Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 4

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 (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 (t) (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)

Deleting RfC's?
What is the policy regarding deleting RfC's made by other editors. I ask because my RfC for John Byrne was erased and replaced by a different RfC for the same page made by a different editor. I ask because I would have thought this was not permissable.--198.93.113.49 17:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That shouldn't have happened unless there was a problem with yours. The requests are supposed to be written in a neutral way, so perhaps the other editor felt yours wasn't. Do you have diffs showing yours and the replacement? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm pretty sure it was neutral, but I can't find anyway to retreive my RfC so I don't know exactly what it said. Is their a way to get it? My RFC did appear above the box (sorry I'm still new at this), but I think it should have been simply moved instead of deleted and replaced with different RFC.--198.93.113.49 17:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As I already told you on your talk page, I posted mine, then noticed yours was placed incorrectly after that, so I removed it. I would have moved it but since one was already in place, I saw no reason for the extra work. There is an RfC in place, does it matter so much who put it there? Gamaliel 17:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I placed the RfC in the correct section. It was merely above the RfC box. If I had deleted your RfC and replaced it with another wouldn't you ask why it had happened? Given the fact that you have deleted many of the comments I've made on the John Byrne, Rob Leifeld, and well as user talk pages, surely you can understand why I was concerned when you deleted one of my RfC's.--198.93.113.49 18:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, 198, the diff for yours is here and actually, I would probably have rewritten this. But it's a moot point, as Gamaliel explains that he had already written his and just deleted yours because it was in the wrong place. Here's the diff for his.  Hope this helps. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk)  19:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

What does it take to have an invalid RfC terminated?
Seriously. I've had an RfC pending regarding me for some time, even though the governing criteria aren't met, it hasn't been properly certified -- users involved in entirely separate disputes, one of whom actually walked away from mediation of the dispute he was involved in -- the description of conduct involved is objectively false, and the proponents, rather than making any good faith attempts to resolve matters, have been stalking users who posted views that disagree with theirs and working up plans to act in concert to sanitize Wikipedia of the views of people like me who take NPOV and verifiablity seriously. Is there any reliable way to get to ArbCom expeditiously? Monicasdude 03:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, do you have the link to it? It can and should be deleted if it wasn't properly certified. Let me know where it is and I'll take a look. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Monicasdude


 * And the problems should be pretty clear. The underlying dispute is unresolved, and will likely have to go to ArbCom, but it needs to go on an accurate record.


 * I don't know that full deletion is appropriate, because the conduct of both sides should be preserved, but the RfC has degenerated into meaninglessness. Monicasdude 04:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll look at it shortly. However, it can't be altered, if that's what you're saying: it can be preserved as it is (though you're welcome to add it to, of course), or it can deleted if not properly certified. Those are the only choices. If you want to go to the arbcom, you'll have to file a Request for Arbitration, and you can use the RfC as evidence, which is one of the reasons people file RfCs. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Deleting RfC's?
What is the policy regarding deleting RfC's made by other editors. I ask because my RfC for John Byrne was erased and replaced by a different RfC for the same page made by a different editor. I ask because I would have thought this was not permissable.--198.93.113.49 17:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That shouldn't have happened unless there was a problem with yours. The requests are supposed to be written in a neutral way, so perhaps the other editor felt yours wasn't. Do you have diffs showing yours and the replacement? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm pretty sure it was neutral, but I can't find anyway to retreive my RfC so I don't know exactly what it said. Is their a way to get it? My RFC did appear above the box (sorry I'm still new at this), but I think it should have been simply moved instead of deleted and replaced with different RFC.--198.93.113.49 17:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As I already told you on your talk page, I posted mine, then noticed yours was placed incorrectly after that, so I removed it. I would have moved it but since one was already in place, I saw no reason for the extra work. There is an RfC in place, does it matter so much who put it there? Gamaliel 17:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I placed the RfC in the correct section. It was merely above the RfC box. If I had deleted your RfC and replaced it with another wouldn't you ask why it had happened? Given the fact that you have deleted many of the comments I've made on the John Byrne, Rob Leifeld, and well as user talk pages, surely you can understand why I was concerned when you deleted one of my RfC's.--198.93.113.49 18:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, 198, the diff for yours is here and actually, I would probably have rewritten this. But it's a moot point, as Gamaliel explains that he had already written his and just deleted yours because it was in the wrong place. Here's the diff for his.  Hope this helps. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk)  19:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

What does it take to have an invalid RfC terminated?
Seriously. I've had an RfC pending regarding me for some time, even though the governing criteria aren't met, it hasn't been properly certified -- users involved in entirely separate disputes, one of whom actually walked away from mediation of the dispute he was involved in -- the description of conduct involved is objectively false, and the proponents, rather than making any good faith attempts to resolve matters, have been stalking users who posted views that disagree with theirs and working up plans to act in concert to sanitize Wikipedia of the views of people like me who take NPOV and verifiablity seriously. Is there any reliable way to get to ArbCom expeditiously? Monicasdude 03:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, do you have the link to it? It can and should be deleted if it wasn't properly certified. Let me know where it is and I'll take a look. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Monicasdude


 * And the problems should be pretty clear. The underlying dispute is unresolved, and will likely have to go to ArbCom, but it needs to go on an accurate record.


 * I don't know that full deletion is appropriate, because the conduct of both sides should be preserved, but the RfC has degenerated into meaninglessness. Monicasdude 04:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll look at it shortly. However, it can't be altered, if that's what you're saying: it can be preserved as it is (though you're welcome to add it to, of course), or it can deleted if not properly certified. Those are the only choices. If you want to go to the arbcom, you'll have to file a Request for Arbitration, and you can use the RfC as evidence, which is one of the reasons people file RfCs. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, it was properly certified. Two of the certifiers had tried to start informal mediation with you. The next step, if you want to take it, or if they do, is to approach the arbitration committee, but be aware that there's a backlog at the moment, so it will take some time. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you take another look at this? One of the two users wasn't involved in the dispute cited as the basis for the RfC (and admitted as much on the talk page), but an entirely separate one. I thought the RfC criteria required that the two certifiers have been involved in the same dispute, and that piggybacking different disputes wasn't allowed. Monicasdude 15:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Talk:Bob_Dylan seems to show two of the certifers willing to engage in the same mediation effort with you, which you turned down; this indicates they made an effort to resolve the dispute, but failed, which is what's required before an RfC is properly certified. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not an interested party to this dispute, but I have a question for User:Monicasdude. If he thinks that the RfC was not properly certified, why didn't he make that argument earlier, rather than simply stating that he would not be responding until the certifiers finished adding to the RfC?  Also, the idea of partial deletion of an RfC is very hard for me to understand.  Robert McClenon 16:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I did make that argument more than two weeks ago; it's in the very first paragraph of my response. I made it about two hours after the second certifier (user: JDG) finally completed his description of the involved events, which made clear that he hadn't been involved in the same dispute as user: Lulu. User: JDG essentially admits in his "rebuttal" on the talk page that he wasn't involved in that dispute.  I wasn't asking for partial deletion of the RfC; I think it's degenerated into meaninglessness, particularly given the inappropriate behavior of users: Lulu and JDG towards many of the editors whose comments dispute their position, and simply hoped the current, fruitless process could be halted (with existing statements left in place) and the dispute moved quickly to ArbCom. That doesn't look likely, given what SlimVirgin reports about ArbCom's workload. Monicasdude 19:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC Reform Added from Archive
A few editors have been trying to engage in constructive discussion about reforming the current RfC process. One editor, FuelWagon, as a result of a previous edit war, insists on filibustering this discussion by presenting his own view of what the current process is, rather than what it should be. While I sympathize with the desire of several editors to remove the rehash of the past from this talk page, can we please try not to throw the baby out with the bath water?

FuelWagon: By insisting on rediscussing the Terri Schiavo edit war that happened in July, and having your rediscussions archived, you are increasing the likelihood of a similar dispute by making any solution to the underlying problem more difficult. Please take your complaints somewhere else.

SlimVirgin: I understand your desire not to continue rediscussing your conflict with FuelWagon, and to archive that rediscussion. However (especially since you have said that the current process is horrendous), can we please allow discussion of RfC reform to take place without being archived? Robert McClenon 11:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and unarchive as you see fit, Robert. It was another editor who archived, and I undid it thinking it premature, then thought better of my reverting, and so redid it. ;-) I don't actually mind one way or the other. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, Robert, by insisting that the RFC instruction page describe what an RFC actually is, rather than simply what SlimVirgin wants everyone to think it is, I'm filibustering. Great. Appreciate it. FuelWagon 03:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: Also, since you have described the current process as horrendous, I would appreciate your suggestions on how to overhaul it. Robert McClenon 16:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I left a note for you. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Defense of current system

 * Robert, you wanna know what's wrong with the current user RfC system? nothing. What's wrong is that certain editors cannot handle criticism and those kinds of editors take an RfC as enforced public criticism. There is nothing about about a user RfC that is binding. there is no determinations in a user RfC. There is no finding of facts. there is nothing about a user RfC that can be used as established fact in a case brought before arbcom. A user RfC does nothing but generate comments. Hence the name. The only checkmark on the arbitration form that involves a user rfc is showing that prior stages of dispute resolution have been tried and failed. You wanna fix the only real problem in the design? make the user RfC as inelligible for qualifying as a pre-req for arbitration. Change the process so that a request for arbitration is accepted independent of whether a user RfC was ever generated. Then all a user RfC can do is generate comments and nothing else. Then the only problem is those editors who view public criticism as a terrible thing that must be suppressed.


 * See, the people who want to suppress criticism will do stuff like keep bumping up the requirements to create a user RfC, bump up teh number of people required to "certify", bump up the requirements for attempting to resolve the dispute before filing the RfC, bump up the requirements for evidence. The end result is to suppress criticism.


 * If someone files a bad faith RfC, all it should do is generate comments that can be ignored. Make it so that it is cannot be considered any kind of prerequisite for arbitration, and a bad faith RfC can be ignored by the editor. If a bad editor creates a bad RfC against a good editor, then the good editor should be able to ignore the RfC and not waste their time responding to it. Since this sort of RfC cannot be used as "evidence of trying to resolving dispute and failing", then the RfC doesn't get teh bad faith editor a checkmark for tryign toget into arbitration. It means arbcom will have to do some work, rather than rely on the "score" of some user RfC, but it would basically be the same stuff that's submitted on the "request for arbitration" with evidence being submitted and all that.


 * A user RfC is not required before entering arbitration. This is fact. Make is so that a user RfC can't even be listed in a request for arbitration form, and you've got a true "request for comments" form, because all it can do is request comments. REmove the perception that filing a user RfC may lead to arbitraion will remove any incentive for a bad editor to file an RfC. FuelWagon 04:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Response to defense of system
I have a simple question. If the current system is not flawed, and if a user RfC is not meant to be quasi-punitive, then why does it require two certifiers to the same conduct? If a user RfC is not meant to be quasi-punitive, then should it not be possible for one person to certify it? Robert McClenon 12:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know. It probably helps ensure that a real dispute/issue/problem is happening, rather than a single editor is simply complaining about someone they dont like. i don't have a problem with the two-person certifier requirement. Editors with legitimate problems can probably find at least one other editor to certify. If not, they can always post complaints on their personal talk page. I look at it the same way as the requierments on teh form itself. The evidence of disputed behaviour is so that outside editors can look at the evidence for themselves, rather than take one editor's word for it. The idea of keeping the "complaint" separate from the "response" also helps because it allows an editor to say something without getting challenged at every step. discussions go to the talk page. It allows people to make their complaint or their response without having to defend every point of minutia from a combative editor. Each side gets to state their case clearly. I don't see that as a reflection of a user RfC being "quasi-punitive", I see it as a reflection of how simply airing your differences can resolve problems in and of itself sometimes. I also see it as a reflection of making the dispute resolution process non-combative. The thing you do not want to happen is for an editor to register a complaint, and then have the editor being complained about to interrupt every sentence of the original complaint to say "that's not true because blah". Allowing that sort of behaviour only escalates the problem, rather than resolves it. It allows both sides to air their differences non-combatively. This isn't a reflection of 'quasi-punitive', this is a reflection of simple human behaviour. You can resolve some problems just by letting someone state their case and getting some outside voices to say "I agree". What you don't want to do is have the RfC page turn into the new talk-page/battleground. FuelWagon 21:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, Robert, I answered your question, now here is mine: What outcome of a user RfC is objectively, measurably punitive? FuelWagon 21:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

More comments
SlimVirgin has proposed (on a user talk page) that there should be a third type of Request for Comments, besides an article content RfC and a user conduct RfC, known as an issue RfC. I am not exactly sure that I understand her concept, and would appreciate a further explanation here. In particular, I am not sure how it would change the current user conduct Request for Comments that she considers horrendous.

FuelWagon defends the current system, saying that the problem is only that some editors do not accept criticism. I agree that he does have a valid and logically consistent concept. However, his concept is based on the assumption that Wikipedia editors should be willing to ignore bad faith criticism, rather than that bad faith criticism should be discouraged. I think that FuelWagon and I have different concepts of civility. FuelWagon appears to be saying that editors who do not like criticism should find another on-line community. I disagree with that view. Some of us may have come here because Wikipedia is more civil than Usenet. The user conduct Request for Comments process, as stated on paper and as defended by FuelWagon, is consistent with FuelWagon's concept of honesty, but it pays too little attention to civility. What SlimVirgin is trying to do is to ensure that Wikipedians understand that user conduct RfCs should be used only when civility has already failed.

I would in fact go the opposite way from what FuelWagon proposes, and would clarify that a user conduct Request for Comments (which should be renamed to something like Request for Conduct Inquiry) should only be considered a penultimate step toward or to avoid arbitration. I would clarify that the filing of a bad faith user conduct inquiry may itself be considered harassment and so may lead to arbitration. It should always be hoped that a user conduct inquiry can be resolved without arbitration. However, it should not be filed unless the certifier is willing to go to arbitration if the problem cannot be otherwise resolved.

FuelWagon thinks that SlimVirgin is trying to change the current system. I think that SlimVirgin (and I) are trying to reword the policies (and perhaps revise them) to reflect a more accurate perception of what is seen to be the system. (It may be easier to change the wording than the change the perception by a community.) If FuelWagon thinks that there is a consensus supporting his view, then I would suggest that he request a consensus poll.

Does anyone else have any further ideas? Robert McClenon 11:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The name of it is "request for comments", not "preliminary hearing before arbitration". An RfC is a way to air differences, get comments, and if the editors involved are able to listen to criticism, then a dispute can actually be resolved simply by getting uninvolved people to comment.


 * If the editors are unable to listen to criticism, then it won't resolve anything. But that doesn't mean we should change what a user RfC is. A user RfC is for two editors to work something out by bringing in outside opinions. If both editors work in good faith, the outside comments should 'shake' them out of their stuck positions and opinions and they'll more likely see the error of their ways.


 * if the editors won't listen to criticism, then that doesn't mean we should change the user RfC system. If you've got a bad faith editor, then you need something like arbcom etc to come in and make a determination on policy (assuming they can do that). That is different than what a user RfC does. A user RfC is for someone who refuses to acknowledge criticism of their behaviour and change and the person needs someone to come in and say "you're breaking policy, we're going to block you".


 * If you're going to make a form that is a "preliminary to arbitration", tehn you don't call it a "request for comments", you call it something else that indicates what it is. It isn't a request for comments. It's something else. what, exactly, you haven't said. Basically, you haven't changed to process at all, it is still a request for comments, but you want people to relate to it as something other than a simple request for comments. You want it to be a "grand jury" before going to arbitration. If that's the case, call it that.


 * I don't need consensus because I'm not changing policy here. You, SlimVirgin, and others are the ones changing policy. A request for comments is a request for comments. It has no teeth. It is specifically for editors who can react to criticism and cahnge their behavior. This sort of thing is needed in resolving disputes. If you want to make another step in the dispute resolution process, fine, go ahead. If you want a "preliminary arbitration hearing" go for it. If you want that, then explain exactly how it is different from a user RfC other than the different attitude you describe. SlimVirgin's words are "don't take it lightly". That's an attitude she wants editors to have when the think of user RfC, but the instructions on what to do do not match that. the instructions on what to do reflect those of a request for comments. nothing more.


 * Bad faith RfC's should be ignorable by a good editor. If a bad faith editor files a bad RfC against a good editor, then arbcom will not accept any request for arbitration based on that bad faith RfC. That's their job. Therefore are no consequences to a bad faith RfC other than some editors complain about another editor.


 * My experience so far with user RfC's has been that the people who cannot stand to be criticized are the one's who don't like user RfC's and are the ones who relate to them as serious business and are the ones who relate to them in a lawyerly fashion and are the ones who attempt to punish anyone who has filed a user RfC against them or has endorsed an RfC or filed an outside comment on a user RfC. That's it. Everyone else I've talked to has said that a user Rfc "has no teeth", that they do nothing but generate comments, that it is little more than a chance for both sides to air out their differences, get it out of their system, and move one. The people who can't stand criticism try to make it more than that. it is nothing but comments. That is all it is. Anyoen who cannot stand public criticism relates to them as far worse than a real, honest, request for comments.


 * policy isn't the problem, it's the people who don't like comments.


 * And your attempts to turn a user RfC into a "grand jury" for entering arbitration may point to a stage in the dispute resolution process that is missing, but that is not what a "request for comments" is. If you are doing anything other than requesting comments, if those comments have any 'weight' to them, such as determining if you can proceed to arbitration or not, then you need to call it something otehr than "request for comments". But an RfC is not needed for arbitration. An RfC is not a gating factor to get arbitration. It isn't even preliminary to arbitration, any more than talkinga bout a dispute on a talk page "must be preliminary" to a RfC. There is no connection that you have demanded. It is not policy.


 * if you want to create a "grand jury" that is some sort of more formal process before entering arbitration, I'd support that. If you want a "grand jury" to be only filed as a preliminary step to arbitration, I'd support that. But that isn't what a user RfC is. It just isn't what you're describing. What you have is on one hand a "process" that defines what a user RfC does, how it works, how to fill one out, etc, and on the other hand various "attitudes" as to how to relate to user RfC's.


 * SlimVirgin is pushing an "attitude" about user RfC that has nothing to do with the "process" of a user RfC. There is nothing about a user RfC that says it must not be taken lightly. Obviously, there are specific processes that are meant to be followed, such as the fact that a user RfC requires an actual dispute to be occuring, requires evidence of attempts to resolve said dispute, and requires that two editors "certify" the RfC, but other than that, there isn't anything "light" or "heavy" in the attitude if those process steps are satisfied. Do you understand the difference? This "do not take lightly" doesn't make sense given that not everyone relates to an RfC as so horrendous as SlimVirgin. That is her attitude. But she hasn't suggested any change to the process, so the attitude doesn't belong.


 * The reason she keeps pushing the attitude, though, is because she would need consensus if she actually attempted to change the physical process of an RfC. If she changed the requirements for evidence, for past attempts to resolve the dispute, for the number of certifiers. Instead, she's only pushing her attitude into the instruction page "Do not take it lightly". What does that mean in any objective sense of the word? If you've met all the requirements for a user RfC, how do you determine if you've taken it "lightly" or not? If an editor filed an RfC, met all the requirements, how would you determine if they had taken it lightly or not? Could you block them for breaking the policy because they didn't have the right attitude? That's my point here. This "do not take lightly" thing is subjective attitude that is unenforceble, and is little more than SLimVirgin's personal oppinion of horrendous RfC's.


 * Same goes for your "user RfC should be preliminary to arbitration" attitude. How do you objectively determine that? How would you find someone violated that policy? Because they filed an RfC and then didn't take it further on to arbitration? What if they resolved the issue? What if they resolved part of the issue and decided the rest wasn't worth arbitration? What if they had seen arbcom in action and thought it was a waste of time to even try? Do you block them for not filing an RfC as a "preliminary" stage to arbitration? This is an attitude you want people to have. It isn't objectively measurable in any way.


 * If you want to change policy so that a user RfC is required before entering arbitration, then make the suggestion, get consensus, and change policy. But as long as a user RfC is NOT required for arbitration, then a user RfC does not have to be "preliminary" to arbitration in any objective way. What you are proposing is a subjective attitude be required befoer filing a user RfC and it is impossible to enforce, as well as being questionable in accuracy.


 * if you want to change the RfC policy in some objective, measureable way, propose what you want to do. But until then, your and SlimVirgin's requirements for having the proper "attitudes" before filing a user RfC is your personal, subjective POV's creeping into objective policy. And I will continue to resist it. FuelWagon 20:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What do you think of my new version? Is it an adequate compromise? [[Sam Korn ]] 20:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I like it. it's more objective because it doesn't imply a link between user RfC and arbitration, rather it gives facts about both. I still have issue with how exactly anyoen can tell if another editor has "taken it lightly" when they filed an RfC, since it is purely a subjective matter. But at least it doesn't imply a linkage that isn't there. If you have a suggestion for the "do not take lightly", I'm all ears. FuelWagon 21:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have changed the line . I think this is the essence of what "don't take it likely" meant.  Feel free to edit, of course...  [[Sam Korn ]] 21:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam, I used your original opening sentence, because I think it accurately portrays policy. I then undid SlimVirgin's collapsing of policy with views, putting policy in one bullet and views in another bullet. I then modified the "views" bullet to report it as a view that some editors have of RfC's. And finally I dropped the "attitude requirement" for filing a user RfC, since there is no objective way to determine if an editor "took it lightly" or not. I think this approach uses the same approach that is spelled out in NPOV policy regarding articles: report undisputed facts as facts. Report views as views. The fact is a user RfC is not required to enter arbitration. And the view that a user RfC is a preliminary step to arbitration is just that, a view. What do you think? FuelWagon 15:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Process Improvement
FuelWagon thinks that SlimVirgin and I are trying to change policy. That oversimplifies what I am trying to do. There is a disconnect between the policy as written and the policy as perceived.

FuelWagon writes: ''If you're going to make a form that is a "preliminary to arbitration", tehn you don't call it a "request for comments", you call it something else that indicates what it is. It isn't a request for comments. It's something else. what, exactly, you haven't said.'' That is correct. I have been saying for more than a month that what is called a user conduct RfC is misnamed. It is not just a request for comments, and leading people to think that it is misrepresents the perception of the user community.

It is quite true that I think that the dispute resolution process does need to be changed, and that we should be working for a consensus as to how to change the process. The Request for Conduct Inquiry is only part of what needs to be changed. The exact wording of the template should not be important, and should not distract us from the more serious job of trying to fix the process. I suggest that FuelWagon, SlimVirgin, and I all leave the wording of the template alone, and focus on how the dispute resolution process can be improved.

FuelWagon and SlimVirgin have hard feelings toward each other because of an article content dispute that became ugly. I think that the fact that that dispute became ugly, and still has unresolved tensions, illustrates that the dispute resolution process needs improvement. I think that FuelWagon is trying to apply twentieth-century management theory to a dispute resolution that was unsatisfactory. In the twentieth century, when something went wrong, a common approach by management was to determine who was responsible for not having followed the defined process correctly. Sometimes, as when an editor is disruptive, or when a law has been broken, the assignment of blame is appropriate. However, if the assignment of blame is the only way that failures are dealt with, then that subjects humans to scrutiny while assuming that the process is satisfactory. Twenty-first century project management recognizes that processes must be engineered to be readily usable by humans, rather than simply trying to force the humans to follow a process.

Rather than just trying to assign blame and saying that the process is good, why don't we try to reach consensus on how to adjust the process? Robert McClenon 21:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with you wanting to adjust the process. But that may take time and in the meantime, I think it is important for the current process to be accurately reported. SlimVirgin is pushing her opinion of user RfC's into the instruction page that has nothing to do with what a user RfC is. She thinks they are a horrendous step. Anyone who cannot stand public criticism would view them as a horrendous step. But a user RfC does nothing other than generate comments, critical and supportive. I think it also important to be clear about what current policy is before deciding on how we should change it. We can't get to where we're going if we don't even know where we are.


 * as for your "twentieth century management theory" comments, that has nothing to do with a user RfC. Since a user RfC doesn't "assign blame" or any of that. People air their differences, they may get some outside confirmation/support/endorsement, and that may be enough to diffuse the situation. That doesn't mean they're right or that anyone in particular is to blame, but the situation can be diffused rather than escalated. If both sides get some support from a user RfC to the point that they don't feel the need to justify themselves to the other party in a debate on the talk page, and instead go back to editing, then its a win for everyone. But no blame is "assigned". Both sides give their side of the story, they get some support, they keep their points of view, but they go back to editing rather than debating the article on talk.


 * A user RfC is non-punitive. it does nothing but generate comments. Those comments alone may be enough to diffuse or resolve the dispute. There are no finding of facts. there is no blame assigned. People simply make known their point of view on a dispute and get support and get critcism. The only problem is that this doesn't work if the editor cannot stand criticism, to the point where any critical statements must be buried, vetoed, or whatever. That isn't allowing the opposing side to have a different point of view, that is basically demaning a finding of fact that they're side is the "right" side. But that isn't what a user RfC does.


 * Say two editors give their side of the story, and both get half a dozen editors endorsing their comments. If the editor simply needs some validation, some support, and some helpful suggestions, then that editor won't care that his opponent got half a dozen endorsements too. If the editor must be "right" and must prove any criticism "wrong", then a user RfC may not resolve the issue for them. Or they may file a counter RfC against the critics. Or they may get all their friends to endorse their side fo the story in an attempt to get a "landslide vote" and somehow proving their side "right".


 * All a user RfC does is generate comments. It may resolve a dispute for some editors, and it may not resolve a dispute for some other editors. But there is no downstream outcome of a user RfC. You don't tally the endorsements and declare one side the "winner" or one side to be "right". tehre is no finding of facts. There is no assignment of blame. In fact, the current user RfC policy (minus SlimVirgin's attempt to color it as some horrendous process) is exactly what you're "twenty-first century management style" is talking about. The only thing that needs to be fixed is to report the facts of the process as facts, and if SlimVirgin insists her view of user RfC's be on the user page, then report that view clearly as a view of some editors, rather than as a fact of policy.FuelWagon 16:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "I think that the fact that that dispute became ugly, and still has unresolved tensions, illustrates that the dispute resolution process needs improvement." Uhm, I wouldn't say that. It could just as easily illustrate that some editors are treated differently than others, that some editors cannot stand criticism to the point of carrying a permanent grudge because they were criticized, that mediators don't always mediate, and that the arbitration committee doesn't always arbitrate. It isn't all a problem with the process, some of it is a problem with the culture and the individuals running it. An RfC is part of the process. Some of the problems are a result of culture. FuelWagon 16:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon writes: It could just as easily illustrate that some editors are treated differently than others.  That is inevitably true.  Some editors are treated differently than others based on respect, which can be earned and can be lost.  (Ed had a great deal of respect, for instance.  He still has some, but he lost some.  That is the way a human community should work.)  If FuelWagon is saying that all editors should be treated with a certain minimum amount of respect, I agree.  If he is saying that all editors should be treated with the same amount of respect, that is not plausible.  FuelWagon writes:  [S]ome editors cannot stand criticism to the point of carrying a permanent grudge because they were criticized.  At this point, that appears to be a self-reference.  (SlimVirgin is no longer in this rehash.  Whether she has a grudge is not important if she is not acting on it.)  FuelWagon writes:  [M]ediators don't always mediate.  [The] arbitration committee doesn't always arbitrate.  That is true.  No one is perfect.  Some people learn from their experience as to how to do their jobs better.  FuelWagon writes:  "Some of the problems are a result of culture."  It is not clear to me what the value of FuelWagon's complaints is.  If he is demanding that the culture be changed, is he simply saying that other Wikipedians should adopt his standards of culture, or is he willing to try to help the culture evolve by contributing to it constructively?   Robert McClenon 17:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What is your point, Robert? My point is that the RfC instruction page reflect actual policy. You keep going off on these tangents about what is wrong with the current system, how to create a new system, and all this other stuff. I just want the instruction page to reflect actual policy, not someone's horrendous opinion of RfC's. If I'm tiring you out, maybe keeping it on the one topic I'm actually arguing would be easier for you. I just want the instruction page to reflect actually policy without being colored by editors opinions, without forwarding opinions as facts, and without some impossible demand that a certain "attitude" is required when filing an RfC. If you find yourself typing a sentence that goes like this "if FuelWagon is saying (blah)", then consider that you might be going off topic. Rather than paraphrase what I say, look at the words I'm actually typing. I want the instruction page to reflect actual, objectively defined policy, not some editor's personal opinion of how people should relate to it. If someone wants their opinion in the page, it should be reported like a view, not as fact, not as official policy. FuelWagon 18:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

acceptable
Robert, this edit would be an acceptable version to me, not perfect, but good enough that I'd accept it. I don't know how anyone would enforce the "do not take lightly", but the rest of it is clear enough about what is policy and what is opinion that I'd be willing to accept that version. FuelWagon 18:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Good ol' Jayjg, always keeping the instructions sensible. yeah, sure. keep up the good work. FuelWagon 19:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, I think I see your issue. I enterpret the "do not take lightly" as being advice, rather than a guideline.  No-one is going to enforce it.  Anyone is allowed to make an RFC within reason.  It is just advice to avoid such RFCs As far as I can tell, the two versions (or variations thereon) are not actually that different.  Neither says that an RFC is mandatory for arbitration, and neither says arbitration is compulsory on the end of an RFC.  To be honest, FuelWagon, I do think my version is the simplest.  I tried to take both sides' opinions into account.  But then, of course, I would think that ;-).  May I just suggest leaving the issue be for a couple of days.  Otherwise, I'm going to lay out the options and we can talk on a talk page, rather than in edit summaries.   [[Sam Korn ]] 20:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The difference is that I'd go along with Robert's version because it separates "policy" from "advice". It also separates someone's "view" from "policy" too. But Jayjg and SlimVirgin want to make their "view" and "advice" more important than "policy". I'd support this because it reports policy, advice,and views, but it reports them as being what they are, versus slopping them all together in a single line that discounts policy and reinforces the opinions of a couple of editors. If functionality were the only concern then my version is just as good as theirs. But they don't care about functionality, they care about their opinion, and their version makes their opinion more important than actual policy. FuelWagon 20:25, 25 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)

A new suggestion
OK, how about this:


 * A user RfC is not formally required before proceeding to arbitration.
 * Many, though by no means all, arbitration cases are preceded by a user-conduct RFC, and some editors may view a user RfC filed against them as a first step to building a case against them to bring them to arbitration.
 * Remember that filing an RFC over a trivial matter is unlikely to receive much attention from the community, and may diminish other users' opinions of you. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste.

I have tried to separate the three aspects of the matter as FuelWagon outlined. I don't think any of the three points is outrageous or in contravention of policy (incidentally, there is no RFC policy: RFC is entirely governed by practice). If you disagree with me, please spell out why. I am not going to change the RFC page until there is consensus on this page. Please can we stop reverting and try talking. [[Sam Korn ]] 20:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * the only suggestion I'd say is to change the third bullet to say "may diminish other users' opinion of you or the person you filed the RfC against" or words to that effect. FuelWagon 21:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about that change, as I specifically mentioned it being a trivial matter in that same sentence. It could be added to the second point as "Even if the matter does not proceed to arbitration, it may make other users think badly of the other user."  However, I think this is unnecessary and just pads the instructions out further.  It just seems inherent in the whole RFC process that other users end up thinking badly of the RFCee.   [[Sam Korn ]] 21:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright. Fine. Could you get rid of "Remember that" in the front then? That will emphasize the "filing over trivial matter" part. Also, I think the comma "community, and may" needs to be deleted since it separates a dependent clause. FuelWagon 22:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that seems very reasonable. I'm not certain how to define a dependent clause, but I'll bow to your judgment there.  [[Sam Korn ]] 22:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * fyi: Dependent clause in this case is a verb, but no subject. FuelWagon 02:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So, can you put these three bullets on the main page? FuelWagon 02:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The first two sentences need to be combined into language that is meaningful, reads better, and removes redundancies (e.g. "many" necessarily means "not all"): Although a user RfC is not formally required before proceeding to arbitration, many arbitration cases are preceded by a user-conduct RFC, and some editors may view a user RfC filed against them as a first step to building a case against them to bring them to arbitration. Jayjg (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, because if they're not combined, people just won't understand them as separate bullet points. FuelWagon 21:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it, are those separate bullets even english? FuelWagon 21:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, but I suggest that the "but not all" is kept. It may be tautology, but it's also emphasis, which was why I originally included it.  If no-one wants it, it can go.  But if anyone does think it necessary, it seems fairly harmless to me.  It was there to please someone, I can't remember who. Yes it is correct English, just not much sense! Cheers,  [[Sam Korn ]] 21:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam, keep the three bullets. Jayjg's argument that "The first two sentences need to be combined" is a hollow argument. The three bullets are meaningful, read just as well, and do not contain redundancies. FuelWagon 21:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Suggestion for the second bullet: "Many arbitration cases are preceded by a user-conduct RFC; some are not. Some editors may view...etc." This will permit discussion of whether the first some should be many or a good many or whatever. Septentrionalis 04:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam, thanks for your edits. The current version reads well. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Can we try again?
On 28 September, SlimVirgin agreed that the version by Sam Korn read well. This morning a Willy-on-Wheels wannabe vandalized the page. Then it was restored to the latest version by FuelWagon, which was basically the Sam version, not the earlier FuelWagon version.

Then Jayjg reverted to the earlier SlimVirgin language. Then FuelWagon reverted it to the Sam/FuelWagon language. Now SlimVirgin has reverted it to her earlier language, calling it the consensus version. I thought that consensus had been reached on the Sam version on 28 September. Could SlimVirgin please explain why she is reverting back to her earlier version after accepting the Sam edits?


 * When I wrote to Sam to say that the current version was good at 00:47 on Sept 28, this was the version on the page, which I believe is the version on the page now. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I want actual policy separate from the opinions being pushed by SlimVirgin. I don't think the opinions being pushed by SlimVirgin should even be in the instructions, but I went along with Sam Korn's version because he at least clearly reported policy and clearly reported views as views. SlimVirgin and Jayjg are now POV pushing to the point of pretending that any sort of compromise had occurred and reverted back to their version of things. I think it's pretty clear who is being non-negotiable here, who ignores any attempts to compromise. FuelWagon 23:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the version I support. It's contains some of the earlier version and all (I believe) of Sam's additions, and is therefore a good compromise. It's short and easy to understand, and it gives two reasons that editors shouldn't act in haste regarding an RfC, namely (a) that it might be a step toward RfAr, and (b) that it might end up becoming an RfC against them. I don't even see what FuelWagon's objections are. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, Sam's version was here. He proposed it on the talk page before he changed it on the article because he wanted to see if everyone supported it. SOme people suggested some minor changes, he agreed. And when it seemed that no one had major objections, I inserted it in the page.

When you compare Sam's version with your version, teh diff looks like this. Your most recent edit summary says "returned to Sam", but it obviously wasn't Sam's proposed compromise. This diff shows that you simply reverted to your own version, not Sam's.

Is this your version of compromise, SlimVirgin? Revert to the version you wanted from the beginning and explain in the edit summary that it was someone else's version? FuelWagon 00:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Stop attacking people and concentrate on content. What is your substantive objection to the current version? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hm, so a list of diffs and who made what edit is "attacking people"? A bit of a hair trigger, I think, but that's just me. perhaps you could point out the specific attack or retract the accusation? I won't be holding my breath for that. As to objections, I've listed them enough times alread and you've ignored them every time. you can scroll up and read for yourself if you were honestly interested. I won't hold my breath for that either. FuelWagon 00:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Robert has asked whether we can try again, and I am willing to do that. I've read the page, and I don't understand what your substantive content objections are, so please list them here. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * So, no specific attacks pointed out and no retraction of the accusation of "attack"? That figures. Why am I not surprised? Don't bother answering that. As for your inability to "understand what my substantitive content objections" are, Sam Korn seemed to manage to figure it out. Take a look at his "A new suggestion" entry above. Just before that, I list my "substantitive content objections" and he managed to write a compromise immediately after that. That is the "compromise" version. What you reverted to was your version. FuelWagon 00:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Why can't you just answer the question? I have read the page, and I don't see any substantive objections from you to the current content. Therefore, I have perhaps misunderstood something, or perhaps I'm missing something. For that reason, I'm asking you to repeat your objections here, minus any personal attacks or ad hominem comments. Pretend you don't know who contributed to the current version, and comment  only on the content, please. If you don't do that, I'll assume you have no substantive objection, and I won't ask you again. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've already told you. click here and scroll up to the post just before the bookmark. If your next reply does not address anything in that post, then I'll assume you have no intention of reading it or any of my objections, I'll assume that you have no substantive objection to Sam's compromise version (other than that it isn't "your" version), I will revert to Sam's version, and I won't bother explaining myself again.


 * Oh, and nice slipping in further accusations of "personal or ad hominem" attacks, as if I'd never even requested that you either point out a specific violation or retract the accusation as false and unfounded. You're good. You're really good. FuelWagon 01:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

substantive objections to Sams compromise?
I like it how Jayjg can say "reverting to Sam's version" in his edit summary while he's actually reverting to the version pushed by himself and SlimVirgin. It takes a special sort of person to pull of such a blatant "ministry of truth" edit like that. In case anyone seems to have forgotten, and Jayjg and SlimVirgin apparently have an extremely short term memory problem, the compromise proposed by Sam is listed above under "a new suggestion". A couple people suggested some minor changes, and then no one posted any substantive objection to the result. Since SlimVirgin has previously shown an inability to scroll up to a different section, I'll post Sam's "a new suggestion" here.


 * A user RfC is not formally required before proceeding to arbitration.
 * Many, though by no means all, arbitration cases are preceded by a user-conduct RFC, and some editors may view a user RfC filed against them as a first step to building a case against them to bring them to arbitration.
 * Filing an RFC over a trivial matter is unlikely to receive much attention from the community, and may diminish other users' opinions of you. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste.

Oh, and I noticed SlimVirgin just did an amazing on-the-ball job of reverting my edit immediately after I made it. Great job, SlimVirgin. Now, Since no one has listed any substantive objections to Sam's suggestion above, I will assume that editors who are going against the proposed version are simply pushing their own agenda here. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? The best that SlimVirgin and Jayjg have come up with is that "it doesn't flow as nice". Yeah, sure Sam's version doesn't "flow" as nice as SlimVirgin's because Sam's version actually reports facts as facts, views as views, and advice as advice, whereas SlimVirgin's and Jayjg's version dismisses the facts of policy and attempts to present SlimVirgin's horrendous opinion of RfC's as if they were fact of policy. So, "flow" is non-issue. Anyone have any legitimate objections to Sam's version? Or will SlimVirgin simply continue to revert without explanation to the version the pushes her opinion into the instruction page? FuelWagon 16:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What difference do you see between the version above and what is on the page? They seem to say the same thing. I even changed it to "many cases are preceded by an RfC," rather than many RfCs lead to RfAr. Anyway, read Robert's point below about the history, which repeats that your view of RfCs is just plain wrong. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What difference do you see between Sam's compromise version and the version you keep pushing? "They seem to say the same thing." If they seem to be sayign the same thing to you, then why do you pushing your version? Obviously, there's a difference and you won't say what it is. How about I spell it out for you: You want to dismiss the facts of policy and reinforce your opinion of RfC's. If they seem to say the same thing, then why the edit war? You have no specific objections that you can point to because the only reason for your objection is that your version pushes your opinion. Sam's version separates the facts from the opinions from the advice. And as to Robert's history lesson, I answered that below. FuelWagon 16:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've asked you many times what your objection is to the version on the page, and you won't say. You just keep repeating policy versus opinion without saying which is which, or what you mean by it. Read what Robert wrote below. He is right. Either say exactly which sentences or words you object to in the current version, or face continuing to be reverted. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've already stated my objections to your version several times. You apparently cannot scroll up. I want the facts of policy, the way RfC and arbitration to be separate from your personal opinoins. I want your opinions of horrendous RfCs to be reported as the view of editors. I want advice to be separate from all of that. I do not want your version because it dismisses facts by saying "although the facts are blah, the opinion your about to read is the real reality". This is standard NPOV policy: State the undisputed facts of an article, then state the different POV's of the different sides. The RfC instruction page needs to separate out the facts of how a RfC relates to Arbitration from your personal opinion of a user RfC.


 * So, it's a two-way street, SlimVirgin. You claim the two versions "seem to say the same thing" and yet you insist on reverting to your version. Do you have any specific words that you dispute with Sam's compromise version? Or are you going to make blanket statements that dismiss anything that isn't your version and expect us to take that as "substantive objections"? You know, stuff like complaining about the "flow". As for the history, it's pretty clear that the way user RfC's worked in 2004 are completely different to the way they work now. Before they were an application to get Jimbo to ban someone. Now arbcom does the banning and arbcom has their own evidence gathering procedure. User RfC's are used by arbcom as evidence, as finding of facts, or any other part of the procedure for arbcom to decide the facts of a case or whether to ban someone or not. Arbcom requires you submit all evidence in their own format, and they base all their finding off of that. So, to take your own command, and send it right back at you "Either say exactly which sentences or words you object to in the current version, or face continuing to be reverted". Sentences or words, not "flow" or "history". What specific sentences or words do you object to in Sam's compromise version? FuelWagon 17:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The version on the page contains everything that Sam suggested. And the arbcom does take RfC evidence. All they require is that it be reformatted, but they don't even always require that. I've seen evidence be taken from arbcom talk pages. Before the LaRouche case, arbcom members suggested filing an RfC and then submitting those diffs as the arbcom case, although in the end it wasn't necessary. I suggest you do some reading, as Robert has done, to learn more about the history of RfCs and arbcom cases. I can't continue to argue with you about this, because it's getting absurd. You seem to be the only person with your particular view of the process. You claim other people are trying to insert their opinions, but everyone else who has posted here has more or less agreed. You're the one with the unusual view. I encourage you to do what Robert has suggested, if you feel there's something wrong with people's current view of the RfC process &mdash; try to get it changed. And stop reverting the current version as part of your campaign against the word "although." It's a perfectly harmless word. You seem to be disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, you demand objections to specific words and sentences, but you give none. (You never willl give objections to specific words, will you) You argue "They seem to say the same thing." but then you demand that your version be enforced. And a user RfC doesn't find any facts. You could just as easily accumulate evidence in a subdirectory in a talk page and then submit that to arbcom. That it went through an RfC doens't prove any policy violations occurred. That's what arbcom does. This is all about you pushing your personal opinion about horrendous RfC's into the instuction page, when there is nothing in the way that a user RfC actually works that supports your opinion. You seem to be disrupting wikipedia to push your opinion into policy instructions. you did it on the "words to avoid" page and you're donig it here. If Sam's version is really "saying the same thing" then use Sam's version, instead of pushing your horrendous opinion into the instruction page. And if "although" is a "perfectly harmless word", then why not allow the version that doesn't use it? If the versions seem to be the same, why not allow the one that Sam proposed as compromise? FuelWagon 18:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

RFC Page Edit Wars
Is anyone going to file an RFC on the RFC page edit wars? Does anyone notice the irony? -- M P er el ( talk 21:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes as to the first question. Robert McClenon 21:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes as to the second question. Robert McClenon 21:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin and Jayjg continue to push their personal (horrendous) opinion into the RFC instruction page. I keep trying to clarify actual policy from their personal opinions. Sam Korn suggested a version that had both. SlimVirgin and Jayjg continue to ignore anything that doesn't follow their personal view of the topic. FuelWagon 21:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It's hard to take your comments seriously when you refer to this wording issue as "their personal (horrendous) opinion". Don't you think that's a bit over the top? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * When FuelWagon inserts the parenthetical "(horrendous)" in his reference to SlimVirgin's opinion, he is not actually characterizing her version as "horrendous", but is quoting her opinion that the existing process is horrendous. Robert McClenon 21:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think SlimVirgin did use that adjective (or a similar one) a while back to describe the RfC process. Nevertheless, in FuelWagon's comments above, the adjective is clearly modifying "their opinion", and not "the process, in their opinion". Perhaps he worded it too hastily? Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. I think he worded it too hastily, and so he appeared to be characterizing their opinion rather than summarizing their opinion.  Robert McClenon 22:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon, you're harassing me, insulting me whenever you get the chance, wikistalking me to pages you've never edited before (and issues you know nothing about) for the sole purpose of reverting whatever change I've made, and maintaining an attack subpage about me. Your stated objection to this section is that it uses the word "although." Your actual objection is that I wrote it. Neither of these things is "horrendous." You're being disruptive and engaged in WP:POINT. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin: If you have evidence that FuelWagon is wikistalking you to pages that he never previously edited, why don't you use the "horrendous" process?  Robert McClenon 21:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "If you have evidence"? Robert, the evidence is clear, SlimVirgin edits a page, and within minutes FuelWagon shows up there for the very first time to revert her.  I'm rather surprised you would promote the use of Arbitration, which one would imagine would be a last resort.  Instead, it might be far more constructive for you to discourage FuelWagon from continuing these anti-Wiki behaviours. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are a few pages where I lurk but don't really contribute, and I've certainly got the impression that FuelWagon is turning up on pages where SlimVirgin had a history of editing but he didn't. But it's just an impression: I haven't checked the page histories. Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Really, Ann? And when was the last time that you edited this page? I could argue that you are showing up at all manner of pages that you have no history of working on, but that you show up to do nothing but denigrate me, testify to all the world how horrible I am. And yet, you personally, have no dispute with me. If the charge of harrasment applies to me, then it certainly applies to you.


 * I do a lot of "lurking" myself and fixed some POV editing pushed by SlimVirgin. She can't argue that the content of my edits are bad, so she calls it harrassment. This basically boils down to her saying "I was here first, you can't edit". That is so the antithesis of a wiki that it's laughable. She has a number of edits that are blatantly a pro-Israel POV. I've fixed some of the more blatant ones. Look at the content and her edits are indefensible and my edits are unassailable. Therefore, the only way she can deflect the issue is to call it "harrassment". Interesting that when wikipedia policy proposed adding "harrassment" as a policy violation, I opposed it strongly because it is an accusation that is very easy to make and very hard, even for an innocent editor, to disprove. You want to talk about making wikipedia better? Then you focus on the content of the edits. Anything else is simply SlimVirgin's attempt to claim ownership on her POV articles and block anyone who opposes her content. FuelWagon 23:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't start on Ann. The diffs I have speak for themselves. I'm not going to respond further about this issue on this page. I've left a note on your talk page. Please use our talk pages to discuss it, if you want to discuss it, but don't take it out on other editors. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The diffs speak for themselves? The edits I made corrected your POV pushing and you have no defense on teh basis of content. So you cry harrassment. In one edit you were doing original research, inserting your own POV version of vocabulary. I inserted a sourced quote with a URL, quoting the source's POV directly. You kept trying to water it down to your language. The other edit you deleted a rather large section that landed negatively on the modern state of Israel. You claimed that the article was "history" and apparently "history" of modern israel doesn't apply somehow. SOmeone else reverted your equivalent deletions to the christian history article. The content of your edits are blatantly POV. And in that capacity, you are absolutely right: the diffs speak for themselves. FuelWagon 00:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'd like to clarify that this page has been on my watchlist for several months, and I have edited it before. I have never followed FuelWagon to a page which I had no prior interest in. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Is mediation in order?
SlimVirgin, FuelWagon: Are the two of you willing to take your issues (allegations of reckless editing, allegations of POV pushing, allegations of wikistalking, allegations of original research, breaches of civility) to mediation with a previously uninvolved mediator? Robert McClenon 15:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * with a limited number mediators, I'm not sure how you'll find one who is "uninvolved" except in a very loose sense of the word. Also, given my prior experience with mediation, I don't have a lot of confidence in the process. If I'm going to get involved with the work required to do this, then I might as well bring Ed Poor into it as well. SlimVirgin started this grudge againt me when I filed my RfC against her, and Ed had a hand in that as well. I have a hard time believing there is a mediator who isn't "involved" with Ed or SlimVirgin in some way. And given that my prior experience of mediation showed the mediator taking sides, I don't think this is a minor concern. But I'd be willing to give it a try if it means SlimVirgin has to get specific about her accusations against me. She has ignored my repeated requests to point out any specific insults or NPA violations that she keeps refering to. FuelWagon 15:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Do We Need a Survey?
If, as it appears, there is still disagreement, can we take a survey to determine whether there is a consensus? How many candidate options are there? Two (earlier SlimVirgin language, and Sam Korn language), three (earlier SlimVirgin language, previous FuelWagon language, and Sam Korn language), or more than three? Robert McClenon 21:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon repeatedly states that he wants to distinguish between actual policy and SlimVirgin's opinion of the policy. I think that FuelWagon is using the word "policy" too broadly. The only applicable official policy that I am aware of is Dispute resolution. The existing wording of the template is not set by official policy. Do we need a survey to determine consensus on what the wording of the template should be? Robert McClenon 14:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I, personally, am fundementally against polls where they can be avoided. The other official policy is that of arbitration.  If we can avoid making an RFC on RFC, we should.  Perhaps a post to the mailing list, or a note in the topic of #wikipedia would work best.  If a poll is wanted, a poll we can have.  I suggest, however, that it be made a poll along the lines of "what can I cope with" rather than "what do I want".  Therefore, multiple options should be allowed.   [[Sam Korn ]] 14:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If we do not want have a poll, then I would suggest that SlimVirgin refrain from edit summaries that refer to a consensus version, and that FuelWagon refrain from statements that he is only restating the existing policy. The Dispute resolution policy is silent on RfCs.  If we do not want a survey, then can we try to discuss any changes to the wording on this talk page with civility rather than reverting?    Robert McClenon 15:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My use of the word "policy" is based on the requirements for entering arbitration. Arbcom does not require that an RfC be filed to request arbitration. SlimVirgin has modified the instructions to say "many RfCs are steps towards" arbitration, therefore "do not take lightly" and all that. This implies several things that simply aren't true.


 * an RfC is an attempt to resolve a dispute. If the dispute gets resolved with an RfC, then it doesn't go to arbitration. The implication with SlimVirgin's instructions is that an RfC will somehow "spontaneously combust" into arbitration, that once an editor files an RfC, it's out of their control as to whether that dispute continues to arbcom. An RfC only goes to arbcom if the editor filing it feels the issue hasn't been resolved.


 * And I challenge the factual accuracy of "many". If the majority of RfC's end up in arbitration, then RfC's are ineffective and need an overhaul. I'd say "some" user RfC's do not resolve the issue at hand, and out of those, some continue on to arbcom. SlimVirgin is painting a picture that filing a user RfC is really simply filling out an application for arbitration, and the two are not so tightly connected.


 * All of this is simply a reflection of her personal opinion of user RfC's being a horrendous proceedure. And she is modifying the instructions to reflect her opinion. Robert doesn't like my use of the word "policy", but that's what this is about: policy and facts versus personal opinion. Arbcom policy doesn't require an RfC to enter arbitration. A user RfC doesn't spontaneously combust into an arbcom case. Some RfC's don't resolve the dispute, and of those, some go to arbcom. And those who do go to arbcom only do so at the active request of an editor. FuelWagon 15:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is why the wording I suggested uses the idea of many arbitration cases starting in RFC rather than many RFCs ending in arbitration cases. I felt that was more precise and, crucially, accurate.  Cheers,  [[Sam Korn ]] 15:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam, I noticed the difference in your version. While I dispute that "many RfC's end in arbitration", I would agree that "many arbitration cases are proceeded by RfC's". That was one of the reasons I supported your version. FuelWagon 15:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Pruning
Some of the subject RfC pages are in serious need of pruning. As a rule of thumb, I've assumed that items still present on these pages after two months are stale. I've also removed a few undated items that seemd to be rather old. I've added a HTML comment to the top and bottom of each page to remind people to add items at the top and to sign with five tildes. I've removed names where they were added, and depersonalized one or two of the more POV summaries. --Tony Sidaway Talk 16:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for more pruning
Some of the user conduct RfC pages are in serious need of pruning. Some of the user conduct RfC pages are now in arbitration. Can the links to those pages be deleted? The pages themselves are and should be essentially immortal, but there is no need to keep the links when the RfC has gone to the last stage. Robert McClenon 00:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Archiving
I have archived much of this talk page. Unfortunately, it is difficult to separate the useful from the useless. I have been, for more than a month, trying to see if there are any ideas on how the RfC process can be improved.

However, what we appear to have is a situation where there is so much hostility between FuelWagon and SlimVirgin that any attempt to discuss process improvement is sidetracked by a discussion of how those two editors each think that they have been wronged. FuelWagon says that the current policies and process are fine as they are, but insists that he has been systematically wronged by SlimVirgin (and others). I could try to argue that this points out that there is a deficiency in the process because it has not resolved this enmity, but he would say that is just because the editors of Wikipedia have bad attitudes or something. SlimVirgin has said that the current user conduct RfC process is "horrendous", and wants to change the wording of the template to make this fact clearer. However, if the process is horrendous, then the process should be changed. SlimVirgin has made one small suggestion, about another kind of RfC, which is a reasonable one. I have suggested that the criteria for mediation should be clarified, so that an RfC should not be a precondition to mediation when user conduct is involved, so that more disputes can be settled before mediation.

Can we please try to keep this talk page focused on specific RfC's and the RfC process? The issue of the wording is both too trivial and too inflammatory. Can we have a truce about the wording, and take discussion of past and current wrongs somewhere else? Can we try to talk either about specific RfCs, or about the process, or both? Robert McClenon 19:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to talk about improving the process, Robert, that's fine. My issue has been that you keep trying to turn my attempt to have the current instructions be accurate into a "lets change the process" conversation. That's not what I'm after here. And no, I wouldn't say I'm being systematically wronged, but SlimVirgin has opposed me on several unrelated pages since I filed my RfC against her in July: she opposed me here when I tried to clarify the instructions. She showed up on the Bensaccoutn RfC trying to claim it was a bad faith RfC. When I criticized her version of the RfC instructions because she used "although" in the same way the "words to avoid" article says to avoid "however", she attemted to change the "words to avoid" page to delete that entry. Then she's shown up on teh words to avoid article opposing my attept to add the phrase "conspiracy theory" to the list. She's already admitted previously that she monitors my contributions. And she's declared on my talk page that she can not assume any good faith of me. call it what you will. FuelWagon 20:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon says that he is trying to have the current instructions be "accurate". What does he want them to reflect accurately?  Since the instructions are not based on any official policy or guideline, any set of instructions would appear to be an accurate reflection of whatever is stated in the instructions.  The current instructions, or any other instructions, define a process, and processes should be subject to improvement.  The amount of verbiage being generated by a discussion of the instructions clearly, to my mind, is an indication that something needs to be improved.


 * FuelWagon says that SlimVirgin is monitoring his contributions. SlimVirgin says that FuelWagon is monitoring her contributions.  I think that they are both correct.  I will point out that monitoring another user's contributions is not necessarily wikistalking.  It may be an effort to defend the wiki against an editor who is viewed as disruptive.  Can we either drop the past or use dispute resolution to address it?  Robert McClenon 21:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're looking for evidence of Wikistalking, after SlimVirgin reverts an insertion by another editor FuelWagon shows up there for the very first time to revert her. On September 26 after SlimVirgin edits Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, FuelWagon show up there for the very first time, to revert her. He then goes to another item on SlimVirgin's most recent contribution list, Israel, and for the very first time starts editing there. Again, on September 30, he notes that SlimVirgin has edited Historical persecution by Jews, and shows up at there for the very first time and reverts her within minutes. He now claims he happens to have an interest in middle east politics, but this "interest" never actually manifested itself in any way before he decided to start following SlimVirgin around and reverting her. He also claims he is "widening his area of interests", but that "widening" appears to only extend to articles SlimVirgin edits. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Robert, if you're going to comment on this issue, and I wish you wouldn't, please inform yourself, and preferably it should be done on individual talk pages, not here. I do not check FW's contributions regularly at all (in fact, I think I've looked at them twice in the last two months), but there is ample evidence that he is not only checking mine (nothing wrong with that) but actually stalking me. There are other diffs besides the above. But this is not the page to discuss it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has a history that shows she's been monitoring me ever since our run in at the Terri Schiavo article:

12 minutes after I post something to my talk page, SlimVirgin notifies Ed

SlimVirgin admits she's been monitoring my contribs

I have a subdirectory under my talk page listing edit/admin behavioural problems with SlimVirgin and make a note of her deleting an entry from the "words to avoid" policy after I used that entry to criticize one of her edits. . Five hours later, she's aware of my edit on this subdirectory /

I withdraw certification on an RfC against Bensaccount and ask an admin to delete it. Less than an hour later, SLimVirgin attacks me claiming "this looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you". . Notice use of teh word "another". The only other RfC that I've filed was against her. And notice for the record that the Bensaccount RfC had been listed for over a week and SlimVirgin made no comment on it, nor was she involved in the article in dispute. She only jumped on it when she thought she could nail me for "another inappropriate RfC". She asked another admin to look at it and the other admin informed SlimVirgin that the RfC looked acceptable. No apology from SlimVirgin for the false accusation has been issued.

In any event, SlimVirgin has a history that shows that this isn't just two editors who happen to show up in the same place right after each other: she's reacted to posts to my talk page 12 minutes after I posted, she's reacted to posts to subdirectories of my talk page within a couple hours, she's jumped on an RfC when she thought she could nail me for an "inappropriate" RfC within an hour after I posted a request to delete it (and even though she had completely ignored the RfC for an entire week up to that point), and she has directly admitted to monitoring my contributions. In case anyone needs to "inform themselves", this ought to put things straight. FuelWagon 16:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Steps towards arbitration
I read somewhere on this page that "many RFCs are steps toward arbitration" was my wording, but I can't find the comment now, so I don't know who said it. I don't think this was my wording. I wrote: "An RfC may be the first step toward arbitration." Anyway, I think Sam wanted: "many arbitration cases begin with an RfC," so I've changed it to that. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Another reason why the filing of a user conduct RfC should not be taken lightly can be observed on the RfAr page. A user conduct Request for Comments was filed by several editors, alleging that its subject was a combative editor who engaged in personal attacks.  The RfC was then followed by an RfAr.  In his response, the allegedly combative editor against whom the RfAr was filed requests that the ArbCom accept the case and ban one of his critics (one of the filers of the RfC and RfAr).  I will not try to judge the evidence in that case.  The ArbCom will do that if (as appears probable) they accept the case.  However, his request to add one of the filers into the case as a subject is clearly within the authority of the ArbCom and has been done in the past.  The filing of a user conduct RfC should not be done lightly because it may be seen (by the ArbCom) as the prior discussion of abuses by the filers as well as the subject.  Robert McClenon 15:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * We do say on the page "The RfC may even backfire on you and turn into an RfC against you," which is more or less what you're getting at (I think), namely that, once filed, an RfC doesn't remain within the control of the filer. It may turn against the filer (for example, if there are more comments made against the filer than against the subject), and it may be used by anyone at any point in the future, including in an arbcom case. Hence the advice that filing one shouldn't be done lightly or in haste. I'm not entirely sure what you meant with your last sentence. If you meant that the arbcom would take it as evidence of attempts at prior dispute resolution by the filer and by the subject, then yes, that's correct, but perhaps you meant something else. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 15:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

History
I tried to research the history of Requests for Comments via the archive of the talk page. It is a useful but incomplete source of information, since the history of the article page has to be viewed from diffs, a lengthy procedure. I would appreciate any comments on the history of this process by any long-time Wikipedians who edited before 2004. However, it appears that a user conduct Request for Comments originally WAS a quasi-judicial process. It is true that it never was a precursor to a Request for Arbitration, because user conduct Requests for Comments preceded an Arbitration Committee. It appears that user conduct Requests for Comments were originally used as requests for Jimbo Wales to ban a disruptive user. If that conclusion on my part is incorrect, then someone who has been editing since 2003 can perhaps correct it.

Then Jimbo Wales established an Arbitration Committee to relieve him of the personal responsibility of banning disruptive editors. The user conduct Request for Comments procedure was left in place, and so was always intended to be used as a preliminary step to banning a user. It is true that Requests for Comments do not always go to arbitration, because most of them are (fortunately) resolved before that stage, and that Requests for Arbitration are not always preceded by user conduct Requests for Comments, because some are preceded by other forms of failed dispute resolution. However, if my reading of the history is correct, then any argument that the process is not intended to be punitive misreads history.

If my interpretation of the history is correct, then we should not waste our energy trying to make the instructions more "accurate" if we disregard content. The process WAS intended to be quasi-judicial and to have possible punitive results. FuelWagon's version of the instructions would disregard that historically based consensus. Either the instructions should be revised, as SlimVirgin argues, to reflect the "accuracy" of history, or the process should be changed, or both. Robert McClenon 15:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I wasn't around in 2004. The history you're describing appears to be saying that it used to be a user RfC went to Jimbo, and then Jimbo used that to decide if he should ban a user. Jimbo then offloaded that responsibility by creating the arbitration committee. If that's the case, then all you're left with is a history of the way things were (user RfC could get someone banned) to the way things are (arbcom can get someone banned). You can keep spinning it all you want, but there are no formal consequences to a user RfC. A user RfC cannot get someone banned. A user RfC cannot issue someone a block. A user RfC cannot even generate a "finding of facts", regardless of how many people endorse someone's comment. A user RfC cannot do anything but generate comments. So, here's the deal, Robert, you want to change policy. But there is no policy currently existing that says a user RfC has any outcome other than to generate comments from other users. That is a user RfC in its entirety. Now, I know you want to change policy, and I know you keep taking my point about having the instructions reflect current policy and turning it into a discussion about changing policy, but you can point to nothing that says a user RfC does anything punitive or even quasi-punitive. That is your personal mission that you keep bringing to this conversation. That a user RfC used to be an application to get Jimbo to ban someone doesn't reflect the current situation now. Now, arbcom requires you to submit all your evidence all over again (in a rather painful to create sequential format). There is no "finding of facts" in a user RfC that can be simply accepted as true by arbcom. If you filed a user RfC and submitted 10 diffs as examples of NPA violations, you have to resubmit them at arbcom in their evidence section. So, I'm going to ask you again to separate out my attempt to get the instructions to reflect current policy from your attempt to turn a user RfC into a "grand jury" process. Oh, and I know you keep objecting to the term "policy", but basically, it is based on the way arbcom currently does NOT require a user RfC to enter arbitration, the way that a user RfC does NOT generate any blocks, bans, finding of facts, or the like, and the way anything submitted to a user RfC must be resubmitted anew when using it as evidence before arbcom. The "policy" is based on the way things currently work. FuelWagon 16:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Use less words!
For the love of all that it holy, there are only so many black photons stored in my screen. Can you guys be concise, I just realized that the reason that I am not entering into this discussion if because of the wordfog on this page. brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c) 01:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)