the Wikipedia community that a user conduct RfC is viewed as a serious action, and is seen as a step toward arbitration. FuelWagon may disagree, but there is a consensus on this point." Perhaps you could point me to a vote that shows people overwhelmingly support the idea that a user rfc should be considered "serious action". I know of no vote and I have anectodtal evidence to the contrary.


 * "this ... requirement for diffs ... has the effect of stifling discussion. People will discuss things they're upset about, either here, or at the village pump, or the administrator's noticeboard, or on the mailing list. Let's continue to have RFC be a suitable forum for somewhat less formal discussion, and leave the diffs and evidence-gathering to RFAr where it is more appropriate."


 * "RfCs should be an occasion to get input on something - not an obligatory step on the way to arbcomming people"


 * "RfC is just a chance for both parties to outline their problems and to get third party views. Although it can be as formal as you like, an RfC can be something as simple as a single sentence outline of the dispute on WP:RFC."


 * SlimVirgin expressed her view of the RFC process:


 * "An RfC is like putting someone in the stocks. In my view, it's a horrible process, and I would only do it to POV warriors and trolls who couldn't be blocked for disruption. I've never seen good come from an RfC."


 * Given the disparate views on RFC's, I question the notion that SlimVirgin's caution is strictly a summary of consensus. It could just as much be a function of her personal view that no good ever came from an RFC. FuelWagon 14:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Two comments
First, it is clear enough to me that there are now long hard feelings between FuelWagon and SlimVirgin because he filed a user conduct RfC against her. Obviously, she and many other Wikipedians thought that he was attacking her. I think that he was, but he disagrees. I agree with her effort to post a warning that posting a user conduct RfC will be seen as hostile. She is trying to avoid a misunderstanding like the one that already exists between him and her, by saying that such an RfC will be seen as hostile. She is right in saying that it will be seen as hostile. If FuelWagon disagrees, then the fact of this exchange is proof enough.

So why is FuelWagon eager to allow similar misunderstood filings? Why does he not want to spare others the hostility that he caused without meaning to do it? I think that SlimVirgin is trying to do future users a favor, and say, "Please be wary before posting a user conduct RfC. It is a serious measure."

I think that FuelWagon was in part a victim of the fact that the posted rules are in complete disagreement with the usual understanding of how dispute resolution should be done. He did what the rules said, and not what the understanding was. There was a genuine cognitive disconnect. The posted rules were wrong.

In retrospect, FuelWagon should have posted an article RfC rather than a user conduct RfC. He had no way of knowing this, since he only read the rules, and did not read the minds of the community. This was always really a content issue more than a conduct issue. One of the limitations of a wiki is that there is no obvious fast way to handle content issues quickly. Robert McClenon 00:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Crisis Thoughts

Second, I invite other editors to read my statement on what needs to be done to improve Wikipedia: User: Robert McClenon/Crisis. I do not know whether this is the right way to provide views, but I decided to be bold without disrupting any existing space. Robert McClenon 00:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Deleted RFC posted in user subspace
(copied from above) SlimVirgin, the real problem is that you are still holding onto that RFC I filed against you a couple of months ago as a "bad faith" RFC and you are holding it as a grudge against me even now. That is why you relate to this as non-negotiable. And as long as you refuse to see that there was any merit at all in that RFC, you're going to cast me as the bad-guy here, and tell everyone I'm doing "original research", "wishful thinking", "pretending", making "ad hominem attacks again", and whatever else you've come up with. You are too invested in this for any discussion to come to any sort of useful outcome. I'm wrong and you're right, and that's the end of the conversation. You want to get some honesty in this conversation, stop pretending this is all about some warning on the RFC page I put up today or a week ago, and get some honesty about how much of this is about you begrudging me for filing an RFC against you a couple months ago. Until then, we're just going to keep dancing around the real issues. FuelWagon 19:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that you're trying to insert what you feel ought to be the case, instead of describing what is in fact the case. You were the one who started changing the contents of this page after your failed RfC (and no credible editor, other than you, saw the merit in that RfC, so perhaps it is you who needs to learn from it). From memory, Jayjg, Jpgordon, Mel, and I opposed your edits. And now Robert is also questioning them. And yet you continue. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:17, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please. My RFC was supported by 4 other editors. Ed Poor even gave it partial support initially, but then he retracted it, probably after some other admins contacted him privately. One person who endorsed it was a neuroscientist, an editor who pointed out several neurological-related errors in your edit, but rather than acknowledge any errors on your part, you actually argued against an expert and then accused him of having a nasty tone. Neuroscientist was as credible as they come. So, do you want to retract the "no credible editor, other than you, saw the merit in that RfC" statement? I'll cue the chirping crickets now. I'd let this stay buried, but if you're gonna start rewriting history, then I'll be damned if I'll let you lie about some good editors who left wikipedia in disgust. You either bury this hatchet or you tell the truth about it. FuelWagon 21:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd normally say this issue doesn't belong here, as it's about a dispute between us, but now it seems you've cut and pasted the deleted RFC into your user subspace, so perhaps it does belong here after all. Suffice to say your RFC was not supported, or it would not have been deleted, and as for one of the editors saying he was a neuroscientist, I'd say, first, you only had his word for it, secondly, he said on a talk page that he was 25, and third, even if he was an expert, they carry no extra weight at Wikipedia, particularly in determining NPOV, which is what our dispute was about.


 * I'm sorry to see you haven't let this go. I accepted your apology in the belief the issue was over. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I hadn't even MENTIONED the RFC since I withdrew it until you started questioning the credibility of anyone and everyone who supported it. I withdrew my certification just so it would be deleted. It already had two signatures and I could have left it stick around. You want it to be over? you get that you just insulted the credibility of everyone who supported my RFC, you get that qualifies as a personal attack, you retract the statement, and you apologize. Don't blame this on me. You're the one who's bringing back the dead. FuelWagon 22:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Just so you get the history right, the first time my RFC was mentioned was here, when you posted " don't know why you're trying to pretend otherwise. I can only assume for personal reasons because of the RfC you filed." I didn't bring this up. You did. It's YOU who never let this go. You want to hold onto it, that's fine by me. But don't go accusing me of doing something now, because of something that you are holding onto. I was trying to change the RFC warnings to make the better. It had nothing to do with my RFC from way back. You brought it up. Don't blame me. You haven't let it go. Don't blame me. FuelWagon 22:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And don't go insulting the credibility of some good editors just because they're no longer around to defend themselves. Duckecho and Neuroscientist were hard working contributers to that article. They signed the RFC, and you just said no credible editor signed the RFC. So, you're the one who keeps bringing it up. FuelWagon 22:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Read what you've written. I was on this page objecting to your editing of Wikpedia:Requests for comment, which is why this page exists. But you then raised the RFC. You wrote: "SlimVirgin, the real problem is that you are still holding onto that RFC I filed against you a couple of months ago as a "bad faith" RFC and you are holding it as a grudge against me even now ..."


 * You've now pasted a deleted RFC into your user page, even though it's supposed to be deleted.


 * All I can do is assure you that my attitude to this page isn't connected to the RfC of yours in particular, but instead is motivated by the overall number of frivolous and damaging RfCs I've seen. Also, there's no one else on this page who supports the edits you wanted to make, either now or the last time they were discussed. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:00, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * And please don't change my header. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought this was a wiki. Now it's "your" header? lol FuelWagon 23:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Then how did you know
"my attitude to this page isn't connected to the RfC of yours in particular" Oh, really? Then how did you know that I just recently pasted a deleted RFC into my user namespace? The only way would be for you to be monitoring my user contributions. I've made no public reference to those pages. it wouldn't show up on any article watchlist. But soon after I created the page, you were off asking another editor about policy regarding deleted RFC's in a user namespace, and you've made sure to announce it here with your subsection title, insisting that I don't change it. Are you saying you just happened to be on the RFC page and saw me add this recent warning? OK, fine. you've got this page on your watchlist. But how did you know about an addition to my userspace? Not connected in any way to an RFC I filed against you? None at all? Just browsing recent contributions by random editors? FuelWagon 23:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I knew about it because I looked at your contribs yesterday, as it seemed clear you'd started up again, and your usual thing is to write to lots of people about it, so I looked to see whether you'd been doing that.


 * I'm requesting as a gesture of goodwill that you delete that page from your user space. You have every right to keep a copy on your computer, but there's no need or reason to keep it online. It was deleted, not moved or userfied. I also agree with Rob that it's not appropriate to discuss our dispute on this page, though it's appropriate to discuss your keeping a copy of the RfC. If you want to discuss the dispute, please suggest somewhere else. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * " it seemed clear you'd started up again" Oh, it seemed clear did it? That I had started up again, did I? I appreciate all the "good will" that comes with the implied accusation that I'm guilty of "starting up" something "again". So, just to help clarify what really happened here, I added an entry to the "for your review" piece below. See, it went like this: you mentioned my RFC against you, I post it in my user space. So as for your accusation that I had "started up" something, and that I had done it "again", it's all false. Do you realize that on this page alone, you've accused me of "ad hominem" attacks, that I'm "pretending" and only doing it for "personal reasons because of the RFC" I filed , that everyone who supported my RFC was not "credible" , and that "it seemed clear" I had "started up again", which comes not only with an assertion of guilt, but an implication of previous guilt. You want to retract these accusations? no? well, I uploaded the RFC partly so there would be a objective record of what really happened so I could defend myself from your accuastions. You brought up the RFC, not me. As for the people who supported it being "credible", there were four other people, and they happened to be my friends. We were working our asses off on the Terri Schiavo article when you came along and bulldozed your way through it. Two of them left wikipedia in disgust after that. One of them specifically blamed you. So, I'd appreciate it if you left my friends' "credibility" out the picture since they can't defend themselves from your accusations. And after all this, you have the nerve to ask me for a show of good will? I've done nothing to break it. Don't look for a sign of good will when you've shown me and my friends none. FuelWagon 03:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, this seems to be a personal issue you have with SlimVirgin; I don't really think continuing it here is appropriate, since it is unrelated to this article. Frankly, I don't see the value in continuing it anywhere else either, but that's just my personal opinion. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There's so many various headings on this I don't know which one this comment should go on, so feel free to move it to the right one, somebody. All I wish to point out is that SlimVirgin's claim that no other credible editors supported this RfC is not the case.  I supported it (and I'm not just credible, I'm incredible, baby), as I thought a Request for Comment meant a formal request for some comments on an issue that required resolving.  Obviously, it actually means 'request for huge two month bitch fest with no end in sight'.  I wish this would all just go away now. Proto t c 08:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

for your review
There seems to be some confusion as to the history of this recent discussion. I've posted the following diffs for your review.


 * 15:58, 24 August 2005 SlimVirgin writes: "because of the RfC you filed."


 * 19:06, 24 August 2005 FuelWagon writes: "you are still holding onto that RFC I filed against you"


 * 21:21, 24 August 2005 FuelWagon pastes RFC into his personal userspace.

It seems fairly straightforward to me. FuelWagon 23:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Two Comments
There does seem to be residual hard feeling between FuelWagon and SlimVirgin, and it is wasting Wiki space that would be better spent on improving the dispute resolution process. If the two of them still have hard feelings, why not request mediation to at least agree to express those hard feelings somewhere else?

Second, I restated what SlimVirgin said was the consensus of the Wikipedia community, that a user conduct RfC is a serious allegation that will lead to hard feelings and is commonly considered a step toward arbitration. FuelWagon disagreed as to whether this is a consensus. Is a quickpoll in order? Robert McClenon 00:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal
If anm article doesn't get endorsed in 48 hours it must be removed. Reinserting it looks really dodgy, as in trying to manipulate the system, SqueakBox 00:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but since the unendorsed RFC have a tendendcy to be deleted, removing them is best left to admins. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

That is not policy, and putting a delete template on an article is not the same as deleting it, SqueakBox 23:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I never said that was policy, it's just a suggestion from me. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:12, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

This fits none of the categories, but it's important
Talk:Barbara Schwarz has become the site of a flamewar over the article in question; a number of suspected sockpuppets have popped up and are not only defending the article's subject, but verbally eviscerating anyone, such as Texture or Tilman Hausherr, who tries to edit new information into it. User:Lily Firered and some anonymous user who signs all his posts "A Mormon" are largely at fault for the hostile atmosphere, and I think we need some new blood to take a look at what's going on in there. I haven't participated in any editing on that page in over a month myself, and I don't think I can resolve this conflict alone. - 206.114.20.121 18:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

RFC on RFC page -- subpages
Given that above, three people voiced a preference for a unified RFC page, and only one person stated a preference for the subpages, I have returned Requests for comment to the pre-subpage format.

I ask for any disagreement about the page to be resolved through discussion and consensus. Maurreen (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't care about the other splits, but I believe that it is important to split out the front matter, because of the difficulty in tracking changes to the policy otherwise. I recently spent over an hour looking at diffs to try to figure out when a particular wording change was made.  Such changes are getting lost, and are ending up in the page without consensus simply because no one is aware of them.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I understand your reasoning better now and agree in principle with a subpage for the instructions. It's easy to miss those changes. I would like to suggest a different name than "front matter". "Procedures" might be more clear. Maurreen (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't care what we call it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You have never actually stated what your problem is, actually. Please do so. Note that 1) on the village pump, several more people supported the change; and 2) the change actually offers more options without removing any of the existing ones. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 22:36, August 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I said on 14 August: "This page used to be simple -- one page. Now it's scattered." That is a reason for my disagreement, regardless of how meaningful you do or don't find it. I see little value gained, but more effort to track RFCs as a whole and to list them. Maurreen (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I vote with Maureen: I like the combined article display. Put the way-too-lengthy instructions and intro on a separate page where we can all ignore them. If necessary make separate pages for RFC articles and RFC users, but please don't separate the articles into separate pages again. Thanks. alteripse 04:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Maureen. I read this page (and many others, such as RfA, FAC, Peer Review, etc.) via diffs.  It's a lot easier to do so when things are on a single page. --Carnildo 06:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Radiant. This format seems neater. In fact, it's actually what alteripse would like: the instructions are all on a separate page (WP:RFC), and the article RFcs are all on one page (Requests for comment/All).— Encephalon |  &zeta;   08:20:13, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
 * In response to all three of you - there still is a single page that lists everything - Requests for comment/All. That functionality wasn't lost. If people don't like its layout or the template for each section, that would be trivial to change. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * "/All" is absolutely worthless for me. As I said, I read RfC via diffs.  Transclusion, as is done in "/All", doesn't generate diffs. --Carnildo 04:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. In that case you'd have to watchlist ten pages instead of one. Sorry to ask but is that really so inconvenient? It also makes the chance smaller that you'll miss an issue because two were added shortly after one another. And many people want to watchlist part of the RFCs but not all of them (e.g. not the user disputes, or maybe only anything about history). Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:16, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * It takes about 30 seconds to check out all the changes in the past day on the unified page. It takes the same 30 seconds to check out the changes on each split subpage, for a total time of five minutes or more to check out all of RfC.  And with subpages, there's the possibility that I'll miss watchlisting a subpage entirely. --Carnildo 19:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I agree completely with Carnildo. Septentrionalis 19:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, there is a thread at the Village Pump where Maurreen suggests precisely that processes like RFC be split into several areas by topic, and it gets some support there too. I'm not sure why she would oppose it here when she proposes the same thing over there. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I think we all agree more than we disagree, guys. I could be wrong, but it looks to me like the present format satisfies most of the demands of various editors, and where it doesn't, it's probable that some adjustments can be made to meet them. Best wishes to everyone,— Encephalon |  &zeta;   01:20:00, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

Split version is better. - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  22:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I prefer the split version too. I want to at least have a look at all user RfCs, whereas content RfCs (though important) are something I'll work on time permitting. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 03:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Compromise proposal
Given that opinion is roughly evenly divided betweeen which version is preferred, I propose a compromise.
 * 1) Have just a few subpages, such as:
 * 2) Article-specific issues -- Math, natural science and technology
 * 3) Article-specific issues -- Social sciences (history, politics, geography and the like)
 * 4) Article-specific issues -- Culture (essentially, article-specific issues that don't belong in either of the other two)
 * 5) Wikipedia convention and user issues
 * 6) The subpages would appear on WP:RFC in a manner similar to how subpages/logs/whatever appear at WP:CFD. Maurreen (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be possible to combine some of the subpages, but before you propose that I'd suggest you look at their respective length. For instance, we defininitely need a separate page for religion, and one for history/geography, given the broadness of those fields. Note that the split by topic area was not something I created; it was already widely accepted before the topics were moved to subpages. As to your second point, what you propose is precisely what /All is. RFC presently works like the village pump, the reference desk and the main VFD page - in other words, exactly like other processes that grew beyond their original context. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:19, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to meet you halfway. I am open to other suggestions on meeting halfway.
 * There would still be subpages, just fewer of them. When the topics were initially split, they were still all contained on the RFC page.
 * "/All" is not precisely what I propose. It is not, in my view, enough like the other pages you mention. The current RFC page contains instructions and pointers elswhere. "/All" contains the RFCs but no instructions and no tabble of contents. WP:CFD does not split the listings, discussions, table of contents, and instructions. Maurreen (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

So where are my RFCs?
Given that the page has now been split again, and my RFCs are no longer listed on the RFC page, would someone at least tell me where they are? Maurreen (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:CS. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * If I wanted to hold a survey, I would do so. Maurreen (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As I've pointed out several times already, WP:CS is a misnomer since it contains a lot of things that aren't surveys. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Boldness should be tempered -- splitting, etc.
Regardless of the merits or not of subpages and any other changes, these is are to be decided by the community. There is obvious disagreement.

It is not for any individual to decide what subpages are appropriate, nor that certain RFCs are to be moved to Current surveys, etc.

In my view, the mature and courteous thing to do, is to use the version of the RFC page that had been relatively stable for at least a year, UNTIL there is consensus to do otherwise. Thank you. Maurreen (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You asked for comments here. You proposed a split of things by topic area on the village pump. In both cases, support was shown for the split up version. The new version has more functionality than the old version, as indicated by the discussion above. So do not bypass a discussion that you started yourself. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) For one thing, I did not suggest dividing just RFCs by separate page.
 * 2) I am not bypassing. We can have the discussion just as well, either way.
 * 3) Support has been shown for both versions. No consensus has been shown for your preferred version.
 * 4) I waited almost two weeks between opening the discussion and unifying the page. In that time, three people disagreed with one. Maurreen (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) The intent is the same, and splitting RFCs (or for that matter, splitting the refdesk) would be a useful step towards what you actually propose.
 * Yes, you did. You started a discussion, ignored the response, and changed to the version you prefer in spite of the fact that response was not quite in support of that.
 * 1) Like I said before, one does not vote on changes. Go and read Conlangs/Straw_poll for an example. You ask for opinions and address the objections. That has, in fact, been done.
 * No, you did not. You started this discussion on 18:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC), and the one on the village pump on 08:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC). You broke the RFC page in an attempted reversion on 02:55, August 28, 2005.
 * 1) You're being needlessly bureaucratic. Please don't. I have answered your concerns but you have never answered mine. You tend to simply ignore whatever I say and repeat your previous arguments. That's not productive. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Radiant:
 * 2. and 4. You opened the discussion on 7 August. You bypassed discussion by deciding to make the change without discussing first.
 * 3. Please read Consensus.
 * 5. Saying that I am "being needlessly bureaucratic" and your repititive WP:NOT statements are not productive. What concerns of yours do you feel that I have not addressed? Maurreen (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Del unilateral rule
The following was on the RFC page as a hidden comment. I do not agree, and as far as I know, only one person supports it. So I removed it.
 * Yes, policy issues should go on "current surveys" to keep them all in a centralized place. "Surveys" is actually a misnomer, over half of its content isn't actually a survey. A request to rename is in place. Maurreen (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Why on earth do you oppose keeping all policy-related debates in a single place? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:30, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Requests for comment" and "Current surveys" are clear, simple and straightforward deliniations. I see no problem with that. I see no need to change. Maurreen (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that they overlap substantially, and have done so for a long time. Many requests for comment take the form of a survey, and many surveys are in fact requesting comment. Also, some things listed on RFC were not in fact requesting any comment, and several things listed on RS were not in fact surveys. That has also been true for a long time.
 * Thus, we had two pages with essentially the same goal. That is redundant, and bureaucratic. That essentially means that everything posted on one should also be posted on the other - but people tend to forget that. It also means that everyone watching one should also watch the other - but people tend to forget that too. The end result is that some people will arbitrarily be unaware of some discussion, despite the fact that they wish to be. That is confusing and undesirable.
 * It is not generally possible to amend everybody's behavior to match the original intent of a page. It is on the other hand easy to rename a page to match with what people actually use it for, to facilitate it for new users. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Given that we disagree, it makes sense to me to continue longstanding practice until there is a consensus to do otherwise. Maurreen (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Given that longstanding practice is bureaucratic, redundant and confusing as I just pointed out, and given that you haven't given any argument to contradict that, I fail to see how you have a point. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * My point is that none of this is for you to decide. It is not for me to decide. It is not for any individual to decide.
 * Also, you appear to be the only person objecting to this aspect of longstanding practice.
 * I see no point in going back and forth between the two of us.
 * Let the community decide. Maurreen (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually it is for you to decide. You are in charge of the entire wiki, Maurreen, you can make any change you want, whenever you want! Well... almost. At the same time, Radiant is also in charge, and well, so am I, so when you do make a change and we disagree, it might then be wise to discuss. :-) See WP:HEC for a useful framework for this.


 * Anyway, since you're in charge and therefore very important, I'd like to hear why you disagree with Radiant (who is also in charge and therefore also very important), and we can try to sort out what to do to your mutual satisfaction. (This is called "Finding consensus through negotiation and agreement") Kim Bruning 16:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I've been looking for -- both an intermediary and recognition that we're all equal here. Essentially, Radiant and I disagree on whether there is a problem with longstanding practice. In my view, it would be a positive gesture if Radiant would remove the rule, and then we could more easily discuss ways to satisfy both of us. Oh, and I had just listed this at Third opinion. Maurreen (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, WP:HEC says you can feel free to remove it yourself, if it's really making you unhappy. In the mean time, what's your issue with it? Kim Bruning 16:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can remove it, and I probably will. And then Radiant can put it back, and probably will. And we can continue our revert war.
 * He shouldn't actually. Has he done so earlier? If so we might need to talk to him a bit. Kim Bruning
 * My issue -- If someone wants to request comments, I see no reason why they shouldn't do so at Requests for comment. That is clear, simple and straightforward.
 * Okay. That's clear. Kim Bruning
 * Radiant has not demonstrated that "longstanding practice is bureaucratic, redundant and confusing". I respect that Radiant believes this. I do not. I do not see that anyone else believes it. Maurreen (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, why do you disagree? Kim Bruning 17:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Right, earlier I avoided reading so I'd get an objective view of the situation, but now I've done so. You two HAVE been revertwarring, and there's a lot of discussion here as well about the topic. Hmmm. Well stop reverting, the both of you. Goodness. Kim Bruning 17:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if this comes accross the wrong way, but I don't know how many ways I can say this or how to say it more clearly. Listing all requests for comment at Requests for comment is easy. Having some hidden rule that says certain requests must go another page adds complexity for zero benefit that I can see. Radiant claims to reduce confusion. In my view, Radiant is adding confusion. Maurreen (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, first off, there are two different issues here. I've removed the so-called unilateral rule now (which isn't a rule really, it's actually a description about how things work). But the recent revert s were about certain edits by Maurreen that broke the RFC page and confused the progress.
 * The point is that Maurreen is holding to the literal definitions of "requests for comment" and "current surveys". However, while a dictionary can certainly tell them apart, on Wikipedia they're extremely interrelated. Many requests for comment employ a survey. Most surveys are requesting comment. So they should both be listed on one place. I don't care what place that is, but there used to be three different spots. And that's confusing. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:40, August 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for removing it. I appreciate that. Maurreen (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, so Radiant has been busy reorganising stuff again! (He seems to like doing that.) Typically, so long as it's just a refactor, that's not a big deal. I understand that something went wrong here?
 * Hmm, could either of you paste the contested text below, so we can take a look at it, and see why it's so contested? Kim Bruning 13:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is the contested text: ''Yes, policy issues should go on "current surveys" to keep them all in a centralized place. "Surveys" is actually a misnomer, over half of its content isn't actually a survey. A request to rename is in place.'' Maurreen (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Compromise proposal: RFCs and surveys
Radiant or anyone: What do you think of dividing all requests for input (RFCs, surveys, whatever) among two types, article-specific issues and all other issues? Maurreen (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

My RFC
I just noticed I still have an RFC on me which wasn't formatted or certified, I assume it should be deleted? --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 01:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC) moved from subpage. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at it. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

certification withdrawn
Will an admin please delete the RFC against Bensaccount? Two editors have withdrawn certification to allow it be deleted. Thanks. FuelWagon 21:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you, and I'm concerned that you're using these, and the subsequent withdrawal of certification, as a way of controlling content. This RfC wasn't properly certified in the first place, in my view, because two of the certifiers are supposed to supply evidence of unsuccessful attempts to resolve the dispute &mdash; not evidence of the dispute itself, but of attempts to resolve it. Most of the diffs supplied show you engaging in the dispute. The others (one from Robert and one from Parker Whittle) aren't really appropriate, because Robert wasn't a certifer, and because both diffs show comments about the dispute, not dispute resolution. An attempt to resolve it would be, for example, an agreement to search for a compromise, which was rejected by the other party. I encourage you in future to think twice before filing another RfC on someone, and to search harder for ways to resolve disputes between yourself and other editors, before proceeding to this stage. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Since you have publicly announced that you can no longer assume any good faith of me, you will see every action I do as evil. You've got evil-tinted glasses on and, surprise, you see evil every time you look my way. Therefore, I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain myself to you. But as long as you've got those dark-tinted glasses on, feel free to stay away from me. I encourage you to stop combing through my user contributions and worry about your own contributions. Your advice misses the mark because you can't even see what you're looking at. Leave me alone. FuelWagon 00:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * To anyone else who is curious, Bensaccount was writing according to the scientific point of view on articles like Intelligent Design. He was inserting edits that stated as fact that ID was unscientific, illogical, and other POV statements. I tried multiple times on teh talk pages to get him to follow NPOV policy which says to report the scientific view as the scientific view, not as fact. As for SlimVirgin's accusation that I was attempting to control "content", I personally don't believe in ID, and I personally agreed with the stuff that Bensaccount was saying, but it was inappropriate content for the article. I basically was writign for the enemy in trying to give Intelligent Design a fair shake and report on it within NPOV policy. FuelWagon 00:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

A request for a truce
SlimVirgin, FuelWagon: Can both of you please get over it? Please be civil and refrain from these innuendos. Terri Schiavo died in April. It is now September.

First, when SV says that FW was trying to use an RfC to control content, if she means that FW had written the Bensaccount request for comments due to a content dispute, that is just mistaken. The Creation Science article was very out of control. FW was heroically trying to restore reason and civility (which is not easy for an editor who has lapses in civility, but he was doing it very well). As he says, he was trying to "write for the enemy", and to present a wrong-headed point of view as the point of view that is permitted in a pluralistic society. There were serious breaches of POV and civility, as well as personal attacks, on both sides. Bensaccount was by far the worst of the POV pushers, and was trying to get Wikipedia to say that Creation Science was known to be a pseudo-science. FW tried to reason with Bensaccount, and did not write the RfC until all other efforts at dispute resolution failed. Any suggestion that he was too quick to write it is mistaken.

I do not know why he has now requested that it be deleted. Since it appears that it has been deleted, it is difficult for me to find it and research its history as to why two of the certifying signatures have been cancelled. The mistake appears to have been not filing the RfC, but withdrawing it. If I had certified the RfC, rather than only endorsing it, I would take strong offense at having it then deleted. (I only endorsed it because I did not try to resolve the dispute, but I did observe it and I was in complete agreement with FW's summary.)

I don't know what the rules are about withdrawing a user conduct RfC or a signature to a user conduct RfC. I know that I recently made the mistake of offering to withdraw my signature to an RfC, and I have learned that that is a mistake. While it can be intended to be a gesture of reasonableness, once a user conduct RfC has become necessary, any willingness to compromise is likely to be seen as a sign of weakness by a troll, POV warrior, or puppet-master.

Rather than withdrawing the RfC, couldn't an update have been included stating that there had been agreement? Why did two of the certifiers withdraw their signatures?

SV: FW was not using a user conduct RfC to control content. That is not an accurate or reasonable summary of what happened. I do not know why he withdrew the RfC. The withdrawal gives the appearance that he was bullied into submission by a sock army.

SV, FW: Can the two of you please either take your simmering resentment of each other to mediation, or open an exchange-of-insults talk page? Robert McClenon 11:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Robert, I have emailed you a copy of the RFC before it was deleted. It includes my comments explaining why I withdrew my certification. FuelWagon 15:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC) As to whether or not Bensaccount would take my withdrawal of certification as a "sign of weakness", I was willing to extend him enough good faith to let him demonstrate his reaction rather than me predict what he would do. FuelWagon 15:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Undeleting temporarily
Robert, you've misunderstood the situation, but you're right that it's not appropriate here. Regarding the RfC, I agree that it's a bad idea to certify one then withdraw the signature (unless it was signed because of a factual error or misreading of the situation). If the RfC was properly certified within 48 hours, and the dispute was then resolved, it should be archived, not deleted. However, I didn't see separate attempts by two certifiers to resolve the dispute. If I've misread the diffs, I'd be happy to undelete it. I'm going to do that now so you can read it if you want to, and if you feel it shouldn't be deleted again, please let me know. Cheers, SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 13:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is possible that I may have misunderstood the situation. If so, perhaps an explanation would be useful.  Robert McClenon 15:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * By all means feel free to e-mail me, Robert. As for the RfC, I'm getting a little confused about which page to discuss it on, as Pwhittle is on Ben's RfC talk page, and you're here, so perhaps you could coordinate and decide whether you'd all like it to be deleted or not. I've restored it in the meantime so you can read it. Cheers, SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:32, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * The RfC talk page is a better place to discuss the RfC. I will go there.  Robert McClenon 16:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The issue about this RfC illustrates a point that SlimVirgin has made previously, that there are serious problems with the RfC process, and with dispute resolution in general. I have my own thoughts on what needs to be done.  Since I was not sure where to post them, I created a user subpage and talk subpage, where there has been some discussion.  I welcome other suggestions as to where to move this discussion to.  Robert McClenon 16:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the RfC problems tie in with the whole dispute resolution process. There's additional tension at the moment because (so far as I know) the mediation committee isn't functioning, or not fully, and the backlog is leading to more RfCs and arbcom cases than normal, so everyone's getting ratty. But even when the process is working as intended, the RfC end of things is problematic. There was a debate a few months ago about how hostile they always are, and someone created Wikiquette alerts as a pre-RfC stage, but I don't know how effective they are.


 * I'd say that, perhaps rather than discussing these things on a subpage, this page might be more appropriate, or a subpage of this one. That's just a suggestion though; it's up to you. Thank you for starting the debate wherever it is, because it's much needed. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:57, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * "I didn't see separate attempts by two certifiers to resolve the dispute. If I've misread the diffs" Given I'm one of the certifiers, and given your declaration that you will assume no good faith on my part, you do not have the right to make that call here. You are publicly campaigning against me, trying to convince the world of how evil I am. And now you've dragged a legitimate RFC about a legitimate problem into your mud-slinging campaign. You are too biased to make any judgement call about ANYTHING that I've done as an editor. Drop it. You are now publicly axe-grinding. 500 admins and you're the one who keeps showing up to publicly declare how horrible I am. if there is a procedural problem with this RFC, it will not be for you to decide. You cannot declare you will assume no good faith on my part and expect to make any sort of reasonable judgement call here. You are involved. You are biased. If another admin finds a problem with the diffs of this RFC, I'll deal with them. The RFC has been around for over a week, and the only admin who complained was you. And you complaint was nothing more than an excuse to sling mud at me. FuelWagon 15:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Meta Subpage
This talk page consists of a combination of discussions of specific RfCs and of "meta-discussions" of the content and process of RfCs. I have decided to be bold and create a Meta discussion talk subpage. I have not archived or refactored any previous meta discussions onto that page.

I think that creating a separate page for meta-discussions will allow some editors who are trying to make Wikipedia work better in general to follow meta-discussions without having watchlists mention comments about specific RfCs. Robert McClenon 18:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your intent, but this is the "meta" page. Maurreen (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Then should there be a subpage for discussion of individual RfCs? As it is, this page is a mixture of discussion of individual RfCs and of process and content issues.  Robert McClenon 15:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't find that a bad thing myself, Robert, because sometimes the individual issues throw up more general points. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:00, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Coloring within the Lines
There has been a problem on several recent user conduct RfCs that editors have edited portions of the page that they were not supposed to edit. Sometimes the person whose conduct is the subject of the RfC will insert comments into the Summary, or the certifiers will insert comments into the Response. I have a suggestion. The template should have wording added that states that this is not permitted. I would suggest wording at the top of the Description and the Summary of the form: "The person whose conduct is the subject of this RfC MUST NOT edit this section.  Editing this section by the subject may result in a temporary block by an admin and may be seen by the ArbCom as evidence of bad faith." Similarly, the top of the response should have wording of the form: "The certifiers or endorsers of this RfC MUST NOT edit this section.  Editing this section by the certifiers or endorsers may result in a temporary block by an admin and may be seen by the ArbCom as evidence of bad faith." Robert McClenon 15:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Certification Process
There has been some discussion in connection with specific RfCs (or Requests for Corrective Action) about what are the conditions for certifying an RfC. There are at least two specific questions.

Preconditions
The rules state that the Request for Corrective Action (still officially Request for Comments) must be certified within 24 hours by two editors who have both tried to resolve the dispute. This raises questions as to exactly what is the difference between engaging in the dispute and attempting to resolve the dispute. If the problem is a pattern of personal attacks, then I assume that attempting to resolve the dispute could be reminders on article talk pages or user talk pages of WP:NPA. Similarly, if the problem is 3RR, reminders of the policy are attempts to resolve the dispute. Do other editors agree?

This becomes more subtle when there is a conduct dispute arising from a content dispute, and where one editor simply shows contempt for consensus and makes too many reckless edits. What is the difference then between engaging in a dispute and attempting to resolve it? Perhaps the attempts to resolve the dispute should include requesting a Third Opinion or posting an article content RfC, and, if necessary, suggesting mediation. What does anyone else think? Robert McClenon 15:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I do agree that a third opinion, article RfC, mediation, or just asking other editors to become involved needs to be done before a content dispute becomes a user-conduct RfC. Or the editors already involved should be able to produce evidence of looking for a compromise. I'd also say the efforts have to be made over a longer period of time than just a couple of weeks.


 * What puzzles me is how a single editor could ignore consensus and keep on causing disruption over content, because if there's a clear consensus against him/her, then the others could simply keep reverting. At some point, the isolated editor is going to get bored, or else find other editors to support him, so the consensus would break down. Or even end up being blocked for disruption if the case is bad enough (e.g. by engaging in sockpuppetry). I can think of one case where an editor just kept on and on reverting, one revert a day, for a period of months, in the face of overwhelming consensus against him, but these cases are quite rare. He ended up before the arbcom for it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:09, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't find it that rare. I posted a link on SlimVirgin's talk page to an RfC involving an editor who claimed that his church owned the biographical article on its founder.  This involved both claims to proprietary ownership of the article and to access to documents, which appeared to be original research.  An article RfC was posted.  Other editors found the article to be non-neutral.  The first action taken was to put an NPOV banner on the article.  The editor in question removed the NPOV banner repeatedly, in one case 14 times in a 24-hour period before being blocked for 3RR (or 14RR).  This sort of stubbornness and "heroic" persistence about an article is, in my opinion, more likely to happen the editor has some sort of passion or fervor about the article or its subject, based perhaps on religion or on political ideology or on hero-worship.  In this case, the driving factor was religion.  Such an editor, providing that he is careful about 3RR, can always simply revert the article to "his" version twice a day.  Robert McClenon 17:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) I had thought the requirement for certification was 48 hours. If it has changed, does anyone know when? Shall we change it back?
 * 2) I do not agree with putting new hoops in the way of starting an RFC in general. Also, for instance: Mediation may ask you to try RFC first. And if an editor goes on a rampage in a short time, I see that as no reason to hold people back from trying to make progress.
 * 3) In my view, sometimes issues are decided essentially on the question of who is willing to revert more. Maurreen (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution, again
As I have stated elsewhere, mediation should not ask to use a user conduct RfC (Request for Corrective Action) first. It should be clarified that the proper sequence of dispute resolution steps should be:
 * 1) Discussion on article (or user) talk page.
 * 2) Article Request for Comments.
 * 3) Mediation.
 * 4) User conduct Request for Comments (which should be renamed Request for Corrective Action, because it is more serious than an RfC and has possible punitive implications).
 * 5) Request for Arbitration.

The statement in the RfM page that RfC should be tried first needs to be clarified that article RfC should be tried first, but that user conduct RfC should not be a precondition to mediation. Mediation should be tried prior to Request for Corrective Action when a content dispute has spilled over into being a conduct dispute.

The requirement for certification, to the best of my knowledge, is still 48 hours. I did not see any statement that it had been changed. What SlimVirgin is proposing is a period of discussion before the RfC is filed. Once it is filed, I think that we agree that it should be certified by two real editors within 48 hours.

I think that there is a need to disambiguate two types of conduct issues. There are "simple" conduct issues, where an editor engages in obvious policy violations, typically either personal attacks or 3RR. I see no need for a numerical time minimum before filing those, although it should still be necessary to try to resolve the dispute by reminding the offender of the policies. Then there are what I will call "hybrid" conduct issues, which originate as content issues, and the problem is stubbornness or incivility. (Personal attacks are uncivil, but not all incivility is personal attacks.) There should be a more stringent threshold for those, but at the same time, I am concerned that imposing "too many hoops" could simply result in "consensus" being decided by who was willing to shout more loudly and revert more. Robert McClenon 17:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Who Can Certify?
In at least one recent case, an RfC was certified within 48 hours by one signed-in editor, one anonymous IP editor, and two editors with no previous history. Is an anonymous editor (with a long and controversial posting history) a valid certifier? Are editors with no previous history valid certifiers? (One admin reasonably concluded that they appeared to be sock-puppets.) What should be done when an RfC is improperly certified, and is listed as certified? I would suggest that the person whose conduct is the subject of the RfC should have two choices. The first would be to request its deletion. The second would be to request that it be delisted, but that the RfC be archived as evidence of bad faith, for use in any possible subsequent RfAr. Robert McClenon 15:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that it should be up to the subject of the RfC. My own view is that RfCs not properly certified ought to be deleted, period. As for who can certify, I don't think we have it written down anywhere, and we ought to, but I'd say it's implied by the current rules that anons can't certify, and nor can suspiciously new accounts, because the rules specify two sigs within 48 hours, and of course if we don't know anything about the users, we can't say with any certainty that the sigs are from two different users. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that anonymous editors should not certify. As to editors with no previous history, they cannot certify because they did not try to resolve the dispute (or even engage in it), and that should stated, although it should also be obvious.   Robert McClenon 17:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not think that an invalidly certified RfC should simply be deleted. An uncertified RfC can be deleted, but I think that an invalidly certified RfC should have the link deleted (which delists it), and should be archived, because bad-faith RfCs may be useful evidence for the ArbCom.  If bad-faith RfCs are simply deleted, then a troll or flame-warrior who is the subject of a valid RfC gets a free pass on writing their own RfCs against the certifiers and endorsers (and getting a sock army to certify them).  Robert McClenon 17:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I may be missing something, because I haven't been following this page, but I think that if a deleted, invalidly-certified, bad-faith RfC is needed for evidence in an ArbCom case, it can be undeleted temporarily, so I wouldn't consider that the possibility that it might be needed as evidence is sufficient reason for not deleting it. Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Once a bad-faith RfC is deleted, it will be difficult to find that it ever existed; if no one knows it existed, it can't be put up for temp undeletion. This means that the ArbCom may never be told that a user has a practice of making bad-faith RfC's against different editors, which should be severely discouraged. Septentrionalis 13:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea where to put this
There seems to be no place to put "uncategorized article RFCs". I think this discourages people from creating RFCs and prompts them to go straight to RFM - which is uncategorized. Please help me by putting the following RFCs where they belong.

Also, I don't really know how to set up the RFC template. Please help with that, too. Thanks. Ed Poor, MedCom acting chairman. Uncle Ed 00:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Requests for comment/Jonathan Sarfati


 * Demonstrating further justification against subpages. Maurreen (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Missing Message
Okay, did the society and law RFC page receive a message about DESpiegel and his unsolicited obscene posting on my user talk? If so, why was it deleted? Please respond as soon as possible at my user talk. It is a matter of importance. Felix Frederick Bruyns 03:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ask User:CesarB, he reverted it (saying it was the wrong place). And can you please stop going around and asking people if your comments were deleted. Just look in the history yourself. Dmcdevit·t 03:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

RFCs, voting and consensus
The Bureaucrat consensus poll got me thinking about consensus and how we arrive at it. I think RFCs have too much of a stigmata attached to them, and that they can be used in cases like this. RFCs can be used for consensus building and not just dispute resolution. Think of the format user conduct RFCs use, a statement of scope, evidence and "views" that people endorse. There's all sorts of ways RFCs can be formated and managed (and closed out) without people saying yea or nay on something. It's a form of voting for sure but it's in a form that has people endorsing a result/solution rather than possibly just voting something down. If you're not seeing a "view" you can endorse you can create one which others can then take into consideration. Just some thoughts...Rx StrangeLove 04:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate charges on RFC
On an RFC filed against me Requests for comment/Erwin Walsh the list of applicable policies includes WP:NPOV, which is a policy that applies to articles, not users (to my understanding). I have tried removing it but it was reverted. Perhaps an admin or RFC regular could clarify the situation.  Erwin 


 * NPOV is a policy that applies to articles. I have not read the RfC in detail.  My assumption would be that this is an RfC that combines content issues and conduct issues with respect to how to resolve the content issues.  The content policies are relevant if there were allegations that you were not being reasonable about content.


 * If you tried to delete some of the listed policies, then you were "coloring outside the lines" by editing a portion of the RfC that should be edited only by its certifiers. The proper place to have questioned the inclusion of NPOV would have been in your Response.  Robert McClenon 16:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Propriety of Additions to RfC
Questions have been raised on several RfCs about when and how additions may be made to a user conduct RfC after it is certified. Is it reasonable for the certifiers of the RfC to add additional language to the Description, or the Policies, or the Evidence of Disputed Behavior, after the RfC is certified? My own thought was that it should be, either because the certifiers, in the course of further research, identified earlier misconduct by the user that they had previously overlooked, or because the user in question begins to behave worse in some respect (e.g., vandalizes another user's user page as revenge). However, a few editors argue that adding to an RfC is "sneaky vandalism". Is it? If so, does that mean that the certifier should write a second RfC against the same editor? Robert McClenon 12:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've seen an RFC that spanned over several weeks (a month or two?) as certifiers kept adding diffs for evidence. A few editors who originally supported the RFC later withdrew their support, but that wasn't because of added evidence, it was because of some disputes that broke out on the talk page. Basically, the RFC instructions say it must be the same dispute with the same editor or that it must be evidence of the same type of behaviour from that editor. As long as the additions meet that requirement, it should be fine, and other editors are free to withdraw their endorsement later if they wish. FuelWagon 23:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Description
Should it be permitted to add anything to the Description after the RfC is certified? If so, should anyone but the certifiers be allowed to add to it? Robert McClenon 12:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest limiting alteration of the description to the original certifiers. They are more familar with the original intent of the RFC and it would eliminate the possibility of "hijacking" the RFC. The original certifiers should be monitoring the RFC close enough to be able to add further evidence of misconduct, either new conduct or conduct from an earlier time. Rx StrangeLove 14:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That appears to try to answer half of my question:


 * 1) Should the original certifiers be able to add to the Description after the RfC is certified?
 * 2) Should anyone else be able to add to the Description after the RfC is certified?
 * Your answer appears to be a clear 'No' on the second question. Does that imply that you think the answer to the first question should be 'Yes'?  Robert McClenon 16:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * To a limited degree, yes. As long as it doesn't go too far afield from the original dispute, the problem being that people are reacting to and endorsing the original description and not to the additional content added after they endorsed it. Any substantial additions should go into an "additional view" or if absolutely necessary be spun off into a new RFC. Rx StrangeLove 21:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of Disputed Behavior
Should it be permitted to add evidence of disputed behavior after the RfC is certified? If so, should that be only for the original certifiers, or can new certifiers or endorsers also add? Robert McClenon 12:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The RFC instructions say it must be the same dispute with the same editor or that it must be evidence of the same type of behaviour from that editor. As long as the additions meet that requirement, it should be fine, and other editors are free to withdraw their endorsement later if they wish. someone should easily be able to determine if new evidence is related to the same dispute or disputed behaviour. New editors should be able to add evidence if they wish. If the original certifiers wish to keep their RFC separate, then that would be up to them. FuelWagon 23:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

be afraid, be very afraid
This statement


 * An RfC may be the first step toward arbitration, which can bring punitive actions against an editor. It is therefore not a step to be taken lightly.

is little more than slippery slope argument. An article RfC could just as easily be considered the "first step toward arbitration" because if an article RfC fails, then a user RfC may be next, and if a user RfC fails, then arbitration may be next. Any step in the dispute resolution process "may be the first step toward arbitration".

This statement also creates a linkage that does not exist in policy. A user RfC is not a requirement to enter arbitration. You can request arbitration without going through any other steps in the dispute resolution process. This statement implies a linkage and hides the fact that the linkage isn't official by hiding behind the term "may". "An RfC may be the first step toward arbitration". Although a linkage is implied, none exists in policy.

The end result of this statement is the same as any fallicious slippery slope argument: be afraid, be very afraid. Don't start because you may not be able to stop. It is therefore not a step to be taken lightly is nothing more than an admonishment to avoid the user Rfc based on the previously explained fallacious slippery slope argument. Since it's little more than a slippery slope argument, since it doesn't reflect any actual policy regarding "user RfC -> Must precede -> arbitration", and since it closes with what amounts to "be afraid, be very afraid", I've modified it to more accurately reflect actual policy and the difference from perceptions of a user RfC. FuelWagon 14:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The statement actually reflects reality, no more. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * any stage in the dispute resolution process may be the first step towards arbitration. That's also a reflection of reality. But we shouldn't put similar warnings on all the other steps too. FuelWagon 21:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

magical policy?
Does this conflict with what RFC policy says in some way?
 * "A user RfC is not required before entering arbitration, nor must a user RfC necessarily lead to arbitration."

Did I miss something in teh dispute resolution process? Or is some magical policy at work that says this is wrong? FuelWagon 21:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps SlimVirgin's personal view on user RfC's is coloring her editing of the RfC article: "An RfC is like putting someone in the stocks. In my view, it's a horrible process, and I would only do it to POV warriors and trolls who couldn't be blocked for disruption. I've never seen good come from an RfC."

This would explain her insertion of the "do not take lightly" admonition. However, it isn't a completely accurate portrayal of policy, and could be considered her point of view of policy.

Despite SlimVirgin's slippery slope, be afraid be very afraid warning, the facts of policy are that: A user RfC is not required before entering arbitration. A user RfC is not required to escalate until it enters arbitration.

Unless someone can point to some policy that says these are wrong, I see no reason that they shouldn't be reported alongside SlimVirgin's point of view. FuelWagon 22:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Your edits aren't good English, though not as long-winded as before. The word "may" in my version meant that an RfC might (but might not) be the first step toward arbitration. That's what the word means, and this is the English Wikipedia, so we have to rely on readers being able to read English. You've been revert warring about this for months, opposed by several editors. I've tweaked the edit to make your concerns even more explicit; now please leave it alone. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I know my English just fine. Speaking of language, your use of "although" mirrors the use of However. "Text like "A asserts Y. However, according to B, Z." implies that the latter assertion is truer or better than the former one. Avoid this construction in favor of simply stating: "A asserts Y. Others, including B, believe Z."," FuelWagon 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I reported simple facts of policy, you've rewritten them into "Although A, B may lead to Z", which does the same thing that "however" does: imply that the latter is truer or better than the former. Policy should be reported as simple facts without couching it in although/however language to weaken the facts you don't like. FuelWagon 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, your "don't take lightly" addition has no policy to back it up and could be considered original research and/or your personal POV. Even if some policy does point to this admonition, this particular admonishment is essentially useless since it gives no objective guidance as to when to file or not to file a user Rfc. It boils down to telling the user: "be afraid". FuelWagon 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, your latest change was almost incomprehensible; the previous version was shorter, more accurate, better written, and easier to understand. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 08:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh, huh, sure. people can't understand the fact that filing a user RfC doesn't mean you have to go to arbitration. Sure, if you say so, Jayjg. Since that seems to be the problem at the moment, I've left it out. I have removed the use of the word "although", which follows the "words to avoid" description of "however". This version cannot be "incomprehensible". So I await the new excuse for your next revert. FuelWagon 20:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact that filing a user RFC doesn't mean you have to go to arbitration was perfectly clear from the previous straightforward wording. It's not clear what, if anything, your wording meant. "Although" and "however" are not the same word, and words to avoid doesn't mention the word "although". The use of "although" is perfectly reasonable, neutral, better grammar and more comprehensible in this context. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You argue about "better grammar" but conveniently ignore that "however" and "although" are both the same from a grammatical point of view. "Although" is being used in this sentence exactly the same way that the "words to avoid" article says about "however": to "implies that the latter assertion is truer or better than the former". the first statement is a simple fact. The second statement is SlimVirgin's and your opinion of user RFC. I've given up trying to remove the POV pushing because it keeps getting reverted by the pov pushers. Instead I inserted a fact of RfC policy. And now the POV pushers are taking that fact and rewording it to imply their point of view is truer or better than the facts. How about let the facts speak for themselves and let your POV speak for itself. FuelWagon 22:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to put up with you following me around removing the word "although" in your Orwellian fashion. You're being unbelievably petty (well, not unbelievably, sadly). SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the chuckle, SlimVirgin. I'm following you around. Yeah, sure. Just a refresher for you, I tried to clarify the rules on the RFC page a little while after I filed that RfC against you. Interestingly enough, you appeared to have followed me then and reverted my changes back. During the ensuing edit war, you inserted your "be afraid" statement. Any attempt by me to state the simple facts of an RfC has since been reverted by your insistence of coloring actual policy to your personal view of user RfCs being horrendous actions like putting someone in the stockade and reserved for unsalvagable trolls. Funny, I keep asking around, and no one else has quite that brutal of a view of a user RfC. But you've insisted on it being there, so I finally gave up. Instead, I try inserting a simple fact of policy: "A user RfC is not required to enter arbitration" and still you insist on altering it and reinforcing your personal view on RfCs. FuelWagon 05:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The other wording is better stylistically and easier to understand. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And we all know that reading nice is more important than it beingbiased. FuelWagon 20:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Your link has nothing to do with the existing wording. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

cutting to the chase
SlimVirgin and Jayjg, lets just cut to the chase here, because your "reasons" for reverting have nothing to do with "grammar" and nothing to do with "style" and have nothing to do with any other excuse you've forwarded so far. (slim has run out of excuses and simply says "revert" now.)

The fact of policy is that a user RfC is not required before entering arbitration. That is an undisputable fact.

But you won't allow that fact to be stated as is. You want to invoke the "arbitration boogeyman", that somehow filing an RfC is dangerous and could "spontaneously combust" into arbitration without warning. "Don't take it lightly" avoids the fact that a dispute cannot go to arbitration unless someone goes out their way to request it.

If we were writing a wikipedia article about user RfC's, then we'd have some facts of policy: i.e. you don't need an RfC to enter arbitration. And then we'd have some opinions about RfC: i.e. "do not take lightly". Another example of a different opinion of a user RfC is that they "have no teeth". ANother one is that they "do nothing but generate comments".

I've tried modifying your spontaneous-arbitration bit to clarify that it is an opinion of policy, not policy itself. But you reverted. Why? Because you're trying to modify policy by encouraging editors ot relate to an RfC a certain way, to fear it because it might spontaneously-arbitrate. But any attempt I tried to clarify that "some view a user Rfc" this way was reverted by you.

I gave up on that and tried simple adding facts of policy, i.e. that you dont' need a user RfC to enter arbitration. But you wont' allow that either. You've insisted on munging a simple statement of fact about policy and morphing it into your own opinion about user RfC's spontaneously-arbitrating themselves.

You're changing policy by biasing the RfC instructions to your view. Sure, a user RfC may lead to arbitration, but that avoids the rest of teh facts. It avoids that a user RfC isn't even needed to enter arbitration. It avoids the fact that "don't take it lightly" is some editor's opinion of a user RfC, not the facts of user RfC. You are inserting your personal POV about RfC's into the policy of RfC and effectively changing policy.

You can't even stand to have a simple fact of RfC's be stated because it might weaken your POV. Really, now. How horrid a sentence is "A user RfC is not required to enter arbitration" that it must be changed to your variation? I drop the word "although". That's it. This isn't about style or grammar or any other hollow argument you come up with so far. This is about you pushing your opinion of user RfC's into the policy pages.

I figure we might as well cut to the chase here, and call it like it is. FuelWagon 21:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If we're cutting to the chase, then it's pretty clear that RfCs often do lead to RfARs, that the Arbitration Committee often demands something resembling a RfC before taking a case, that people do take them quite seriously as a result, and that your additions have generally been extremely poorly written, and often difficult to comprehend. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh huh, I could see how taking out the word "although" would be difficult for some to comprehend. Sure. FuelWagon 21:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm so confused! This is beyond my comprehension! help! FuelWagon 23:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

A Comment and a Question
FuelWagon: You state that Jayjg and SlimVirgin are trying to alter what the policy is about user conduct RfCs. You appear to be basing your statement as to what the policy is solely on the wording of the policy. That is rules-lawyering. They appear to be basing their statements also on what the perception or understanding of the policy is by the Wikipedia community. In this case, the perception is at least as important as the written statement. Can we focus on trying to improve the policy rather than arguing about the wording of a procedure that is widely recognized as flawed? Robert McClenon 22:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, this isn't based "solely on the wording of policy". I've been asking around. I've been talking with people. Not everyone views an RfC the way SlimVirgin does. Not everyone views it as a horrendous action, putting someone in teh stockade, to be reserved for unsalvagable trolls. And I'm NOT trying to modify policy. All I'm tryign to do here is fix the addition that SlimVirgin keeps pushing into the instructions. But I get these bogus explanations about "style" and "grammar". We're talking basically about the word "although" being the only difference here. If their only concern is grammar, two sentences are just as grammatically correct as one. If they're talking about "style", then they're saying it isn't about content, and there are plenty of other style issues to fix elsewhere on wikipedia. But they don't care about "style", they care about the tone they create massaging a policy fact into their opinion about RfC's. They want to control the tone. If they didn't then, two separate bullets and two separate sentences shouldn't be a problem because the same content and facts would remain. If all they care about is content and facts, then it shouldn't matter how those facts are presented as long as they're facts. FuelWagon 22:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

If FuelWagon actually thinks that the existing procedure is sound, when is he saying that it is appropriate other than to determine whether arbitration is necessary? Robert McClenon 22:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon: Could you please focus your energy either on proposing how to change the policy or on explaining to us why it is perfect and does not need change? Robert McClenon 22:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Robert, I don't want to change policy here. I'd just be happy to report the facts of current policy, rather than have SlimVirgin's brutish opinion of them. FuelWagon 22:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon still has not answered my questions either as to how to change the policy or as to whether user conduct RfCs do have a use besides as a step toward arbitration. At least perhaps we can move on to something other than rules-lawyering what the policies now are.  Since SlimVirgin has said that the current user conduct RfC procedure is horrendous, does she have any suggestions for how to change it, or what to replace it with?  Robert McClenon 12:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I answered your question. I don't want to change policy. That's your thing. I gave up on that a while ago. Now I just want the instructions to reflect actual policy. I don't have that big a problem with current RfC policy. I have a problem with SlimVirgin taking current policy and biasing it to her personal opinion of horrendous RfC's. How about we get the instruction page to reflect actaul policy in a neutral way first. Then we can worry about changing policy if that's what happens. FuelWagon 15:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Magical Policy, or Magical Thinking
FuelWagon: I do not understand the (presumably sarcastic) reference to a magical policy. While I think that User:SlimVirgin is in a minority of Wikipedians in viewing user RfCs as being as horrendous as she thinks they are, the majority of Wikipedians, as far as I can tell, do view them as a pre-RfAr or as a primarily punitive procedure, a sort of "timeout" or "warning". If you think that by changing the template for a user conduct RfC, you can change its perception by the Wikipedia community, then I think that you are engaging not so much in making or identifying a magical policy as in magical thinking. What we need to do is to address the policy issues, not the template, and SV's language for the template is closer to community consensus than yours. Robert McClenon 11:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"Not to be taken lightly"
Firstly, everyone take two happy pills and call me in the morning. Secondly, it's clear to me that this issue is being attacked from the skinny end, not the fat one. Slim Virgin is correct in that requests for comment rarely have positive outcomes. FuelWagon is correct in that while it is part of the chain of events leading to RfArb, it doesn't have to be. Right now a huge amount of effort is being expended (with just a little drop of poison) in aligning the front page to both of these points of view. A better use of everyone's time would be to fix the problem with RfC rather than arguing about how to describe it. With that in mind, can we use the section below, attempting to: brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c) 06:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Be succinct, and
 * 2) Be nice?

Current perceived problems with RfC

 * It's structure lends itself to "voting", with resulting little emphasis on the comments.
 * Because it appears to be a structure intended for "voting", it can be abused by the use of sockpuppets. Robert McClenon 12:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If it looks like a pre-RfArb, smells like a pre-RfArb, etc...
 * The endorsement's are often used to take "free kicks" at one or the other parties involved.
 * The preconditions that the two certifiers must have tried to resolve the conduct are vague and difficult to understand. Robert McClenon 12:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There is frequent disregard of the instructions as to which portions of the RfC should be filled in by which parties (the subject of the complaint responding line-by-line to the Description, or certifiers or endorsers making in-line comments on the Response). Robert McClenon 12:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The rules as to when poorly certified RfCs should be deleted or archived need clarification. Robert McClenon 12:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC's ideal place (purpose?) in the mediation chain
I have recently occasionally seen the MedCom decline to accept a Request for Mediation because a Request for Comments had not been used first. There are at least two types of issues that may require mediation or other dispute resolution: content issues and user conduct issues. In the event of content issues, an article RfC should normally precede a Request for Mediation. In the event of user conduct issues, a Request for Mediation should be encouraged at an early stage, because it should reduce hard feelings, while a user conduct Request for Comment typically increases hard feelings. In summary, the sequence of events in dispute resolution should be:
 * Discussion on talk pages.
 * Article content RfC, if there is a content issue.
 * Request for Mediation and mediation, regardless of whether a content issue, a conduct issue, or both.
 * User conduct Request for Comments (by some other name).
 * Request for Arbitration.

Also, one of the purposes of a Request for Corrective Action or Request or User Inquiry or whatever should be as a preliminary gathering of evidence. There have been at least two recent Requests for Arbitration that have skipped the pre-RfAr step and have been extremely lengthy, resulting in comments by the arbitrators as to their excessive length. In those cases, a pre-RfAr should have been used to capture the evidence, and then the RfAr could present a 200-word summary of the alleged offenses. Robert McClenon 11:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Name of procedure currently called user conduct Request for Comments
The procedure currently known as a user conduct Request for Comments should be called by some other name indicative of the fact that it is commonly seen as a preliminary to a Request for Arbitration. It is significantly different from an article RfC, both in terms of how it is perceived, and in terms of what preconditions are required. It should have a different name. Robert McClenon 11:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"commonly seen as a preliminary to a Request for Arbitration." But has nothing to do with arbitration is not a requirement for arbitration establishes nothing in arbitration. any policy violations mentioned in a user RfC must be re-applied at arbitration, evidence must be resubmitted at arbitration. Even the voting outcome of a user RfC (especially if the total votes are small, and really reflects the existing users already involved in teh debate) have no official bearing on arbitration. Arbitration asks for proof that other methods of dispute resolution were tried, but even that says "well, that, or say why it wouldn't have worked". Whatever you are trying to make "preliminary" mean, it isn't reflected in any policy requirements. A dispute may start out as a debate on a talk page, then a vote or poll, then an article RFC, then a user RFC, then mediation, then arbitration. But we don't say "a poll may lead to arbitration so dont take it lightly." There is no binding outcome of a user Rfc, and that's probably a good thing given that any two editors can get together and create an RFC and certify it. It can be a way for someone to make a public complaint, but it can also be misused and abused. And for that reason, it shouldn't have any consequences downstream, either in mediation or arbitration or even an administrator monitoring a user. Arbcom should not say, "well, some ediors filed an RFC against you, and the overall vote was 6 to 2 against you, so we'll go along with their vote and find that you broke whatever policies they listed." FuelWagon 19:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Is FuelWagon arguing that the procedure known as a user conduct RfC should be abolished and not replaced by anything else? If so, he should say that, rather than arguing about the wording of the introduction.  Other than that, I am puzzled by what he is saying or trying to say.  He refers to the voting outcome of a user RfC.  A user RfC does not involve voting, and any reference to such an outcome is misleading.  The fact that it does appear to involve voting is a valid criticism, but to claim that it does involve voting is incorrect.  I don't think that anyone has ever suggested that a user RfC should be binding on anyone else.


 * I would reword FW's statement: "It can be a way for someone to make a public complaint, but it can also be misused and abused."  I would say:  It is a way for someone to make a public complaint.  As such, it can used appropriately, misused, or abused.  If FuelWagon is saying that a user conduct RfC can have any other purpose than as a public complaint, I would like to know what it is.


 * FuelWagon: Do you have any specific statements as to what is wrong with the current process or as to how to revise the process, or do you just want to argue and complain?  Robert McClenon 20:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to modify RfC policy here. I am trying to report current policy. SlimVirgin insists on her warning of unspoken dire consequences to filing an RfC, to "not take it lightly", but nothing in policy says anything to that effect. She associates a user RfC with arbitration in an attempt to make an RfC the pre-arbitration monster or something, but it isn't. Nothing that happens in a user RfC is binding in anyway. Which is something I think is a good thing, given that a number of bad-faith editors could rack up a bunch of signatures on an RfC, and arbcom can't be forced to follow it. And policy says they aren't.


 * Despite any attempt to do anything like state some straightforward policy on user RfC, such as teh fact that a user RfC isn't required before goingto arbitration or the fact that a user RfC isn't required to end in arbitration, SlimVirgin insists on cutting out those simple facts and reforming them into her image of what she views a user RfC to be: a nasty, horrendous, method of last resort for incurable trolls.


 * I'm not trying to revamp policy here. I'm not trying to change the RfC process. I'm just trying to keep SlimVirgin's personal point of view about user RfC's out of the user RfC instruction page. FuelWagon 21:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

p