Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Catholic Church

'''The RfC will be closed on April 9 at 23:59 UTC. This page is for any threaded discussion.'''

Structure
I've created a suggested structure here in case NancyHeise would like to use it for her RfC. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 16:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

New draft of proposed RFC wording
Two versions of the Catholic Church article have been proposed to serve as a basis for further article improvements. One version is shown here (show Uber's version) and the other is shown here (show Nancy's version). Please indicate which version you prefer and why. There is a clear understanding that both versions have flaws, and whichever version is proceeded with as the basis for improvement, nothing in that version should be regarded as established by consensus.

I have added an additional draft to be included in the RFC and proposed new wording in a section below see   Nancy Heise    talk  19:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

I strongly suggest we engage in no pinging of individual editors. Sunray and I can post to the village pump and relevant project pages. But if we notify one individual, we would have to notify everyone who was ever involved, and that makes no sense. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 17:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not asking to notify everyone who was ever involved. I want to notify those who have been involved in bringing the article to the last FAC and thereafter. I have solid reasons for wanting to do this. I was under the impression that I would be given the opportunity to incorporate the opposing FAC comments into the article and bring it back to FAC. However, the recent WP:IAR has disrupted this in violation of Wikipedia rules. There are other editors who have communicated with me about the article and are under the impression that it was going to go back to FAC with comments incorporated, not completely tossed out in favor of a new version that no one has vetted through either peer review or FAC or even by WP:consensus. Because of the violation of Wikipedia rules, we need to notify all those who were previously involved. It is not a violation of canvassing rules to notify these editors as long as we include all of them and don't pick and choose. I am willing to do the posting if you like. I am also willing to put the question up to arbcom as well.  Nancy Heise    talk  18:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You've been asked not to do the notifying, Nancy, and it's very important that you stick to that, because any perception of canvassing on your part would risk undermining the credibility of the RfC. Sunray and I (one or both) will do the notifying.


 * As for pinging individual editors, it would mean we'd have to contact everyone ever involved. There's no reason not to stick to the wikiprojects, village pump etc. News of it will then spread by editors checking each other's contribs. I think we'd see a lively enough RfC with all those projects notified, and if we don't we can have a rethink at that point. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 19:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not intend to ping without agreement on this page. I was offering to save you from work. I have already given my disapproval of just sticking to wikiprojects. I think it is unfair and insufficient notification. WP:canvassing allows for pinging of individual editors and I do not see any reason for not doing it.  Nancy Heise    talk  19:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will agree to forgo pinging everyone who has worked on it in the past two years if we can agree to ping those who voted in the last FAC and those editors who are listed on the talk page of the last FAC as having worked with me to bring it to that FAC. I'll get that diff for you in a minute.  Nancy Heise    talk  19:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Because I did not create it in a single diff apparently, this is the text copied from the last FAC page These are the editors who I think should receive notification of this RFC in order to be fair. "I would like to list for you the contributors and reviewers of this article that are known non-Catholics: - *user:Malleus Fatuorum - *user:Ceoil - *user:Michael Devore - *user:Storm Rider - *user:TSP - *user:Angr - *user:Garzo - *user:David Underdown - *User:Ling.Nut -

For comparison, these are the only known Catholics who have worked on the article: - *user:NancyHeise - *user:Xandar - *user:Tourskin - *User:Mike Searson -

Further comparison, significant editors and reviewers whose faith is unknown: - *user:Ealdgyth - *user:Karanacs - *user:Ottava Rima - *user:Soidi - *User:jbmurray NancyHeise talk 21:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)"  Nancy Heise    talk  19:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava's Catholic -- he's written columns on the subject for a local paper. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He's also banned I see so I guess it doesn't matter.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll bet that a significant number of the folks who will venture opinions on this RfC will be Catholic :) Sunray (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I consider myself Catholic although I am a non-practicing Catholic. Nonetheless, "once a Catholic, always a Catholic".  I consider myself Catholic until the Church throws me out or I declare myself out.  The Church considers me Catholic until they throw me out or I declare myself out.  Neither of those events has happened and so I am Catholic. --Richard S (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Richard's comments, Nancy also knows that as a baptised and confirmed member I call myself a lapsed Catholic atheist. Haldraper (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Who to notify
I suggest that Sunray or I post a note saying something like: "Requests for comment/Catholic Church has opened to decide which of two versions of the article has consensus, and how best to develop it. Input is welcome."

And that we post this to: Village pump (miscellaneous) (1,458 watchlists), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion (137 watchlists), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity (168 watchlists), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism (143 watchlists), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Religion (number of watchers not listed, meaning it's fewer than 30), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy (255 watchlists), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism (103 watchlists), and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History (125 watchlists). And any other general pages that interested parties might have watch-listed, such as Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates (921 watchlists), Wikipedia talk:Peer review (604 watchlists). SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 18:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that the notification will also appear on the article talk page, per WP:RFC. Sunray (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. Talk:Catholic Church is on 856 watchlists. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 18:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Odd. That's fewer than Buddhism. What do you deduce from that? Peter jackson (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just wondering why we would put it on Wikiproject Atheism  Nancy Heise    talk  19:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a wikiproject that may be interested in religion but that doesn't take a religious perspective. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 19:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Another page to notify: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Catholic Church straw poll (number of watchers not listed, meaning it's fewer than 30). SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 19:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Im OK with putting it on the straw poll page but not Atheism page. Why would you put it on Atheism. Why not Judaism and Islam as well? What specific quality does Atheism have that these others do not? I don't understand why we would single out Atheism, that is going to look really bad. I do not agree that is a good idea.  Nancy Heise    talk  19:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said above, it's a wikiproject that may have members who are interested in religion but who don't take a religious perspective, though it may have some who do. I have no objection if you also want us to inform the Judaism and Islam wikiprojects. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 19:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Atheism is a religion. It is a specific belief that states with certainty that there is no God. I think that we should do what the user in the next section has suggested regarding the bot. He/she seems to think they can alert anyone who has touched the article in the past two years by using this bot. I think that would be more in line with WP:canvassing policy that allows for specific types of canvassing. I think posting on Atheism or Judaism or Islam could possibly be viewed as a violation of WP:canvassing though so I do not recommend doing that.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As the RfC is now live, I'll post a note to the pages I listed above, except atheism for now, but if anyone disagrees with the decision to leave them out, please let me know. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 00:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's about time
I don't particularly have much interest in all of this, but I'd like to at least state that I commend all of you for finally getting started on this RFC. It's about time! — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 18:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We are having discussions about who to notify and how as well as opening wording. Otherwise we would have put it all up by now.  Nancy Heise    talk  19:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with that. If I could offer one suggestion, after briefly skimming over the above, it would be to keep it simple: Create a list of anyone who has ever touched either the article itself or it's talk page, and have a bot run around and post "An RFC has started concerning the Catholic Church article."
 * Trying to over-engineer this sort of thing only leads to trouble (as should be apparent already). — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 19:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am OK with that recommendation. Can you do this? Sunray and SlimVirgin are the admins overseeing the RFC so please get their OK before you do. Thanks.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

New proposed wording

 * Because a lot of editors have indicated that one version is too long and the other is too short, I have created a "medium" sized version to put up for consideration at the RFC as well. It is here User:NancyHeise/Catholic Church medium version. An analysis of the three versions is:
 * Short version Catholic Church 46KB 7500 words
 * Medium version User:NancyHeise/Catholic Church medium version 65KB 10500 words
 * Long version User:NancyHeise/Catholic Church 75KB 12000 words
 * I would like our proposed wording to include the option to choose this medium version as well as the long and short. The medium version was created by trimming the long version so I can vouch for the accuracy of the references and content.  Nancy Heise    talk  19:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

New Proposed wording Three versions of the Catholic Church article have been proposed to serve as a basis for further article improvements. short version, medium version, long version Please indicate which version you prefer and why. There is a clear understanding that all three versions have flaws, and whichever version is proceeded with as the basis for improvement, nothing in that version should be regarded as established by consensus.  Nancy Heise    talk  19:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ( 2 x ec) The thing to do now is for you to write a statement of the dispute, post it in this section, and sign it. You can write this yourself, or with Xandar, or you can both write separate statements. But it's you (you alone, or you and Xandar) who wants to initiate the RfC; therefore, you're the one who has to write up what the issues are. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 19:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok.  Nancy Heise    talk  19:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC page format
The current headers can be changed if people prefer. For example, you may prefer not to have a Response section, but just to let people add their own views. And people may want to change the "outside view" headers if they're involved. The headers aren't written in stone so free free to tweak them, so long as they stay neutral. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 20:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to improve the headers but they do seem to be a bit awkward.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My thinking was that you'd make your case in the "statement of the dispute" section; then the main opposing voice would post in the "response" section, then others would post in their own. But it's fine as it is too. Tweak your own header as you see fit, so long as it's neutral. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 00:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is it?
On 18 March, Nancy wrote: "Recently, a group of editors have decided to change the Catholic Church page significantly and held a one day straw poll that produced a mixed result with no clear consensus in favor of one version or the other.  In an effort to discover which version the wider Wikipedia community would like to see going forward on that page, several editors including myself have decided that a community wide 7 day straw poll or RFC is desirable.  ...  We do not want this poll to be a considered a dispute resolution, merely a fun, interesting new thing to do to generate interest in the article and participation by the wider community to move it forward." 

On 24 March, Nancy wrote: "Because many editors have expressed their disapproval of the current page including the vast amount of reference material that was cut without discussion, citation and content errors and omissions, we must have an RFC to either legitimize the current page or restore the previous one. That is the only question we need to ask. Any repondents who want to elaborate are welcome to do so. Any respondents who choose not to participate are also welcome. However, Wikipedia rules allow us to follow appropriate dispute resolution procedures and that includes RFC." 

So what exactly are we doing here? Is this RFC to be considered "dispute resolution", or "merely a fun, interesting new thing to do"? If the former, then what kind of authoritative weight will the verdict carry against editors (on either side of the dispute) who refuse to be bound by it? And if the latter, why are we wasting everyone's time with it? Can it really be the case that no one here has anything better to do?  Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 00:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Confusion reigns
The "short version" linked from the RFC page is not the "short version" linked from RFC talk.

The "medium version" linked from both pages is actually a page headlined "short version".

This is a recipe for disaster. What sense could possibly be made of any support expressed for the "short version" when that phrase could be taken to refer to any of three different pages?  Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 04:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem. It should be obvious that, page names nonwithstanding, the "short version" is what's linked as "short version" on the RfC page. Linking to a specific revision instead of the current article seems like a good idea to me, and the entire difference is two words. If you still see problems, you may just refer to your preferred version by number, or provide a link of your own... Huon (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In the context of the interminable conflict that spawned this RFC, the word "obvious" has no meaning; what is obvious to one side is not at all obvious to the other side, and vice versa. When a "medium version" is linked to a page that advertises itself as the "short version", while the genuine "short version" is something else entirely, a door is opened for the results of the RFC to be subjected to exactly the sort of endless wrangling and wikilawyering that brought things to this point in the first place.  The RFC is supposed to be about damping down the conflagration, not throwing gasoline on it.    Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 05:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The simplest remedy, if this is indeed perceived as a possible source of confusion (and no one actually seems to be confused), would be for NancyHeise to move the medium version to User:NancyHeise/Catholic Church medium version and to change the link accordingly. But is that really necessaary? I don't think so. Huon (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be the simplest remedy, and let's hope Nancy makes it. If she doesn't then we have a set-up for tendentious reinterpretation of the RFC results after the fact if things don't go the "right" way.  "A majority of people who responded to the RFC said they wanted the short version, but actually the medium version was also called the short version, so half the votes for the short version should be transferred to the medium version, which makes the medium version the winner."  And if you don't think anyone would make such an argument, I invite you to go back and read the 46 archived CC talk pages, where you will find numerous examples of arguments at least that ridiculous.    Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 14:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've moved Nancy's medium version to User:NancyHeise/Catholic Church medium version to make sure there's no confusion. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 15:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

order
Why was my resonse moved down to number three position when it was number one to begin with? What is the justification for this?  Nancy Heise    talk  20:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You were supposed to post your statement of the dispute, but instead you did that, but then also added a long view under your endorsement of the statement. Hesperian therefore moved that into your own section, by which time others had responded, so you ended up not being first. I've moved you back to first place but really the statement of the dispute should be claimed as yours, because it's your perspective. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 20:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, in case the above wasn't clear, the intention was that you would post everything you had to say under "statement of dispute," then whoever was assuming the mantle of the main opposition would post "response," so that the community would see the argument and counter-argument at the top of the page. That format wasn't followed, which is why one of your posts was moved. But it makes very little difference and seems okay as it is. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 20:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

to Civility Police: View by Harmakheru & NPA

 * OK, I have a smallish rant. Yes, it is a rant. But it's smallish, mild-ish, and could not even imaginably be directed at anyone or any group in particular. It is saying that the Wikipedia editing model can't solve this issue due to intractable problems of size, complexity & POV partisans on both sides. In contrast, the rant within the "View by Harmakheru" strikes me as a violation of WP:NPA. Someone call a civility cop..? &bull; Ling.Nut 05:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Asking "someone" to "call a civility cop" is itself a violation of WP:NPA, which states: "The appropriate response to inflammatory statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack."


 * See also WP:SPADE: "Being civil should not be confused with being friendly or courteous, let alone charitable or credulous."


 * And then there's WP:DUCK: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck."


 * Civility is a great idea when it works, but it shouldn't be a suicide pact. Two years of attempts to be civil with those who are themselves uncivil has resulted in the very gridlock and futility that your own rant so correctly complains of.  Even those who have in the past been most solicitous of Nancy's feelings have now come to the point of calling her RFC "garbage".  That alone ought to tell you something about where the real problem is.   Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 15:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * hey Harmakheru &mdash; I dunno if Nancy is right or wrong, and I don't care. To me it's obvious that you do not need to be involved in this forum. I'm not threatening you or anything stupid like that; I'm making a calm, objective observation. Here's the take home point: You are bitter. The only thing that you have to share here is your bitterness and emotional turmoil regarding this issue, but you are using a very large number of words to do so. The only thing your presence will add is opportunities for trouble, arguments and bad feelings... I see that you disagree with Nancy, you think she's a bad person, etc etc etc. Fine. No problem. Really. Everyone is entitled to their opinions about everyone and everything. But there are other folks in this forum who disagree with Nancy just as strongly as you do, but who are not bitter, or at least can keep themselves in check. I humbly suggest that you let those other people do all the talking. Sit back. Buy some popcorn. Watch the page. But don't poison it with emotional spouts that have little real content to add. So do your cause a favor and opt out of the discussion... because you are hurting it by spouting bitterness. Good luck! &bull; Ling.Nut 02:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I hazard a guess that the main reason Harmakheru is bitter is because WP:CIVIL is toothless when it comes to incivil actions like ignoring questions, refusing to listen to anything you don't want to hear, repeatedly claiming consensus on spurious grounds, denying consensus when it is quite clearly present, lawyering, filibustering, deliberately misconstruing others' comments, and sundry other deceptive practices that absolutely infuriate people who don't indulge in them; yet as soon as someone observes that these behaviours are present and problematic, WP:CIVIL suddenly grows some teeth. Hesperian 03:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) OK, you're flown your flag. "Let everyone know where I stand" is one item you can cross off your "To Do" list. So now contribute something.. you know... constructive. Good luck, again! &bull; Ling.Nut 03:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, you've flown your flag. "Rudely mock anyone frustrated into rudeness by rudeness." is one item you can cross off your "To Do" list. So now contribute something... you know... constructive. Hesperian 03:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Hesperian. That's it exactly (on both counts).


 * And Ling.Nut, before you get too high and mighty about my bad attitude, you should take note of the fact that I had already decided I needed some time off, and had even mentioned on my talk page that I would be taking a much-needed sabbatical from all this (and, indeed, might never return) ... when Nancy announced that she was moving forward with an RFC to try to force a reversion to the status quo ante. Until then, I was quite happy with the prospect of leaving matters in the capable hands of Uber and the others, confident that they would move forward and turn the CC article into the sort of NPOV scholarly piece that it ought to have been years ago.  If Nancy and Xandar had been willing to leave well enough alone, I would have been long gone by now.  But they weren't, and so neither am I.  Nobody is sorrier than I am at the way this thing has gone, because I really do have other things to do with my time, and I would prefer to be doing them instead of this.  But we don't always get what we want, do we?    Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 03:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent). Listen. Folks. I don't give a flying crap about Nancy. I don't give any... particular or special or individual crap about the RCC article. I have no horse in any race, I have no emotional investment on any side. I actually only came here to note that Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed when it comes to complex and controversial issues, and fundamentally incapable of resolving them (including this RCC issue) – and you folks are adding supporting evidence for that thesis each time you press "save." I only jumped in further because.. I don't care if Nancy is Hitler, a violation of NPA is a violation of NPA, no matter what. And you folks are violating it, motivated by excessive bitterness.. So if you do think she's Hitler, do the process a favor by opting out or at least calming down. That's all. I'm outta here. [Not that I have any hope you'll listen, or any hope anything will be accomplished here]. Good luck! &bull; Ling.Nut 03:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Before you go, Lingnut, do me a favour and go find the worst personal attack in #View by Harmakheru. Then compare and contrast it with the following comments: "the rant within the 'View by Harmakheru'", "You are bitter.", "opt out of the discussion because you are hurting it by spouting bitterness.", "So now contribute something.. you know... constructive.", "you folks are ... motivated by excessive bitterness". Maybe you might learn something about yourself. Good luck! Hesperian 03:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate Ling.Nut's comments here. If more admins took the time to check people on their incivility, we would probably not even be here and the page would have advanced long ago. My gripe is and has been that admins who have worked on the page for a long time, never checked anyone on their incivility and some encouraged it. It does not matter if you are just there to be a regular editor, you still have some responsibility that goes beyond just the regular editor in helping advance a page. Advancing a page does not mean you shut out opposing views and violate Wikipedia policies either.  Nancy Heise    talk  13:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Ling.Nut threaded discussion

 * 1) I could agree to be part of a group of editors to do this. I think that you are correct in noting that POV pushing is a big problem for this page. It took us 9 months in a mediation to be able to include article text that tells the Reader what is the actual name of the Church, the one it uses for itself and, according to all of the tertiary sources and scholarly sources that discuss the subject say it "claimed as its title" (their words).  Nancy Heise    talk  20:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that you are correct in noting that POV pushing is a big problem for this page. Priceless.Haldraper (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and yet folks still want to cling firmly to their belief that the results they accomplish here – if any, and that's a huge "if" – will last more than a month. Trying the same methods again and again and expecting a different outcome is a triumph over hope over vast tracts of bitter experience.&bull; Ling.Nut 01:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate?
Why are we still seeing this at WP Catholicism? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because Wikiprojects are where people gather to discuss articles related to that Wikiproject. That's why we have them.  Nancy Heise    talk  13:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Who is JPBHarris?
Some of you may have noticed a strange comment by "JPBHarris" at the end of the "View of Esoglou" section of the RFC. In this comment (a threaded response which by rights should have been put on this talk page, not on the RFC page itself), JPBHarris takes it upon itself to "out" Esoglou as a user formerly known as Lima. JPBHarris justifies this on the grounds that "Esoglou's identity does make a difference in that he is an old user i.e. in the sense that he has been involved in previous CC RfCs and was named in the one against Nancy. The clarification is so nobody is under the elusion that he is another new account that has suddenly popped up ..."

This is actually pretty funny, since JPBHarris also appears to be a new account but has its own history with the Catholic Church page ... specifically, a history of stalking and harassing people who are on the "wrong" side of the CC debates. In fact, judging from its contribution history, JPBHarris seems to be a single-purpose account whose sole reason for existence is to harass its enemies with accusations of sockpuppetry. This obsession with other people's alleged misbehavior is at best disingenuous, since JPBHarris has itself been formally warned for using at least one sock of its own. And despite its recent origin, the account has shown itself to be highly adept at the sort of wikilawyering that only a long-time editor would likely know how to do, which strongly suggests that it is itself some sort of puppet, of either the sock or the meat variety.

JPBHarris' first attack--made only three edits into its existence--was directed against me with an accusation that I was a sockpuppet of Lima. That accusation was quickly determined to be entirely without foundation but JPBHarris then went on to make similar accusations against others before, most recently, turning its guns on me again. It is now badgering me on my own talk page, demanding to know whether or not I am the same person as User:Kelvin_Case, whom I have never even heard of before. Without any prompting from me, Huon has very nicely intervened, pointing out that there is no overlap in the interests of myself and the other party, and suggesting to JPBHarris that it might be barking up the wrong tree, but this has only garnered a terse response from JPBHarris that there has been no mistake.

Well, how about this: If JPBHarris really believes that I am Kelvin_Case, or vice versa, or that both of us are the sockpuppets of some third party, then I invite it to file a formal complaint just as it did the first time around--and I will happily dance on its head when the results once again come back negative, as they inevitably will.

And if it's not willing to take that risk, then I invite it to get the hell off my talk page and stop bothering me.  Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 02:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, blocked indefinitely. If your only purpose in being on Wikipedia is to make speculative accusations of sockpuppetry against good-faith users, whilst socking yourself, then you're not wanted. Hesperian 02:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

View by Esoglou threaded discussion

 * For the record user:Esoglou is the new account for user:Lima/user:Soidi and his banned sockpuppet accounts: user:Platia user:Decahill User:Defteri JPBHarris (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC) a new account that in view of the abandonment of all previous accounts has been declared legitimate in spite of the wishes of JPBHarris, all of whose contributions to Wikipedia, if his/her denial of being a sockpuppet is true, have been devoted exclusively to the Lima problem! :)  Esoglou (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User Esoglou's identity does make a difference in that he is an old user i.e. in the sense that he has been involved in previous CC RfCs and was named in the one against Nancy. The clarification is so nobody is under the elusion that he is another new account that has suddenly popped up into the CC. He has history in this article. But it is welcome that he now acknowledges that user:Lima was a problem. Lets hope lessons have been learnt from previous mistakes. JPBHarris (talk)
 * I appreciate the fact that someone took the time to tell us who is Lima's new identity. It would ethical if editors would disclose their past identity when continuing to participate on pages they've worked on before. If Wikipedia does not have a rule requiring it, it should. Thanks.  Nancy Heise    talk  13:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

POV tag edit war on the CC Page
Another edit war has broken out on the main CC page, as part of which Nancy has added a "POV" tag to the head of the article. Since this is the page which is linked as the "short version" here on the RFC talk page, and since no similar tags have been added to the "medium" and "long" versions, this has the effect of biasing unsuspecting readers against the short version. So much for a fair and balanced evaluation of the alternatives! Her comments about all this on the ANI board are also instructive.  Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 17:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the most amazing example of hubris I've encountered yet on this article, and that says a lot ... I have altered my statement on the RFC to call for Nancy's three-month ban from the article and talk considering for the second time she has disrupted dispute resolution, exactly as happened in the straw poll with canvassing. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left messages for SlimVirgin and Sunray asking for advice on what, if anything, should be done. Karanacs (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, please, that the "short version" is actually an oldid to the article at the time the RFC started, so the tags added since then don't show up on the page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hadn't noticed that. That brings along another question, though - is anyone really suggesting that we're going to revert to that version even if it gains support?  Karanacs (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't expect so -- that just keeps people from judging the wrong "current" version if someone should come along and delete half of what's left. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true if you're comparing via the RFC page. Unfortunately, the link on this talk page is to the current version, not the old one, so anyone who compares via the talk page will get the current "short" version with whatever mangling may have been done to it on the fly.  This is not good.    Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 18:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted all the edits I've made (stupidly, but because I had some time) in the past few days so it's pretty much as it was when the RFC began. If necessary I can go through and revert any other edits (which would have been purely MoS edits) to bring it back as it was. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the POV tag at the top of the article, as I don't think its justification has been demonstrated. I've also suggested to Nancy that she tag specific passages in the body of the article that she considers non-neutral or needing citations. Are there any further concerns? Sunray (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggestion. How about having permanent POV tags on all articles even remotely related to politics or religion? Peter jackson (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Another talk page
Just noting here that Sunray and I have set up a public talk page for us to discuss how to proceed, rather than doing it by e-mail, as it's looking increasingly likely that this will go to ArbCom. You can see it at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Catholic Church/process. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 18:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Notifications
A concern has been raised that the notifications for this RfC have not been broad enough. It seems to me that the RfC was initiated before the notification process was completely settled. Thus, I would like to re-open that discussion.

Some of the suggestions regarding broadening the notifications were not fully discussed. One suggestion by SlimVirgin was to notify participants in the Catholic Church straw poll. I would have no problem doing this notification now, if others wish to do so. I also think we should set an end date for the RfC. How about April 9? Sunray (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that notifying people from the straw poll and setting an end date of April 9 both sound reasonable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, just to clarify, it is Nancy and Xandar who have complained about the notification, saying it wasn't broad enough. I don't recall suggesting that participants in the straw poll be notified&mdash;sorry, Sunray, that was either a misunderstanding or my memory has gone again, and the latter is entirely possible&mdash;though if everyone can agree on it, I'm fine with it too.


 * My position is that individual notifications ought to be avoided, but if we're going to do them, we should either notify everyone who's ever been involved in the article, or we need to secure agreement on whatever limited number is chosen. Normally this wouldn't be such an issue, but because concerns were raised before the RfC opened about canvassing, and given that Nancy has already been blocked for it, we should proceed with more caution than usual. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 20:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said before with the straw poll, if people really care about this article, they'll show up on their own without any reminders. And if they do not show up in the next few weeks, their commitment to the article is questionable, they likely don't know the issues at stake, and it's best if they don't participate at all.


 * My preference is to end the RFC immediately and to proceed to Arbcom. I predicted it would happen and it eventually did: this RFC has been tainted by scores of incidents and allegations&mdash;from a banned user accusing others of sockpuppetry (while being a sockpuppet no less) to the recent edit warring today, in which I, very sadly, participated. Also, per WP:SNOW, there is absolutely no way this RFC will produce any clear-cut result in favor of Nancy when nearly two dozen established editors are sternly opposing her version of the article...and now many of them are opposing her participation in the article period. I ask again: why are we putting the article through this misery and torture when nothing will come from it? End this RFC immediately and we can finally go where everyone knows we'll be eventually: Arbcom. No point in delaying the inevitable. When people have fundamentally irreconcilable views, that's where things end up. UBER  ( talk ) 20:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with SlimVirgin. I specifically asked, when the RFC was being discussed that voters in the past straw poll should be notified of the RFC. This was because a number of participants had left the page or refused to work on it since the UBER alterations, and would not see a notification posted on it or related fora. These people are interested parties to the discussion, as shown by their participation in the earlier straw poll, and they should be notified of this subsequent discussion. This is common and proper Wikipedia practice. I can see no legitimate reason for excluding these people from the RFC. Whether we should notify other long-term posters on the page is another decision.
 * Due to the RFC having been, as I see it, insufficiently publicised up until now, I would like to give it at least two clear weeks from the date when all notifications go out, so something like April 13th for a close seems fair.
 * I would also like to see the tiny notifications originally posted to Project pages enlarged somewhat, stressing the scale of the changes involved, as in the posts I added which were deleted.   Xan  dar   20:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I oppose individual notifications, and would hate to base any on the straw poll, since there were allegations of canvassing for that. Since wP:CANVASS allows for individual notifications of people who have been significant contributors, I did an analysis using. Above, Nancy had listed 18 users that she thought should be individually notified. Of those, 1 is banned and 8 have already commented at the RfC. Of those in the list who have not commented at the RfC, four have not edited the article or its talk page in over 15 months (since at least early October 2008) - Ceoil, Malleus Fatuorum, David Underdown, Garzo. Two have not edited the article or its talk page in at least 6 months (TSP, Angr). I couldn't find contributions for "Tourskin". That leaves Michael Devore, who edited the article and talk page as recently as March 15, and so is likely still watching, and Jbmurray (who last edited in late December 2009 and is still following the article and Nancy's talk page, to my knowledge). There are over 1000 editors/IPs who have edited the article, and many of those edits were vandalism, cleanup of vandalism, or edits from people who have since left WP. There's no reason to notify all of those people. If we truly want to notify recent significant contributors I would restrict to those who have been active on the article/talk in the last 6 months AND who are among the top 20 contributors to article or talk AND who are active on WP at the moment. That means we should notify only Eagle4000, and Michael Devore (although I suspect he is aware given his recent activity on the article and talk page). Karanacs (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of the top 20 participants on the article talk page (by edit count), 1 is banned and 15 have commented in some form on this RfC or the RfC talk page. The three who have not responded are TSP (who has a total of 6 edits to Wikipedia in 2010), Taam (whose has retired from WP per his user page), and Fishhead64 (who has a total of 5 edits to Wikipedia in 2010), who hasn't edited since July 2008.
 * Of the top 20 editors (by edit count) on the article itself, 1 is banned and 12 have already responded on the RfC or its talk page. Those who have not responded: TSP (last edited article Jul 2009), Malleus Fatuorum, Eagle4000 (last edited the article Oct 2009), and editors who have left Wikipedia: Lostcaesar (has not edited Wikipedia since April 2007), IrishGuy (last edited WP July 2008), and Vaquero100 (last edited WP Nov 2006).
 * Of those who commented in the straw poll, 1 is banned, 11 have commented at the RfC already, and 7 have not commented. History2007 and MoreThings are well aware of the RfC based on comments they've made at Nancy or Xandar's talk pages, and Marauder40 commented in the article talk page thread in which Nancy announced her intent to start an RfC - they should need no further notification.  That leaves Bonifacius, RelHistBuff, and benkenobi18.  None are regular contributors to the article page, so I suspect they can find this page in the same way that they found the straw poll - likely through the wikiproject talk pages. Karanacs (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that clarification, Karanacs. Sunray (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am one of the ones that would have benefited with a notification. Some of us are either a little slow or just plain busy with life to stay completely current with daily activity. Regardless, I am concerned about this specific article and making it the best it can be. At the same time, I am very tired about the "pot calling the kettle black". I really don't have the time to put up with a high degree of petty complaints, who did whats, and so on.

IMHO, I am not really too concerned about article length. The real objective is the topic covered well so that readers get as much information as possible in as concise a manner as possible. Some articles demand a longer article. Further, I am not concerned about load times for readers. If they're interested, they will wait and hopefully find the article informative. Further, the complaint about having too many references is just plain silly. The reason we add references to every sentence in controversial articles is to stop the petty bickering, opinions, etc. To say that when multiple references are added to sentences is a sign of POV issues is just plain silliness and a lack of understanding of controversial articles. Just my two cents. -- Storm  Rider  21:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * StormRider, you offer some useful observations, IMO. Too much energy seems to be expended in disputes at the moment. If we could only direct this energy towards article improvements, it would be a great benefit to Wikipedia. Sunray (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Various editors have expressed concern about bias in notifications. Oms Law suggested using a bot. We could have the bot notify all registered users who have edited the article in the past six months. Sunray (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion
Another suggestion is that either Sunray or I (or a bot) make sure the top 20 non-banned contributors to both the article and its talk page have been notified, so long as they've contributed to one of those pages in the last two years i.e. since March 2008? That would be (including people who've already posted to the RfC):


 * Article (1-20)
 * 1) NancyHeise
 * 2) Xandar
 * 3) Lima Esoglou
 * 4) Haldraper
 * 5) Richardshusr
 * 6) Karanacs
 * 7) Gimmetrow
 * 8) Mike Searson
 * TSP
 * 1) UberCryxic
 * 2) SandyGeorgia
 * 3) Malleus Fatuorum
 * 4) Eagle4000
 * 5) Afterwriting
 * 6) Pmanderson
 * 7) Anietor
 * 8) Antique Rose
 * 9) Lacrimosus
 * 10) Wassupwestcoast
 * 11) Michael Devore


 * Talk page (1-20)
 * 1) NancyHeise
 * 2) Xandar
 * 3) Richardshusr
 * 4) Pmanderson
 * 5) Karanacs
 * 6) Johnbod
 * 7) Haldraper
 * TSP
 * Soidi
 * 1) Gimmetrow
 * 2) Lima Esoglou
 * 3) UberCryxic
 * 4) SandyGeorgia
 * 5) Taam
 * 6) History2007
 * 7) Storm Rider
 * 8) Mike Searson
 * 9) Harmakheru
 * 10) Fishhead64
 * 11) Andrew c
 * 12) Peter jackson

SlimVirgin talk  contribs 21:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm fine with this proposal since it's a reasonable compromise. UBER  ( talk ) 21:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that Lima (and Soidi, a name taken in the hope that interventions in that name would not, like Lime, provoke an immediate angry reaction from a certain editor) now goes by the name "Esoglou". Esoglou (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed. :) SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 22:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would extend that downwards. Most of these have either spoken here or left the wiki, and you only get down to people with 85 article edits, or 121 talk page edits, which is a lot - far more than most articles have for their main editors. Most of the departed that Karanacs & SG are always invoking have not been reached, nor the "Nancy rent-a-mob" they are always complaining about (irregular nouns, I guess).  I'd take it down to say 40 edits on either page.  Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're going that far, then you might as well also ping all the people who opposed the various FACs and vowed to never come back ... there's the problem ... once we start pinging people in, where does it stop? And ... isn't the outcome already clear anyway, and isn't the RFC only stalling work on the article?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Top 40 non-banned, non-bot editors on the article and talk pages, who have edited those pages since March 2008, would be the above, plus:


 * Article (21-40)
 * 1) Randomblue
 * 2) Andrew c
 * 3) Truthkeeper88
 * 4) The.helping.people.tick
 * 5) Ling.Nut
 * 6) Johnbod
 * 7) Marek69
 * 8) Baccyak4H
 * 9) Leadwind
 * 10) Ptolemy Caesarion
 * 11) Ceoil
 * 12) Nautical Mongoose
 * 13) WikiCats
 * 14) Marauder40
 * 15) David Underdown
 * 16) Phenylalanine
 * 17) Carlaude
 * 18) Farsight001
 * 19) EastmeetsWest
 * 20) Gentgeen


 * Talk (21-40)
 * 1) Wassupwestcoast
 * 2) Marauder40
 * 3) Majoreditor
 * 4) Sayerslle
 * 5) Defteri
 * 6) Str1977
 * 7) WikiCats
 * 8) Afterwriting
 * 9) Anietor
 * 10) Carlaude
 * 11) Gabr-el
 * 12) Hesperian
 * 13) Kraftlos
 * 14) Farsight001
 * 15) Baccyak4H
 * 16) Leadwind
 * 17) Jbmurray
 * 18) The.helping.people.tick
 * 19) Tom harrison
 * 20) Ling.Nut

SlimVirgin talk  contribs 23:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've informed the top 40 who've edited the article as listed above, except for the ones who've already commented on the RfC. I asked Sunray if he'd post to the top 40 talk page posters. Hopefully once that's done people will agree that enough editors have been notified. We should then agree on a date to close the RfC. The normal thing is to leave them open for 30 days, but we could decide on two weeks if there are no objections. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Two weeks is fine by me. UBER  ( talk ) 01:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Given how stressful it seems to be, two weeks would make sense. That would see it close on April 9, and I'd suggest at midnight. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 01:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good plan. Again, if some of these people have not responded within two weeks, their level of concern about the article is in doubt and their participation at RFC is not essential. UBER  ( talk ) 01:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Notifications completed. Sunray (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Further suggestion
If there are any FAC reviewers from the four (five) FACs who have not been notified, they should be. --Richard S (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard, if you want to draw up a list of people who aren't in the lists in the Suggestion section, we can take a look. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 06:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, sorry, I'm too busy this week to put that much work into this and I only made the suggestion to forestall the possibility that Xandar and NancyHeise would use the discredited "consensus of FAC reviewers" argument in the future. It has been argued by NancyHeise that there were 24 FAC reviewers who supported the last revision submitted to FAC, I would like to hear what their thoughts are on the length question.  I would urge NancyHeise to compose a list of the FAC reviewers and compare it against the above list to see if anyone has been left out. --Richard S (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will get back through the FACs later today and leave a list here of who is missing from the above list. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification lists
I put the above lists into a spreadsheet and sorted them: it is my understanding that this is the list of editors notified so far (except I wasn't notified?) ... is this correct?


 * 1) Afterwriting
 * 2) Andrew c
 * 3) Anietor
 * 4) Antique Rose
 * 5) Baccyak4H
 * 6) Carlaude
 * 7) Ceoil
 * 8) David Underdown
 * 9) Defteri
 * 10) Eagle4000
 * 11) EastmeetsWest
 * 12) Farsight001
 * 13) Fishhead64
 * 14) Gabr-el
 * 15) Gentgeen
 * 16) Gimmetrow
 * 17) Haldraper
 * 18) Harmakheru
 * 19) Hesperian
 * 20) History2007
 * 21) Jbmurray
 * 22) Johnbod
 * 23) Karanacs
 * 24) Kraftlos
 * 25) Lacrimosus
 * 26) Leadwind
 * 27) Lima, Soidi now Esoglou
 * 28) Ling.Nut
 * 29) Majoreditor
 * 30) Malleus Fatuorum
 * 31) Marauder40
 * 32) Marek69
 * 33) Michael Devore
 * 34) Mike Searson
 * 35) NancyHeise
 * 36) Nautical Mongoose
 * 37) Peter jackson
 * 38) Phenylalanine
 * 39) Pmanderson
 * 40) Ptolemy Caesarion
 * 41) Randomblue
 * 42) Richardshusr
 * 43) SandyGeorgia
 * 44) Sayerslle
 * 45) Storm Rider
 * 46) Str1977
 * 47) Taam
 * 48) The.helping.people.tick
 * 49) Tom harrison
 * 50) Truthkeeper88
 * TSP
 * 1) UberCryxic
 * 2) Wassupwestcoast
 * 3) WikiCats
 * 4) Xandar

I will next compare this list to the FACs. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Editors from FACs three thru five who have not been notified: please note that this list includes a significant number of experienced, neutral FA reviewers who opposed the article at FAC, as well as a number of supporters. Does anyone feel it is necessary or helpful to go as far back as the first and second FACs? I suggest they are quite outdated ... but will do if wanted. Please note that the 340 members of WikiProject Catholicism have already been notified via WP talk Catholic, many of the supporting editors self-identify as devout Catholics, and many of the supporting editors are from that membership list (as are some of the opposing editors).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) AdjustShift
 * 2) Andrea 93 (self-identified as Italian teen with limited command of English)
 * 3) Angr
 * 4) Awadewit
 * 5) Bmrbarre (see contribs, returned to Wiki to comment on FAC after months' absence)
 * Caulde (subsequently blocked for abusing multiple accounts)
 * 1) Dincher
 * 2) Domiy
 * 3) Durova
 * 4) Dweller
 * Ealdgyth (already commented on RFC)
 * 1) Felipe C.S
 * 2) Filll
 * 3) Gary King
 * Geometry guy (already commented on RfC)
 * 1) Grahame
 * 2) Hurricanehink
 * 3) Intothewoods29
 * 4) Indopug
 * 5) Ioannes Pragensis
 * 6) Judgesurreal777 (self identifies Catholic)
 * 7) Kensplanet
 * 8) John Carter
 * 9) Laser brain
 * 10) Lwnf360 (self identifies devout Catholic)
 * 11) Magnetawan (self identifies Catholic)
 * 12) Marskell
 * 13) Masterpiece2000
 * 14) Mitchazenia
 * 15) Neil
 * 16) Nousernamesleft
 * 17) Orderinchaos
 * Ottava Rima (COI, now banned for one year)
 * 1) Relata refero
 * 2) RelHistBuff
 * 3) Rocksanddirt
 * 4) Rreagan007
 * 5) Savidan
 * 6) Sephiroth BCR
 * 7) Squash Racket
 * 8) SummerWithMorons
 * 9) Tempshill
 * 10) Tony1
 * 11) Tuf-Kat
 * 12) Vassyana
 * Vb
 * 1) Wackymacs
 * 2) Wafulz

I'm stii concerned that some recent voters on this issue aren't on the ping list, while some people who haven't shown an interest for years are. Can we add any voters in UBER's poll who aren't on this list to it?  Xan  dar  19:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerns

 * My worry is that notification is spreading ever outwards. We've notified several relevant wikiprojects, village pump, the FAC talk page, peer review, the philosophy and religion RfC list, another manual RfC list page, an AN/I page, and the top 40 contributors to the article and talk. Bear in mind that if people don't comment it could be because they don't want to, not because they don't know about it. And the problem with the straw poll is that several editors feel it was compromised, which is in part what started this latest set of issues.


 * Perhaps people could draw up a modest list of editors who've been involved in this issue (whether from the straw poll or the FACs), who it's felt might have something of substance to add, and who it's believed may not know the RfC is taking place. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 19:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to insist that everyone who voted on UBER's straw poll be notified. We've seen people who've shown no interest in the article in years on SVs list, but not those who expressed an opinion on this very issue a few days ago. That's not on. SVs assumption that "most of those who need to know already know" is completely unsupported. As I said, many people who voted earlier have been driven off the page, or said they're not prepared to work on the version in place. (PMAnderson's statement that some of the voters are editors, "who show up, vote, and revert-war when summoned - but are otherwise unconcerned with the article." is typical of his outrageous comments and constant personal attacks and failure to assume good faith that have plagued discussion on the article. If we're casting aspertions, I would think some of the people who have never shown an interest in the article until now, and are showing up to vote would be better looked at in that respect.) Anyway the notification of all voters in the last poll would not add many names to the list - so I can see no good reason for not doing so.   Xan  dar   20:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please post a list here of people who took part in the straw poll and who haven't already commented or been notified. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 20:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate these efforts to notify all people who have been involved in the article's evolution over the past two years. I think it is the most fair way to find out which version of the article is preferred as a basis for further improvements. Thank you for taking the time and effort to be fair.  Nancy Heise    talk  13:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I only partly agree with SlimVirgin's concern about the notifications spreading "ever outward". I think we are reaching the point where we have notified enough people via article talk pages, project pages, etc. and by pinging them directly if they have been involved in UberCryxic's strawpoll, the FAC discussions, etc.  40 people have weighed in.  Contrary to my expectation that there would be "no consensus", what seems clear is that there is no overwhelming support for the longer versions nor even substantial support (which I would characterize as at least 15-20 !votes out of 40).  Do Nancy and Xandar think we have notified enough people or is that elusive "existing consensus" hiding somewhere else in Wikiland that we have not thought of yet? --Richard S (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Have we notified the FAC reviewers? Do Nancy and Xandar think we have notified enough people? Is there any reason to question that this RFC represents the consensus of the interested members of the Wikipedia community? A lot of time and energy has been spent on this RFC. I would like to have the results be as meaningful and useful as possible. Let us not wikilawyer after the fact about people not being notified. --Richard S (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have all the voters in UBER's straw poll been notified? I believe that is very important, since some have left the page. Secondly, I'm concerned that the notifications on the Project Catholicism and ProjectChristianity page have not been nearly prominent enough - as evidenced by the very few people coming from those projects to comment here as compared with the FAC-page set.  Xan  dar   20:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please also see NEW SECTION Important Omission below. It seems that the RFC STILL hasn't been properly notified to the WP community.  Xan  dar   21:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors opining on RFC
From a contribs spreadsheet, as of March 31: I will update this prior to RFC closing. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) 	Afterwriting
 * 2) 	Aiken drum
 * 3)       BirgitteSB
 * 4) 	Carlaude
 * 5) 	Dana boomer
 * 6) 	Ealdgyth
 * 7)       EastmeetsWest
 * 8) 	Esoglou
 * 9) 	Geometry guy
 * 10) 	Gimmetrow
 * 11) 	Haldraper
 * 12) 	Hamiltonstone
 * 13) 	Harej
 * 14) 	Harmakheru
 * 15) 	Hesperian
 * 16) 	History2007
 * 17) 	Huon
 * 18) 	Jbmurray
 * 19) 	Johnbod
 * 20) 	JzG
 * 21) 	Karanacs
 * 22) 	Kraftlos
 * 23)       Leadwind
 * 24) 	Ling.Nut
 * 25) 	Majoreditor
 * 26)       Marauder40
 * 27) 	Mike Searson
 * 28) 	MoreThings
 * 29) 	NancyHeise
 * 30) 	OlEnglish
 * 31) 	Peter jackson
 * 32) 	Pmanderson
 * 33) 	Richardshusr
 * 34) 	SandyGeorgia
 * 35) 	SarekOfVulcan
 * 36) 	Sayerslle
 * 37) 	Stephen B Streater
 * 38) 	Storm Rider
 * 39) 	Student7
 * 40) 	Tony Fox
 * 41) 	Truthkeeper88
 * 42) 	UberCryxic
 * 43) 	Vercingetorix08
 * 44) 	Xandar

Closing date/time of RfC
SlimVirgin has proposed that the RfC be closed on April 9 at midnight UTC. Anyone have any concerns about this? Sunray (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's best if you make that determination. If you put it up for discussion in this manner, the discussion will just go on and on. UBER  ( talk ) 05:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I think we have to have two clear weeks after the notifications go out. RFC standard duration is 1 month. So that seems fair.  Xan  dar   19:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What date are you suggesting, Xandar, just to be clear? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 19:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How about the earlier of: a) I month after starting (26 April is that?), or b) when no one has posted for a week. Johnbod (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like your second idea. I wonder if 26 April is too long. I know that I'm flagging just as an admin having to deal with it&mdash;not that that should decide anything in itself, but I think others feel this is quite stressful too. Could we split the difference? Close it on April 16, which would be three weeks after it opened, or one week after the last endorsement or statement to the RfC itself (not the talk page), whichever is the sooner? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 22:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to choose a date to close this and post it at the top of the RfC, so that people can't later say they didn't realize it was closing. I therefore need feedback. My preference is to announce that it's closing on April 9 at midnight. Second preference April 16 or one week after the last endorsement or statement, whichever is the sooner. Do people have a preference? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 17:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find different preferences depending on how people view this debate. That's why it's better if you're the one who makes the determination. You could also open a straw poll or something, but that would introduce more bureaucratic trauma (how long should the straw poll last? Who should be invited to the straw poll?). I say just let us know what you decide. UBER  ( talk ) 20:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Second that -- your call, SV. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think it's your call, Slim: you put out an appeal for help from more admins, and got no response, your adminning here has been exemplary, and yet, it seems that no matter what you do, you will be criticized by some ... so that's a done deal anyway, may as well jump off that cliff! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the kind words, which mean a lot. And yes, you're right, I'm bound to get it wrong so I'm going to plump for the shorter term, April 9 midnight UTC, which means less time for me to make mistakes. If anyone strongly objects please do so very soon. :) SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I object to undue haste in closing the RFC, when this was a problem of the earlier poll. A month is the standard time for an RFC, since most people aren't on the site 24/7 like quite a few here. There is also the problem of late or poor notification and advertising of the RFC. As I have said we needed at least 14 days from completion of notifications - especially over the holiday period.  Xan  dar   21:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the notifications were completed on or around March 26 when the RfC opened, and it isn't fair to editors or the article to keep it open too long. The bot removes article RfCs after 30 days, but that doesn't mean we're forced to keep them open that long. If people are still arriving to add their views as we approach April 9, we can always rethink the situation. But for now, we should aim to close on that date. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 21:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's use commonsense. If the recent notifications still seem be to be generating significant new input eight days from now, it might be worth keeping the RFC open longer. If, however, the rate of new input is not significant, then we may as well close it on the date proposed by SlimVirgin. We needn't be arbitrarily strict about closing off debate. However, if the experience of the past few days is any evidence, then I wouldn't expect much response more than a few days after the last notification (i.e. most people who care will respond in a few days). You might get one or two late stragglers coming in two weeks after the notification but, in truth, such input is unlikely to shift the consensus opinion much. --Richard S (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that we have not notified all of the experienced neutral FA reviewers who opposed this article at FAC, so the skewing of the notifications to those in support of previous versions-- that have affected all past dispute resolution on this article including the mediation-- is still present. Other than that, I can only strongly disagree with most of what Xandar has written recently on this page, including his bad faith assumptions, continued attacks on Karanacs and me as FAC delegates, and unfounded allegations about participants in the FAC process.  I also note that he still hasn't answered Slim's request or questions about all of these editors who were chased off, while I have put up a list, which he simply discounted with the same ole logic.  We see these FAC cabalism charges quite regularly from Nancy and Xandar, and it is what caused me to take off the "FAC delegate hat" and get involved here-- I am tired of seeing the article stalled while good faith editors, who know how to write neutral encyclopedic properly sourced articles and understand Wiki policies, are attacked.  And we have not notified experienced editors who had problems with the article at FAC-- I'm not saying we must, just noting that for the record.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia wrote "we have not notified experienced editors who had problems with the article at FAC". I think we should notify all editors who voted on the article at FAC. Either all reviewers of the four (five) FACs or, if that is too much work, then just at the last FAC. If I remember correctly, the !vote at the last FAC was 24 support, 9 oppose. IMO, it is crucial that these FAC reviewers be pinged as the existence of 24 supports has illegitimately been used as evidence of an "existing consensus" for the previous version of the article. If they the vast majority of the 24 supporters were to suddenly express an opinion here that they support the previous version of the article as the basis for going forward, commonsense would suggest that there is "no consensus" for the question posed by the RFC and that we need to figure a way to resolve the issue. If, on the other hand, no such overwhelming support shows up, then we will have closed the door on that line of argument. Either way, we need to be willing to know what those FAC reviewers think about the current dispute. --Richard S (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No threaded discussions on RFCs
MoreThings has created a threaded discussion on the RFC; I fixed the formatting once, but s/he reverted. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 11:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed my comment per Sandy's advice. If it was inappropriate to post in that format, I apologise. If it wasn't, I'd appreciate it if somebody would let me know, and I'll reinstate it. --MoreThings (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Where this is all going
There have been various comments that suggest that this dispute is bound for ArbCom. While that may be necessary, I doubt that it is desirable. Most of what is being discussed here seems to me to be content-related. Because views are strongly held, there are accusations of POV-pushing, etc. While there may have been some violations of policy, I doubt that these have been egregious enough to make for much of an arbitration case.

If the various editors could agree to work together in a facilitated discussion, the strongly held views could serve to create a better (perhaps more balanced) article (as has happened with many WP articles). This suggests that mediation might be a possibility. Further, it seems to me that an active mediation on the article talk page to assist editors in collaborating would be in order. I would thus suggest that MedCab might be the way to go. The main discussion could proceed on the article talk page, addressing specific article-related issues there. If things bogged down, a subpage could be opened to deal with side issues. What do you think? Sunray (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I can't see mediation working. First, there has been one already and it left people (rightly or wrongly) not trusting the process. Secondly, I think there are people who wouldn't sign up for it for that reason. Third, there are some behavioral issues that only ArbCom could deal with. It's up to others, of course. I would never try to stand in the way of mediation if everyone wanted it, but I don't see it as realistic at this point. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 22:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Two of the 18 participants were unhappy with the outcome of the last mediation. Most of the concerns raised following the mediation had to do with the consultation process, rather than the mediation itself. It was a difficult process, but consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Although the mediation was challenged by one of the participants, it was determined to be successful (this has been confirmed by review of two independent mediators).


 * I am proposing a very different approach. My suggestion is that we do an informal mediation via MedCab . It would involve facilitating the discussion on the article talk page. We wouldn't want to go this route unless there was strong support of participants to try it. It is a low-risk strategy and could be discontinued at any point. Sunray (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to propose it to the others, that's fine. I wouldn't want to be involved in it, because I don't see myself as a mediator here, but just as an admin. I also think we should finish the RfC first. Of more immediate importance is who we notify about the RfC, assuming we want to notify anyone else. Options: (a) tell no one else; (b) tell everyone who ever edited the article or talk page (requires bot help); tell the first 20 or 40 (see the suggestion section on the RfC talk page). What are your thoughts? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 23:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been appealled to ArbCom, and they turned it down; that's what brought Tom Harrison in. We can certainly bring MedCab in, although I do not see what a Cabalist will do that Tom did not. (As far as I am concerned, MedCom is unacceptable; I will not participate in any process with Nancy where my words are not on the record.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So perhaps a facilitated discussion on the talk page then? Sunray (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I hold out no hope that any formal mediation would produce anything beyond a year's worth of delay. I think the talk page is vitriolic enough that neutral parties (more than one!) would be welcome to help us stay on track, but like PMAnderson, I question whether eneed anything formalized; a few admins or other neutral parties who had the time to stay on top of the discussion may be the best we can hope for.   Karanacs (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm talking about. Sunray (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I advocated mediation before all of this latest ruckus started. However Karanacs and co rejected it. I believe that shows that a deplorable lack of interest in the principles of Wikipedia or the benefit of the article. I proposed a mediated discussion, so we can focus on the ISSUES and CONTENT - and not, as certain people seem to want, the personalities. I actually believe the real issues in dispute are less intractable than the naming issue that was resolved by the last successful mediation. However article issues have got so bound up in factionalism now that we find one faction supporting the ripping out of core and uncontroversial material on beliefs, practices and organisation. Continued opposition to some form of mediation would, I feel, indicate a serious falling away by those concerned, from Wikipedia's core process.  Xan  dar   19:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bingo! I've been waiting for Xandar to start to characterise the very large number of people who disagree with him as a "faction". Xandar + Nancy = 2 + silent majority. A million in opposition = 1 faction, or 1 opponent with 999999 mindless political supporters. Thusly, Xandar claims the numbers. It happens every time, without fail. Hesperian 23:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding a link to the "factions" at the time of Xandar's post (it is this sort of statement from Xandar that led me to believe a break from the article so that work can get underway is in order). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've moved the above from the talk page I set up for Sunray and myself to use instead of email. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 20:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Xandar that the content issues are not nearly as intractable as the one in the mediation and, frankly, the one in the mediation wasn't that intractable.

Unless something really dramatic changes (like all 24 FAC reviewers descending and unanimously supporting one of NancyHeise's versions), this RFC is either going to wind up as supporting the current, shorter version as a starting point or (maybe, just maybe) "no consensus". Right now, the !vote looks something like 15-4 with only two or three of the four being solidly for the longer versions.

If things continue along these lines, we will have a pretty solid consensus for the shorter version which I would hope Xandar and NancyHeise would then help improve. If the various editors of this page would take to heart what has been written so far in this RFC, we wouldn't need mediation.

However, if they aren't able to adopt a more collegial and collaborative interaction style, I believe that informal mediation could help us work through the various issues. --Richard S (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Process for making progress from here
What I think we desperately need is someone to help enforce a discipline of working through one or two issues at a time before jumping to another one. More than one editor has expressed frustration that we talk about lots of issues without ever reaching closure on any of them. At one point, we had started an "Inbox" but it didn't seem to help.

While waiting for this RFC to conclude, I decided to go back and fleshout something that Karanacs and I had worked on for a bit, namely Talk:Catholic Church/Unresolved issues. The preamble to this page is a bit outdated but the point here is to identify the various issues that were being disputed and provided links to past discussions which have since been archived. My theory is that we ought to read what has been said already before sacrificing more innocent bytes in the name of pushing our personal POVs. I'm not sure what direction to take with this page. I think I wanted to have a fairly neutral summary of the issue and eventually document whatever decision was made so that newcomers could read the rationale behind various decisions regarding the specific wording of the article text.

--Richard S (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If Nancy thinks the RFC has the legitimacy she originally assigned to it, then she should abide by what will likely be the overwhelming consensus for working on the current version. UBER  ( talk ) 00:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One can hope that both Nancy and Xandar would abide by the results of the RFC. I think we have bent over backwards to contact editors who have been involved in any significant way with this article.

I'm starting to wonder whether what we need is not so much a "mediator" as a "moderator". We need someone who will control the flow of discourse and debate so that we stay focused on an issue until it is resolved. Perhaps this moderator could take one issue at a time and invite all interested parties to discuss it on a separate page, bringing the negotiated result back here for comment and "consultation" before inserting it into the article text. --Richard S (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that Richard's suggestion above for a "one idea at a time" approach has some positive potential. Afterwriting (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The page which was formerly at Talk:Catholic Church/Unresolved issues has now been moved to Catholic Church/Unresolved issues which transcludes two subpages:
 * Catholic Church/Cultural Influence
 * Catholic Church/History - Nazism and Fascism

My goal, for now, is to assemble resources that will help us discuss various open issues. These pages collect sources, relevant Wikipedia articles and recent discussions (going back to about Archive 38). My hope is that we will use these resources to focus on actually getting a consensus-backed resolution to these open issues (any consensus should include Xandar and NancyHeise but I am hoping that they will stop obstructing progress by insisting on their POV and adopt an attitude more conducive to compromixe and consensus formation).

--Richard S (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note after the fact: All of these moves were reverted or moved to a page that starts with "Talk:Catholic Church/" since Catholic Church doesn't exist, making any title that begins with "Wikipedia:Catholic Church/" eligible for speedy deletion per db-subpage (criterion G8.) Steel1943  (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The aforementioned pages can be found at the following titles:
 * Talk:Catholic Church/Unresolved issues
 * Talk:Catholic Church/Cultural Influence
 * Talk:Catholic Church/History - Nazism and Fascism
 * – Steel1943  (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Former mediation
Sunray - the mediation was a failure because, among other reasons, post-mediation, the mediator 1a) entered into the conflict in support of one faction and in direct opposition to requirements of Wikipedia policy (specifically, verifiability), and 1b) refused to clarify at what point the mediator ceased to be a mediator, implicitly invoking mediator status outside mediation. Since the post-mediation actions of the mediator constitute prima facie evidence of mediation bias, the mediation is compromised, and that doesn't even include the in-mediation issues. That the mediator ceased involvement with the article was taken as a form of resolution, but if the mediator continues to be involved - especially in a mediation role - then the mediator's past is relevant. Gimmetrow 05:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am in sympathy with Gimmetrow's concerns about the last mediation as there did appear to be times in the mediation when the mediator revealed a personal bias and was unable to either properly understand or appreciate the arguments in an adequately neutral manner - and also even seemed to allow himself at times to be charmed and subtlely manipulated by one particular editor. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt but there is still a lingering concern that the last mediation was compromised as Gimmetrow believes. Afterwriting (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sunray, I am in favor of mediation. I disagree with Gimmetrow's comments above. After the mediation agreement on the name was reached, Gimmetrow and another editor decided to dispute it even though they were in a serious minority. The only way the article was able to move forward was through the mediation. I think that this same situation exists on the page again. The plain evidence of POV errors and factual errors I have listed on the article's talk page clearly show the extent of the problem and a need for mediation.  Nancy Heise    talk  14:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nancy, please stop misrepresenting what happened at the mediation. I also find it ironic that you and Xandar spent months arguing against all tagging of factual errors in the article. Gimmetrow 16:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no need to debate whether the mediation met, or did not meet each individual's expectations. The mediation achieved consensus and was closed as successful. There were questions raised during the subsequent consultation about the mediator's role (my role) in the consultation. All I did was present the consensus arrived at in the mediation. Some people were not happy with that. Most accepted it. It is over. Let's move on. Sunray (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many issues here. One is that you are not uninvolved, and you were asked by another editor not to get involved. You should withdraw, and if you do not withdraw voluntarily when directly asked to do so by one - now two - editors, then be prepared. A second issue is that the mediation is regularly invoked in misleading and false ways. You claim the mediation "achieved consensus"; that mediation suffered from a canvassing problem similar to what has plagued this article for two years. If you do not see that - for whatever reason - then that is another reason you should not be involved now. Gimmetrow 16:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what happened at the last mediation and I don't care. It doesn't help anyone to relitigate the past. I'm very certain, however, that another mediation is likely to be a complete waste of time, much like this RFC. Incidentally, the RFC is delivering a clear message to those who support the old version of the article. The question is whether they'll heed that warning or plow ahead with some faint hope that they can actually get what they want. UBER  ( talk ) 17:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The mediation, which was brought up others, is background to the current issue. The current issue is that Sunray is not uninvolved in this dispute and has no business now playing an oversight role. Gimmetrow 18:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The mediation was obviously flawed by the same "pinging in sympathetic voters" issues that has plagued this article for years, while experienced FA writers were chased off, vowing never to return. Until those issues are addressed, and a comprehensive plan is put in place to restore the article to a neutral, encyclopedic article, I fear progress won't be made.  As to SunRay's involvement, there don't appear to be admins willing to wade into this mess in spite of very clear emerging consensus on the RFC as to the source of the problems, and SlimVirgin's appeal for help from other admins and her willingness to weigh in (which she has done with remarkable patience and neutrality) has only caused her to come under fire, which happens to anyone who tries to bring reason to these discussions.  IMO, the biggest factor affecting this article continues to be IDidntHearThat, no matter how strongly the consensus is made plain in any content review or dispute resolution forum. For those reasons, I believe another mediation would again fail.  I strongly disagree with notions put forward that only a few editors should take over the article-- that is not how wiki works, and there are many experienced editors who could work together to bring this article over the hump if the disruption would cease.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandy keeps making these ridiculous claims and unbacked allegations. She keeps claiming FA editors were "chased off" which is UNTRUE. Certain people flounced off when everyone else didn't bow down and worship them immediately. The claims that the mediation was affected by "pinging sympathetic voters" are outrageous, and show a complete failure to understand the process of mediation - which is not based on a vote. The shenanigans in the current dispute, where the FAC page was used to criticise the CC page and its editors, and assemble opposition are far more in line with what she is trying to accuse others of. In fact the gathering of support for a position on this dispute on a page in which most participants depend on SG and Karanacs for promotion of their articles raises deep questions as to the legitimacy of votes placed by people from that page. The continuiong problem is, that in rejecting wiki processes like mediation in favour of battleground tactics, Sandy is creating and magnifying disruption. 21:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Xandar that "pinging sympathetic voters" is not possible in a mediation which is a closed process once it begins. There's plenty of basis to criticize Xandar without fabricating baseless accusations. --Richard S (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand it, Gimmetrow's complaint on this deals with the choice of mediation participants before it was closed: that about half the participants were Catholics who agree with Nancy's and Xandar's views (there were also a few Catholics who disagree), and many of the others were members of other religious communities who could be counted on to be sympathetic on this question of official names, and they were then counted by noses - although that sample is quite unrepresentative of the people who discuss this article, and even more so of Wikipedia as a whole. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Xandar, can you please clarify. You seem to be saying that the !voting here is based on the desire of editors who maybe someday might bring an article to FAC to satisfy what they believe/think SandyGeorgia wants/desires from this RFC. At least that's how I'm reading what you've written above. I've never been to FAC, have had virtually no interaction with SandyGeorgia (once when I helped somebody navigate FAC I did place a question on SG's talkpage) and yet, apparently my opinion is based on what I think SandyGeorgia thinks I should think—or something like that? Please explain. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Xandar, you have an incorrect idea of the type of "power" I have (although I'm certainly flattered that anyone thinks I scare anyone...I can't even scare my own toddler into behaving). I judge FACs based on consensus, not on whether or not I like the nominator or reviewers.  Reviewers have opposed my FAC nominations recently, and I've had my nominations archived.  If I were to ever abuse my responsibility by closing FACs improperly, than I am confident someone would bring that (loudly) to someone's attention and get me removed as a delegate.  Unless you can provide any evidence that I have ever abused that power then I request that you stop attempting to smear me. Karanacs (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Any time Xandar find himself disagreeing with a majority, that majority immediately becomes a bloc, voting for political, POV or otherwise corrupt reasons. It happens every time, without fail. You guys are wasting your breath protesting. At best. At worst you are feeding the troll. Hesperian 03:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we try to avoid the epithet "troll"? In the case of just about every editor who has responded to this RFC, I assert that the term "troll" is generally inappropriate hyperbole. My current involvement in this article started two years ago when I saw NancyHeise calling Soidi (aka Lima/Esoglou) a troll. Trying to help resolve the conflict, I discovered that, as annoying as Soidi's interaction style was, he did have a point about "Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic" and so I worked to make sure his point was heard.

Now, similarly, Xandar's interaction style has certainly been prickly at times but he often makes valid points. These are not the marks of a troll although both Soidi and Xandar have exhibited troll-like behavior from time to time.

Calling someone a troll is dismissive and does nothing to foster a collegial editing community.

--Richard S (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Often valid? May I remind you of your last comment on one of Xandar's points?


 * I have not called Xandar a troll, but I can see why others do - expecially after his claims in this thread. His remedy lies in his own keyboard. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

On collaboration
Wikipedia, at its best, is all about collaborative editing. Sometimes very good articles result despite significant differences in viewpoints and values. This is due, in part, to the devotion and positive energies of WP editors. Part of it is an environment that allows for many disparate views under the guidance of policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:CON.

I have a great deal of respect for many of the editors who edit the Catholic Church-related pages. There is real talent here, IMO. However, editing does get bogged down frequently. A look at the discussion in the above section, gives some clues as to why. The discussion often seems to reach an impasse because comments are directed towards the person, rather than the content. Participants have learned not to flagrantly violate the policy. But the comments are often personal. I think that great progress could be made on the CC article if people tried harder to avoid criticizing each other. Would participants be willing to stop making personal remarks and try harder to collaborate? Sunray (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You have come to the conclusion that this problem is caused by too much resort to ad hominem remarks, based on interactions with Xandar. When it comes to interactions with Xandar, that is largely correct, and cutting out the ad hominem remarks (both from and at Xandar) would surely help. However the issue with Nancy is entirely different. I stand by this comment. A focus on ad hominem remarks, while ignoring all the other infuriatingly provoking deceptive and spurious argumentation techniques, would be very unhelpful. Hesperian 23:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My observations are not based on an interaction between just two people, but many interactions, both on this page and on the article talk page. You make the point that collaboration depends on more than just avoiding ad hominem remarks. I agree. There needs to be a spirit of cooperation as well—to listen to one another, to debate fairly, to not engage in excessive verbiage. Most of all, to listen. Sunray (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Been doing that for two years, with kindness and patience, and only get back personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and allegations of abuse, both as admins or FAC delegates, always wholly unfounded, along with a whole lot of failure to answer direct questions or understand policy. It's extremely tiring, and it's why so many good, conscientous, productive editors simply give up in disgust and leave either an article or Wiki completely.  Until such time as Wiki decides that conscientous, productive good faith editors should not have to put up with attacks and assumptions of bad faith, and such editors should be shown the door quickly and firmly, we will continue to see a loss of Wiki's finest editors.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, many conscientious editors are ground down by those who push a POV or continually engage in dispute. Many of us who have edited here have felt that. It sounds like your patience is worn thin. You would like to see a more supportive environment for those who edit in good faith. It seems to me unlikely that we can cure the ills of Wiki. However, we might be able to work on creating some positive space related to this article. What do you think would be needed? Sunray (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, a very nice start would be to never have to read another charge from Nancy and Xandar that a certain "group" are simply cowtowing to Karanacs or me, or that either of us has "abused our power". It's disgusting that they think other editors operate that way, or won't take the time to understand adminship or FAC delegates, and I got involved here because I tried of seeing that done to Karanacs, who has been exceedingly patient in the face of such charges (which we are now also seeing aimed at SlimVirgin).  No matter how much kindness and patience was shown them, Nancy and Xandar seem unable to assume good faith or work with others.  There seems to be no way to get them to stop making such wacky charges. They really do drive other editors to extremes; it would be nice if they wouold stop. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to ask them for their views on what we are discussing. Sunray (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you will be successful, but history has shown your chances are slim. Scores of editors were patient and kind through four (five) combative FACs, went to great lengths to help them understand How Wiki Works and even do work for them, often received in return only unkindness, stonewalling, IDidntHearThat, failure to answer direct questions, and unfounded accusations. I don't think they are able to see how toxic they have made the article, and how it all boils down to an extreme failure to assume the same good faith that so many editors extended to them, or to simply understand Wiki policies: to this day, it's not evident that Nancy understands that Karanacs has never abused either her FAC position or admin tools, but those charges never stop, and now we see same charges lodged at anyone who tries to admin the behavioral disruption on the article.  I reluctantly came to the conclusion that they simply wouldn't respond to anything but the block button, and that if they ever again lodge false, cabalistic, bad faith charges of abuse where none exists, that they won't understand the error or their ways, or how toxic they have made the article, unless they are swiftly blocked the next time they fail to AGF or lodge false and unfounded charges about other editors.  This is the worst battleground behavior I have ever seen on any article: if you can find a way to make it stop, I'll send you my firstborn, but I fear only the block button will help Nancy and Xandar understand when and how they create toxicity.  And clearly, based on the RFC, plenty of editors agree with me, and no, they are not cowtowing to me, and to imply such is an insult to the integrity of the FAC process and other editors, which I am sick of reading.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, when the topic is content, discussion should be about content. Like after the mediation, when a text was being discussed, and a certain editor had to be frequently reminded to discuss that content and to comply with WP:Verifiability. Above, the topic is the involvement of one editor, and it is rather difficult to discuss that without discussing that editor. But if you really want to discuss content rather than editors, Sunray, then please do that, Sunray, and avoid any comments referring to editors, however obliquely, in any context related to the Catholic Church article. Gimmetrow 04:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You want to be sure that in my remarks I am not obliquely referring to a particular editor or editors? Sunray (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am drawing attention to your assertion that we should not talk about editors, which is a highly self-serving assertion when the very topic of discussion was your involvement. That seems rather inappropriate behaviour from an allegedly neutral mediator. You have had at least two direct requests for you to not be involved in this article in any form of supervisor or mediator role. Will you withdraw voluntarily, or not? Gimmetrow 17:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to cooperate with anyone and everyone as long as they have Wikipedia's interests in mind, which is just a simple rehashing of WP:AGF: assume good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary. UBER ( talk ) 06:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I heartily applaud Sunray's suggestion that we try to start again with a renewed spirit of collaboration and collegiality. At the risk of sounding preachy, I think the key here is that we drop our conditional willingness to collaborate. Too many of us are saying "I'm willing to collaborate as long as others stop doing X, Y and Z." I understand why you feel that way but saying stuff like that only inflames emotions and gets other people to say similar things. And eventually, what we have is mutual recrimination, not mutual collaboration. What is needed here is an unconditional commitment to collaboration and collegiality without the "as long as ..." clauses.

In addition, we also desperately need a willingness to forgive and forget. Forgetting what has transpired in the past is very important. The real risk to this new initiative is that the first time someone says something that reminds us of their past transgressions, there will be a temptation to say, "See? A leopard never changes his spots.  There you go again doing that same old thing you always do." That will be the time when we need to really bite our tongues and remonstrate gently with the person in question and argue content, not personalities or conduct. I hope that we will be able to take the high road rather than the low road.

--Richard S (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree with your assessement: in fact, I'm not aware of anyone saying "I'll stop when they do" or making conditioned responses about collaboration (do you have an example?). I've seen article and talk page collaboration from most parties, and repeated battleground behavior and intransigence from two, and those two need to stop for the article to advance.  I may have missed some other misbehaviors in the time I wasn't following talk here, but I'm certainly aware of the behaviors from Nancy and Xandar.  And the content will not advance here until the behaviors stop and those engaging in them learn to answer direct questions, focus on content, rely on high quality sources, and stop making unfounded charges about other editors' motivations that chase off willing contributors and stall content progress.  That is not to say that others are conditioning their behavior around Nancy and Xandar; it is to say that the article won't advance until their behaviors stop. If Sunray can get that to stop without other admins having to resort to the block button, all the better for him, but I remain concerned that those parties do not understand how destructive to the article their own behavior and failure to understand Wiki polices are, and will only respond to the block button.  The failure to AGF is rampant, and the charges have been particularly aimed at Karanacs and me, via a failure to understand adminship and the FAC process-- I repeat, this is the kind of thing conscientous and productive editors have to endure on Wiki until they just give up and leave.  It is not a surprise that good article progress was made while they were blocked, and real progress has ceased since.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it was StormRider who brought up that old cliche about those who point fingers having three fingers pointed back at themselves. In what I wrote above, I was referring to SandyGeorgia, Karanacs and Gimmetrow as specific examples of recent editors who seem unwilling to forgive and forget.  I was also hinting that NancyHeise and Xandar would need to adopt a similar "forgive and forget" attitude towards any past transgressions against them.  I admit that I have felt an urge to smack them about a bit due to frustration with their intransigent tendency towards pro-Church apologetics.  However, I think that the level of incivility has gotten too high at times.  We should all recognize that none of us are completely guiltless in creating the battleground mentality and that collegiality and collaboration requires mutual cooperation and respect.  I continue to oppose any effort to ban any editors from the article although I would encourage short absences for some editors. --Richard S (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly, we disagree, but continuing this dialogue is unlikely to help advance the article, so I'll leave it at agreeing to disagree. Strongly :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sandy, are you angry because you've seen violations of the basic policies of editing and you need respect? My guess is that many others (from both sides of the conflict) would have this need. The issue for us now is how to move on from there. Would you be willing to stop pointing to the past behaviour of others? Sunray (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The behavior in question has not changed; if it had, we should be more likely to forget it.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think one of the things that would help is if everyone agreed to stick to the three core content policies&mdash;NPOV, V, and NOR. The policies can solve a lot of disputes so long as people are editing in good faith, and that goes in particular for V and NOR because they're less subjective. They won't solve things like how long the page should be, or whether the history section goes at the top or the end, but they'd help with deciding what kinds of sources are allowed and how to use them, and that can be half the battle. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 17:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * V, NPOV and NOR are not a given here. See this RfC. Gimmetrow 17:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the kind of issue that needs a reliable secondary source, preferably an academic one, given that there's a dispute about it. Counting Google hits or how often the Church uses a certain term in its own documents, then reaching a conclusion based on that, is original research. To quote the policy: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." See WP:NOR. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 18:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's best if I only make generic statements about this, so I shouldn't respond to any other examples&mdash;I don't want to look as though I'm taking a side on content. I want only to make the point that V and NOR can save a lot of time because they often give very clear answers. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 18:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, SV. I wasn't asking for a comment. I was pointing out that there are nuanced problems with verifiability here - including from Sunray, who was involved in that RfC. Gimmetrow 20:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Richard brought me up as an example of displaying recent behavior that doesn't appear to show "forgiving and forgetting". I would much prefer that we all focus on the content. However, I will continue to call out any instances I see of editors falsely accusing me of abusing my position as FAC delegate. Those types of comments, if unchecked, can be harmful to the FAC process, not to mention that I'm awfully tired of my integrity being questioned. Karanacs (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Addendum: To be just a little more clear, with the exception noted above, I will do my best to refrain from making personalized comments. Provided we all agree to that provision, there shouldn't be any issues. Karanacs (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * [The following statement has been copied from Xandar's talk page]:
 * I would certainly be prepared to work collaboratively with any other editors willing to proceed in good faith. I think there has been a failure to discuss issues dispassionately instead of emotionally and in a highly personalised way. If we had a forum where just the issues were discussed with reference to the sources, I think a lot more progress could be made.  Xan  dar   20:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Important Omission
Having just checked, I note that the full text of the RFC request STILL hasn't, as of the time of this post, showed up on main RFC page. This could well be one reason (in addition to the non-prominent notices on project-pages) that the RFC has not attracted many new voices. Slim Virgin set the RFc up without the proper template that would produce the text on the RFC page. I added the correct template a few days later. But only the heading has shown up on the page, without the necessary text that explains the question being asked. I've added a signature to the text on the main page - in the hope this will solve matters. But if it doesn't someone needs to fix this. I certainly think this error rules out closing the RFC in two days time as SlimVirgin has suggested.  Xan  dar  21:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I did it manually, and either a bot or the person who runs the bot did it automatically shortly afterwards; and it is indeed on the main page here. We also did it manually on the village pump, wikiprojects, individual pages etc. Please don't try to introduce spurious reasons against closing it, Xandar. A lot of people were told about it, and you got a fairly good response. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 22:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, I agree that there has been a substantial response to the RFC. However, FWIW, I would like to point out that Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy has not been updated since March 29th and the page only lists the RFC with no text describing the issue for which comment is being requested.  The RFC instructions say to put  at the top of the Talk Page but that does not seem to have been done prior to when I did it an hour or so ago.


 * Whether this is enough of an issue to warrant extending the RFC is up to you. I personally doubt that the consensus will shift as it is currently running 80% (24-6) in favor of the shorter version.  What would Xandar expect a wider publicization of the RFC would bring?  25-10?  That would still be a substantial majority in favor of the shorter version.  I think it is time for everyone to accept the results of the RFC and move on to find a way to work towards improving the shorter version.


 * --Richard S (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If he does have a point, I have yet to decipher what it is ... short descriptions are always given on the RFC page, the idea being that interested editors will come to the RFC to read the full thing ... and it was listed at RFC ... and it has garnered an unusual amount of feedback. As far as I can tell, the only missing editors are those who opposed it at FAC, so it's highly unlikely that any additional time or notifications would change anything.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * He has a technical point... at the moment, the RFC page no longer provides even a short description of what the RFC is about and has not had one since March 29th. On the other hand, as you and SlimVirgin have pointed out, the RFC has been widely advertised in a bunch of other forums and we have had a healthy response.  On the one hand, I want to avoid post-RFC whining about the flaws in the RFC process; on the other hand, I think it's time that people wake up and smell the coffee.  I could understand concern about publicizing this RFC if only 5-10 people responded but with a hefty response like we've had, I can't see how more publicization of the RFC will change the results in any significant way. --Richard S (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Richard, here is where I added it to the main RfC page on March 27. A bot removed it and replaced it with this on March 28, then replaced it again with this on March 30. I don't know why the bots do that, but I don't see that it makes any difference. Anyone looking at that page who was interested in the Catholic Church would have seen there was an RfC, no matter what the text said. And it was posted on several other pages too. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 01:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes a lot of difference. If people don't know what the RFC is about, they're not going to visit, let alone comment. That is why the RFCs are laid out as they are. For whatever reason, this RFC has not been properly advertised - and so has not had the requisite participation by the community. This is borne out by the people who have contributed so far, who have primarily been habitues of the CC and FAC pages. I have also objected to the small size and lack of prominence of the notifications posted on project pages. I know the pro-change votes have come in largely in one block, while other votes have trickled in. With people like Sandy claiming all sorts of things on the basis of the contributions so far, I want to be sure people not involved on a busy page like FAC have a chance to contribute. I don't see any reason for undue haste in closing the RFC, and with the problem just discovered, I think a minimum week following proper notification on the RFC page would be appropriate.  Xan  dar   19:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Xandar, if someone is interested in the Catholic Church, they're going to respond to an RfC that says "RfC on Catholic Church" just the same way as they respond to "RfC on which of several versions of Catholic Church has consensus." Also, I did ask you to post a list of editors you felt still needed to be contacted, and you didn't do it; see here, my post of 20:07, 30 March. Regardless, the RfC got a good response, so I see no cause for concern. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 23:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like for Xandar's suggestion to be respected. I think he is right.  Nancy Heise    talk  00:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Respected in what sense, though, Nancy? The RfC was posted on the philosophy and religion page, just not with the words Xandar wanted. Ten days ago I asked him to post a list of additional names he thought ought to be notified, and he didn't do it, and still hasn't. I asked you to comment on the notification on March 29, and you said it was fine. If we had a stream of new people commenting, of course I wouldn't close it, but there's no sign of continuing interest. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 01:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the closing included a link to a section here for further comments, and Xandar would make whatever note he sees fit on the main RFC page, then that would offer an opportunity for this entirely hypothetical mass of uninformed supporters to display itself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I added to the closing remarks that Xandar wanted it to stay open longer, and that he felt not enough people had been notified. I also added that anyone wanting to add a comment after it's closed can post to the talk page. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Again I would add that the closure was premature and the fact that in view of the deficient advertising of the RFC identified above. A further week, with proper advertising on the RFC page should have been the minimum. The overhasty closure, under these circumstances undermines the exercise and any "conclusions" people may want to draw from it. So while there is clearly not an endorsement to return to the longstanding version as the "working" version, the RFC is otherwise devalued.  Xan  dar  21:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a surprise. Hesperian 23:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it's over
Now what? UBER ( talk ) 00:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nancy has decided to take a break, something she deserves credit for, as it can't have been an easy decision. There was a clear consensus to continue from the "short" version (see my closing remarks), so hopefully everyone can move forward from there. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now what? Consensus is clear to work from the current version, so editors can get on with article improvements now!  There is still much to be done, experienced editors were previously reluctant to engage because of the toxic environment, and hopefully now some will be encouraged to engage and work on the article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Final note from Septentrionalis
I must note this talk page note by a different editor, which is based on what he "remains convinced" a book he has not seen "must mean", although it does not say anything of the sort, and offers no evidence for what the editor is sure it must say. This is the endemic problem here; edits of what the editor is sure of, whether or not the source supports it. This is not the Wikipedia way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to engage you on this point in a different forum such as Talk:Catholic Church. I'm even willing to admit that I may be wrong although I haven't yet seen convincing evidence that my common-sense reading of Bokenkotter's use of "some" and "many" is wrong.  However, this is the wrong forum for such discussions and so I invite your or a third party to move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Catholic Church or Talk:Catholic Church as they see fit. --Richard S (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Beh, I didn't know when I wrote the foregoing that Pmanderson had provided a detailed demolition of my position at Talk:Catholic Church. I will respond to him there. --Richard S (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)