Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pmanderson

Outside views
TFD has been involved in the conflict on Mass killings under Communist regimes, one of the articles where Pmanderson has issues his insults against me and Marknutley, on the same side as PManderson.

Cynwolfe has been involved in the conflict on List of wars between democracies, the second of the articles where Pmanderson has issues his insults against me and Marknutley, on the same side as PManderson.

If these then can be classified as "Outside views" or not, I don't know, this is my first RFC/U, but I thought it might be relevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * They are outside views because you did not invite us to join the RfC. You should revisit those articles and invite all the editors who interacted with you and mark nutley to join the RfC.  Then we all be "involved" editors, but I suspect that the great majority of editors will disagree with your viewpoint.  TFD (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you point to the relevant policy that explains this, because I can't find anything about it. It says nothing about inviting or invitations on the RFC page as far as I can see. On the other hand it's unclear what counts as "involved" and "uninvolved" editors as well, so you may very well be uninvolved simply because you haven't been attacked by Pmanderson. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You don`t need to invite people, and i recommend against it less you be accused of forum shopping. It is normal for people to have their say, it is what the uninvolved section is for, as they are not involved in the dispute (as in not being insulted). mark nutley (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK; thanks for the clarification. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How is inviting witnesses to this RfC "forum shopping"? TFD (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And in any case TFD 'outside view' isn't even about Pmanderson. He just used this RFC as yet another excuse for ad hominemns on me an mark nutley. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because TFD if he asks what may be perceived as the wrong people he will be accused of forum shopping, it is best to not do it in my opinion mark nutley (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Forum shopping is the informal name given to the practice adopted by some litigants to get their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment." In WP this means taking a dispute to different noticeboards until the desired outcome is obtained.  However for some reason WP:Forum shopping re-directs to canvassing.  Is that what you mean?  Trying to find supporters for an RfC is canvassing.  Since there were more than three editors involved in these disputes, it would be helpful if you were to invite them to participate.  The purpose of an RfC is after all to resolve problems and other editors may be able to provide insight into the difficulties that you claim to have had.  TFD (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, actually my outside comment is about Pmanderson, because most ot the comments that I listed at WQA were made by OpenFuture to Pmanderson. In my opinion, they are far worse than anything Pmanderson has said and are central to this RfC.  Remember that, "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors".  TFD (talk)

This RfC is still uncertified
Hi, OpenFuture. This is about your RfC on Pmanderson. I've cross-posted it to your talkpage. I'm afraid I don't see you "trying to resolve a dispute" on this RfC. Posting some template on a user's talkpage is much more likely to annoy him/her, than to "resolve" anything. I'm beginning to feel it's kind of uphill work to try to get you to take this central fact on board. Did you perhaps miss the "minimum requirements" for a user conduct RfC? They're on the main RfC/U page. They're a little fuller than the stuff at the top of the RfC itself. Please now read them carefully:
 * ''Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.

You see? should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. Shell Kinney is the editor who comes closest to making such an attempt, but she hasn't signed the RfC—in fact I can't see any indication that she's involved in it at all. She may not want to be, especially as she's an arbitrator. Compare the rule that the "persons complaining" must certify the page by signing it: is Shell Kinney complaining here? If it comes to that, are you...? You haven't signed the page either, you're completely anonymous. Marknutley is the only signatory so far.

I realise that RfC/U is a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare, and I'm not trying to make trouble for you. The signatures aren't a major problem (at least, not if Shell wishes to certify the RfC). But there is one major problem, and that is the lack of attempts to "find a resolution or compromise." What you call your attempts, and Marknutley's attempts, don't look to me like they're trying to resolve anything. They're mostly in the third person, and in an angry tone. They're attempts to get people to agree with you about how bad and rude PMA is; they're not even addressed to him! Shell Kinney's post is the only exception. I've read your NPA template, your wikiquette alert, and your complaint on ANI, and it's frankly ridiculous to refer to any of them, or to Marknutley's complaints, as "attempts to find a resolution or compromise". As you know, I have somewhat been following the quarrel between you and PMA and have tried to explain that it's important to genuinely try to overcome your mutual hostility, rather than merely try to formally prepare the ground for arbitration or whatever. I'm sorry to see that I've obviously not managed to make myself very clear. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC).

Unless you, and at least one other editor, make such genuine attempts, and fix the signature problem, I will delete this RfC 48 hours from the time you moved it from your userspace into Wikipedia space. It's still uncertified. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC).


 * I did not miss the requirements, but apparently I misunderstood what trying to resolve a dispute is when that dispute is one user making personal attacks towards other users. Can you give examples of that? I also have no idea why you are so aggressive when it comes to this. I think one of the mistakes you do is when you talk about mutual hostility. There exists absolutely no hostility against Pmanderson from my side, only frustration with being attacked instead of having constructive discussion happening. This is not a RFC about a content dispute, it's an RFC of user conduct. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have asked PM several times to redact his attacks on me, he has not done so, and i have asked him to do so in a neutral manner. I have said at ANI that i would be happy if he just said sorry and removed his PA`s he has not replied. I fail to see how much more i can do if PM refuses to reply to requests for removal`s of PA`s if you require diff`s let me know mark nutley (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But you are right that Shell Kinney is not one of the ones that are complaining. And so she didn't sigh it. But she has tried to solve Pmandersons behavior by blocking him and asking him to not do further personal attacks, but apparently that doesn't count. I'm looking forward to seeing what counts, since I'm sure we have done that too. IMO we have done everything possible for non-admins to get Pmanderson to stop attacking us. Remember that I was *asked* to take this to RFC/U. I don't want to do this. I didn't want to make the MedCab case either, that's also a lot of work, but I did so, because I was asked to, because I don't know how to proceed otherwise. I'm following dispute resolution as best I can. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied on your user talk. Bishonen | talk 13:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Without examples of how I can show that we have tried to solve the conflict. If I don't get examples of how to show that, then I can't. I have looked at the other RFC's, and there it seems that asking the user to stop his personal attacks and pointing out that it's against Wikipedia policy is enough. Why is it not enough here?
 * All I want is Pmanderson to stop his attacks, so we can engage in constructive discussion and consensus building. Is that really too much to ask for? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for interjecting, but I hope that Bishonen reads Talk:List of wars between democracies carefully before deciding who's researching the topic and trying to build it through consensus. Demanding apologies and language control are formalities that can be empty; actions mean more. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Cynwolfe. Well, no, I haven't dived into that talkpage. I'm trying to remain quite neutral here. I'd be sorry if you thought my only concern was "formalities", but I won't take sides. And "deciding who's researching the topic and trying to build it through consensus" is scarcely possible without taking sides. That's not my brief. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Thank you for trying to remain neutral, Bishonen, it is appreciated. So are your comments and help on behavior and recommendations for proceeding. But I feel that your comments to me are very hostile and accusatory, for no apparent reason. Also, you are clearly on very friendly terms with Pmanderson. So although you are trying to remain neutral, I don't think you really are. So it's appreciated that you try to stay neutral, but I think it's too late. It would be better if an administrator that isn't already emotionally involved with the people in this conflict would take care of this, and you would either let it be, or simply post another uninvolved view, which would be very welcome. Especially if it contains further recommendation on how I could improve. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Emotionally involved"? What an unpleasant creature you are. Between you and Martintg, I must say I've had enough of this RfC; I won't waste any more time advising you. I'm not on any terms with PMA, neither friendly nor unfriendly. When he posted on my talkpage on 9 July, thanking me for trying to stop you flooding his page with NPA templates, I believe it was the first time we ever spoke. Having been here since 2004, I could be wrong, but that's what I believe. You should check back in my history tab, though; there's a nice little job for you. PMA seems to be a fan of my sock Bishzilla, but I can't help that. I do apologise if I spoke too nicely to him. Bishonen | talk 20:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Well, it seemed like you were doing internal jokes. I'm sorry if I assumed too much, but that together with your inexplicable hostility and insulting demeanor towards me meant I assumed you were on friendly terms with Pmanderson. If this is incorrect I apologize. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've seen Bishonen do this before, threatening to delete an RFC/U on behalf of colleague. She ended up doing it but I do wonder if she had let that RFC/U run its course whether that user she was protecting might well have later avoided this. An RFC/U provides valuable community feedback on a user's behaviour with which hopefully that user can take on board and thus avoid bigger problems later on. --Martin (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And I've seen you do that before, but it's always educational, if a little spooky, to see someone hugging a three-year old grudge. (See your diff's timestamp — you must have a really fine diff collection.) So, an RfC that ignores the minimum requirements for RFC/U is one that "runs its course", is it? Bishonen | talk 19:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC).
 * See me do what before, offer an uninvolved opinion? I'm not holding any grudge at all, nor do I have any diff collection either, you really need to assume good faith and show a less hostile accusatory attitude. I'm merely pointing out that attempting to sweep what is evidently a real problem under the carpet by wiki-lawyering over procedure will not resolve the underlaying problem. If it's not addressed here, it will only resurface later with more dire consequence. You really aren't doing PMA any favours in the long term, believe me, as my diffs have shown. Shrug. --Martin (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, Martin, but that he said the same thing three years ago is not exactly a pattern of behavior. :-) But yes, the process requires that we have two attempts to solve the problem. We now have three. Even if my attempt was so pathetically bad it doesn't count, that still should be enough. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "See me do what?" Proxy for Digwuren. (173.10.127.113 (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

Minimum requirements should now be fulfilled
We now have documented three attempts to solve the problem. Even if my attempt was pathetic, it's still an attempt. And even if we discount that attempt, we still have two, and nowhere in the requirements does it say the attempts have to be successful (for obvious reasons). The minimum requirements are therefore fulfilled, as I understand it. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Minimum requirements exist so that editors do not abuse or misuse this process. Dispute resolution expects editors to follow a set of steps; talk to the editor, get a third opinion, noticeboard, WQA, and then RfC or RfC/U. It may be OK to not strictly follow the middle steps as each set of circumstances differ, but it's generally expected that you've done the first step (which is identical IRL). When we say talk to the editor and attempt resolution or look for compromise, we don't mean "complain at a noticeboard" or make a single demand at a arbitration evidence talk page and then escalate to other steps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's very well put, Ncmvocalist. It's what I've been trying to explain to OpenFuture ever since the RfC opened, but have now given up in the face of his LA,LA,LA-I'MNOTLISTENING stonewalling.


 * And yet I haven't deleted the RfC, as you may have all noticed. That's not because three so-called attempts have been "documented", but purely because Pmanderson appears (the way it looks to me — it's not 100% clear) to have accepted waiving the 48-hour rule. Also because, as much as I started out adminning this RfC in a spirit of neutrality between all involved, a bit of introspection tells me I'm beginning to feel more irritated than neutral. Bishonen | talk 19:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Bishonen, your continued insults is not exactly helping your case or making me more willing to listen to you. You have clearly given a lot of good recommendations in how to handle people with whom you have a conflict here, but I can't help but notice that you aren't exactly following those recommendations yourself. Your recommendation of "human voice" you do follow, by being rude and demeaning all the time, but I suspect that this isn't exactly what you mean. :-) You would probably be more helpful if you answered my follow up questions to your explanations. Like for example, what you mean with "compromise". --OpenFuture (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that Bishonen; appearing to waive the requirements makes things awkward, and I think you made the right call in this case given that uncertainty. I will note that in some cases, where one of two certifiers is blocked as they were socking for a banned user, or where one of two certifiers withdraws their signature/certification, an RfC/U can still be deleted as uncertified...even if it's a couple of weeks later. In saying this, I'm not suggesting that the present certifiers are socking or going to withdraw, but to note that where there is a misuse or abuse of RfC/U, the spirit of the minimum requirements can be enforced with/without the subject's approval (to hinder any further effects of the misuse/abuse, whether or not the subject appreciates what those effects include). But despite that confusing bit of dribble I've just written, Bishonen, I also appreciate that you "know yourself" and are actively taking steps to avoid any concerns in the future (be it from the parties here or from bureaucracy) - it's ideal admin conduct in practice. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * NMVocalist: it's generally expected that you've done the first step (which is identical IRL). When we say talk to the editor and attempt resolution or look for compromise, we don't mean "complain at a noticeboard" or make a single demand at a arbitration evidence talk page and then escalate to other steps. - I understand that this is not what you mean. But when you say attempt resolution or look for compromise, what does that mean in the context of being insulted? The recommendation to find a compromise are clearly based on the normal case of where you first have a content dispute and this the escalates into personal attacks. I would like to remind everyone here that this is not the case. Pmandersons first action was calling me a vandal in an edit comment. When it comes to the content dispute I have diligently tried to find compromise, suggested paths of action, explained the problems with Pmandersons edits, etc, etc. All while being constantly insulted. Is it maybe these kinds of edits you look for? Because in the case of being repeatedly insulted, I don't really see what compromise is possible. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, in serious or extreme cases, particularly personal attacks, an admin may intervene. But if admins did not and/or you still have an issue later, or if the editor appears to be making useful contributions elsewhere but they are continuing to exhibit concerning conduct (be it towards a particular article, topic, person or persons), this is a sign - proceed through the normal dispute resolution route. (Note, compromise, temporary resolutions, or more long-lasting resolutions are not limited to content disputes. For example, if someone kept asserting that you keep making "vandalism edits", a compromise may be they call it "incorrect/misguided, but good faith edits", and then you proceed to explain why you aren't incorrect and why he believes that you are or whatever the dispute is. Another compromise may be for you to be more open to what it is they're trying to say and they'll make a greater effort to avoid personalising something. Edit summaries are sometimes misused, but that doesn't mean the dispute is ripe enough to be escalated without the first step - direct discussion with the user.)


 * Sometimes people don't know that they are insulting someone even if it seems glaringly obvious to the person who feels insulted. Similarly, sometimes people don't agree that they're insulting someone or simply don't appreciate how exactly their comments are insulting (even if it's glaringly obvious to the person who feels insulted). This is where directly discussing the concern that you have becomes important; there may be in fact some validity in that there is a concern with something you've appeared to have said or done, but they've used the wrong terminology, gone about it the wrong way, or weren't being as tactful as they ought to have. Sometimes it's a mistake...sometimes they're too absorbed in the fact that they're right and you're wrong...sometimes they were venting and this was an isolated lapse. Other times, they're just wrong on all fronts, and there's a pattern of problem behavior. Discussing the concern gives the editor an opportunity to see how you perceive something, why or how you perceive it, explain why they've described you or your actions in a particular way, and how the (often conflicting) concerns may be remedied by the both of you. If they don't agree there is an issue, or you aren't happy with the resolution (if any), and it's strictly a dispute between you and someone else, that's when I understand editor assistance or 3O can help in some cases; an uninvolved user may be able to convey the concerns between you more effectively. Similarly, or where there is a general concern about perceived incivility etc., Wikiquette alerts lets others provide perspectives, and sometimes those perspectives are able to get through to one or both of you so as to remedy the concern for the future. If none of these steps work out, that's when an RfC/U should be tried. This is the progression Wikipedia recommends aggrieved editors to go through; it generally doesn't recommend escalating to the later steps without clear evidence of you doing the first steps (discussing the concern with the editor, usually on their user talk) because where those requirements are not met, it is considered to be abuse or misuse of the dispute resolution system. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I've asked him to not call me a vandal. I've explained why it's not vandalism, I'm listening very dutifully to what he says, and has in fact during the course of this changed my mind on a couple of points (as I realized that in fact we both were wrong, and I also explained to Marknutley why he did the same mistake when he started editing the page).
 * proceed through the normal dispute resolution route. - That's exactly what I did, and I ended up here. And it seems to me that Bishonen is now threatening to make this long process undone because I first used templates with Pmanderson instead of writing it in my own words. That seems fairly absurd to me.
 *  If none of these steps work out, that's when an RfC/U should be tried. - And that's exactly what happened here.
 * discussing the concern with the editor, usually on their user talk - He hasn't responded to anything I wrote on his talk page, and pretty quickly told me to "stay out" so that was not possible. The idea that you have to discuss or compromise about personal attacks is till quite new to me. I have to admit that your example of compromise doesn't seem like a compromise at all to me, since the personal attacks stop.
 * It's still not clear to me how this RfC does not fulfill your view of the minimum requirements.
 * I ignored the first couple of insults, I explained that his revert was incorrect and why, I asked him not to do personal attacks, and then went through the process as you described. As far as I can see, the only thing I did wrong here was asking him to stop the personal attacks by using templates. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now updated the RFC to more clearly show the start of the conflict. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Another comment after reading it again. I get the vague feeling that Nmvocalist assumes I haven't done the first step. I have. The issue is that Bishonen though I made such a crappy job of it that it shouldn't count. This is the first time I've had an experience editor pour insults over me and refuse to listen, and I'm sorry I didn't handle that in a better way than I did, but it seems strange to me that this somehow should exonerate Pmanderson from the attacks he did. And nobody is asking for anything extreme here, just that Pmanderson gets a warning, possibly a probation period, so that he starts taking WP:NPA seriously. That's it. And when looking at the outside views, there seems to be something like a consensus for that. Are we really going to ignore that consensus because of an admins tough interpretation of minimum requirements? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Made clarification changes
I'm hoping to now show clearly that I have made many efforts of all possible kinds to reach through to Pmanderson to stop the attacks and insults, but that nothing has worked, and that they, as of 2nd of August are still ongoing. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfes movies
(Please note that this comment was made in response to one of OpenFuture's above and was moved here. I did not create this subhead, since I'm aware of the rules governing the use of the apostrophe. Apologies for the attempt to inject a little levity into this discussion. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC))
 * You know, OpenFuture, last night as I was readying the ol' picnic cooler for a trip today to the actual zoo, it suddenly dawned on me that the reason I can't quit this discussion is that I've grown rather fond of you. The collocation of editors in this matter is starting to remind me of a particularly contentious office I worked in: my favorite job ever, but hellish to get anything done. I disagree utterly with your interpretations of policies and guidelines, and think that no articles could ever be written if they were followed. But your energy is boundless, your will indomitable, your commitment unwavering. The same is true of PMA. You are a match made in conflict heaven. You are both rare souls. The difference for me is that you are trying to control content through suppressing it (an Unforgivable Sin in my book of judgment), and he is trying to control it through intellectual rigor, a less frequently encountered approach far more suited to producing an encyclopedia. If this were a movie, and they cut PMA's character from the script, your plot line would have to go too. Get it?Cynwolfe (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks, but you are wrong when it comes to the difference between me and Pmanderson. I think the difference is that Pmanderson's doesn't care so much about wikipedia policy and has no problems in adding things to an article because he is of the opinion that it is correct. I on the other hand, knowing that I'm not any sort of genius, thinks the Wikipedia policies are rather cool, and I think they should be followed. This would not be a problem, and would not cause any sort of clash between Pmanderson and me, if it wasn't for the unfortunate fact, that in this particular case, he happens to be wrong. And he reacts to people saying that by insulting them.
 * I don't want to be in a movie. My plot line can go away, no problem. I could not care less. This whole conflict, and in particular trying to make Pmanderson stop his insults, has take way too much time I do not have. Trust me on this: I want this plot line to go away. And I think it would go away of Pmanderson (and also you) would just for a short while step back and consider that maybe, just maybe, he might in fact for once, be wrong. I know it's unusual, but nobody is perfect. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I do not suppress any kind of information, and in fact is slightly annoyed you claim so, as I at least as much against suppressing information as you are. What I have done is to remove things that are not wars between democracies from a list of wars between democracies. That is not suppressing anything, it's correcting a list. If that was suppressing information, then it would be wrong and an unforgivable sin to remove Donald Ducks name from a list of US presidents. I somehow doubt you would protest that removal. ;) --OpenFuture (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for 48 time limit extension.
As I have yet to get any examples or clarification on what is required to show that we have tried to solve this problem, and I will have to go now and probably doesn't get time to add this before the 48h time limit, I would like for Pmanderson to waive the 48h time limit in this case, or this will be closed by Bishonen in a couple of hours. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if you don't want frank comments from the community which go against your own views, perhaps you shouldn't request comments. RfCs do "bring close scrutiny on all involved editors", as the main RfC page warns, and now this one has brought scrutiny on you. The reason those other RFCs that you mention get away with "dispute resolution" in the form of "asking the user to stop his personal attacks" (which amounts to asking him to stop beating his wife) is that they're atrocious RfCs which nobody has tried to admin. I had hoped we had rooted out that sort of RfC by now, and this is where I'd actually like an example myself; please link to a few of those RfCs.


 * I'll try to provide a few examples, though. I already gave you one: the difference between Shell Kinney's attempt and yours/Mark's. Take a look at that. And here is an attempt to reach the user on the Prestonmcconkie RfC, picked pretty much at random. Do you see the difference, compared to your own posts? The user speaks to Prestonmcconkie, as Shelley in fact spoke to PMA; there are no templates, but instead a human voice; there is acknowledgement of the positive sides of PMA/Preston's editing. Have you ever thought of acknowledging PMA's numerous editing skills? I'd be surprised if you, or anybody, ever got a positive response to a NPA template, still less when you paste seven of them on PMA's page. I have told you this; why do I have to tell you all over again at this RfC?


 * Finally: I hope you have contacted PMA to ask him to waive the 48-hour rule. Like on his page, or by e-mail? (Tip: if you do, try referring to him as "you" instead of "Pmanderson". Honestly...) Are you sure he watches this page? Bishonen | talk 17:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Again, Bishonen makes a strange and agressive comment with loads of accusations. I don't understand why, I have done nothing against him. This is very strange behavior from an administrator.
 * Well, if you don't want frank comments from the community which go against your own views - I have absolutely no problem with frank comments from the community, as I pointed out on my talk page. I have for example earlier asked for an editor review. It was unfortunately ignored. So I don't know why you accuse me of not wanting frank comments. From where does these accusations and hostility come?
 *  and this is where I'd actually like an example myself; please link to a few of those RfCs. - OK. Requests_for_comment/Blablaaa, Requests_for_comment/Sven70.
 * why do I have to tell you all over again at this RfC? - Why do you think you do? I told you already 9th of July (diff ) that I understood and wouldn't use templates like that in the future. I haven't used a template one single time since you told me. So why do you think you need to tell me not to use templates again? You seem to be presuming that Pmanderson is correct, and that I'm wrong and evidently you also think I'm stupid and don't understand what you say, even when I say I understand. That seems very strange to me, and even more so if you are now intending to delete this, just because I used a template to ask Pmanderson to stop his personal attacks instead of writing pretty much the same thing in my own words.
 * Finally: I hope you have contacted PMA to ask him to waive the 48-hour rule. Like on his page, or by e-mail? - No, I have not, as he has told me to keep of his talk page. So I do. And yes, I'm pretty sure he reads this. And in any case, we have now three users certifying that they have asked him to stop his personal attacks. Yes, one, namely me, did my first such efforts with a template, but that template did not come with a note of "Warning of you use this template you will void all future attempts t RFC's with this user". So I'm sorry I used templates, but what's done is done. And we have two other users that did not use templates, so this should now be able to be certified.
 * And no, I did not early on pander Pmanderson for his editing skills. Remember, the first time he issues a personal attack at me was also the first time I ever saw him make an edit. What he did then was a massive revert of effort that not only I, but many others had done. I could have praised him for his editing skills, if he had showed them to me. He still hasn't, really. I'm very impressed with his skill in finding sources that are obscure enough for me not to be able to easily verify them (I will, once I get near a university library again), but other than that, he has only shown that he can insult and refuse to discuss. He is obviously intelligent, and has a large and fanatic following on other pages, so obviously his skills are high. I just wish he would show that on List of wars between democracies as well. In fact, all I do wish is for him to stop the personal attacks, and contribute to the discussion in a constructive manner. Is that really too much to ask? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bishonen what exactly is required here? Diff`s of me asking PM to remove his attacks in a polite manner? Please remove your latest PA please remove PA per WP:TPOC do not reinsert please He did by the way. mark nutley (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And here I stupidly thought you were insisting on examples, OpenFuture, of "evidence of trying to resolve the dispute": "Without examples of how I can show [sic] that we have tried to solve the conflict. If I don't get examples of how to show that, then I can't." "As I have yet to get any examples or clarification on what is required", etc. Sorry about that, I guess I misunderstood. Probably Mark nutley isn't asking for examples, either; it just looks like it. Mark, the first thing that's required is that you consider whether they are "personal attacks. If you simply assume that they are, you're in effect asking PMA to stop beating his wife. Several Outside views seem to think that you and OpenFuture are as rude as PMA, or worse. How about taking some stock of your own role? Bishonen | talk 20:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC).
 * If you can find a diff were i am rude to PMA then present it, you will notice he has provided none were i have called him a liar or a vandal or ignorant. My role was in removing wp:or and wp:synth from an article, that`s it. And when he called me semi-literate ignoramus i was not even involved in the discussion, so exactly how did i play a role in that? And i do consider being called a liar a personal attack BTW, and being called ignorant, yes i consider that a personal attack mark nutley (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not talking about you, but will examine your conversations, if the RfC goes ahead. TFD (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bishonen, the first thing PManderson did was call me a vandal. This was before I ever said anything to him at all. Ever. What do you think my role in that is? --OpenFuture (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that a long, partly sourced and readily sourceable, list had been gutted without any adequate explanation (and there's never been one, except that OpenFuture disagrees with the literature on what a democracy is); I had no idea who had done this, and there were long traces of editing by an anon. If OpenFuture wishes to take the credit for this vandalism, he's welcome to it; but I didn't blame it on him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, none of this is correct. The list was gutted, yes, but with explanation. I do not disagree with literature on what democracy is. If you had no idea who had done it, you could have looked in the history, and on the talk page. There was a discussion about it, and then I removed some parts, and others removed other parts. I don't think any of the removing was done by anonymous, but I could be wrong. You still continued to call me a vandal afterwar I had explained this to you, and in fact you still call it vandalism, although it clearly is not. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your removal of sourced edits is documented. You have proposed a definition of "democracy" which would exclude the elections of Lincoln and Gladstone and Churchill - which the sources do not. Your tone, in this post, is beyond civil comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Content disputes does not excuse breaks of WP:NPA. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is this sort of non-standard English which caused me to believe them sockpuppets. It also adds no confidence to their solitary reading of policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Active Banana's view

 * 1) Cynwolfe
 * I did not sign my name here! Please consult this diff. Though I do think "semi-literate ignoramus," even if it could be shown to be apt and provoked, is unacceptable, I prefer to see a new tone demonstrated and omit the fake apologies. I believe signing someone else's name is quite an offense on WP, but I'm willing to think this was inadvertent. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure how that happened (it does look inadvertent, perhaps some copy-and-paste error). I've removed your name from the list of #numbered endorsements. Feel free to re-add your *bulleted comment as a conditional endorsement in the #numbered list. – xeno talk 15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)



First, someone signed my name to Active Banana's comment. This is a rather serious violation, but I was willing to think it inadvertent, somehow. Then, someone deleted my comment, the content of which expressed more than just 'my name shouldn't have been here.' A more appropriate action would've been a strikethrough of my supposed signature, which I must confess I don't know to do. The invalidity of both these actions is further reason (I seem to be repeating myself rather incessantly) that using WP:CIV as a weapon against somebody you're actively arguing against is a bad idea. I'm starting to wonder whether such an accusation should be reserved for editors who have not taken part in the given discussion. Perhaps the offended participant could place a request that an outside party bring the complaint. In this case, there was plenty of incivility from several quarters. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I posted this before seeing Xeno's explanation above. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! Feel free to re-add any comments. Typically you can "agree in part" with an outside view by indicating which part you agree with and which part you don't. – xeno talk 15:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * appologies i was copying and paste usernames in my statement. I for to and left them their by accident when I hit save Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Your explanation is what I suspected must've happened and suffices without need of apology. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Time limit extension
This is a bit of an IAR move, but I'm going to give the creators of the RfC some extra time, until PMA has responded to OpenFuture's request for him to waive the 48-hour rule (if he says no, I'll delete immediately), or for another 24 hours, whichever comes first. I do this because the creators of the RfC are obviously inexperienced, and are only now beginning to grasp what an RFC/U is supposed to be like; and because thoughtful and helpful Outside views are still being posted. If people generally want the RfC to continue, I hope that somebody has e-mailed PMA; otherwise this extension won't be much use, and there won't be another one coming up after it. Bishonen | talk 23:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Excuse my ignorance what needs to happen exactly? Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Minimum requirements. Please note especially the third sentence. See also this and this. Bishonen | talk 00:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC).
 * I have now apologized. I don't care if a record of this continues to exist, especially since several people have said kind things about me; but surely it can now be closed - if indeed it is an effort to extract an apology, and not a content dispute in disguise? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pmanderson, saying "I'm sorry I didn't find another way of insulting you" to Marknutley is not an apology. All it shows is that you are still unrepentant. As for your question, you don't need to describe either that edit, nor Marknutley.--OpenFuture (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the time limit extension, Bishonen. We now have three attempts of solving this. Even if you find my attempt was so pathetic that it doesn't count, that still leaves two. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Could I ask what acts of contrition would be adequate? Since I've commented throughout this matter, I feel obliged to watch it to closure, for which I long. I would be happy to strip off PMA's epaulets myself at this point, and flagellate him as he crawls up the steps of the cathedral, where We the Community shalt pummel him with viscid tomatoes after we burn him at the stake and then stretch him on the rack and may the ravens carry his craven soul to the Dantesque depths to wallow in the excrement of the damned and drink tea with Cassius and Brutus and Judas until the Apocalypse, when I plan to let my eyes rest. They're strained. Cynwolfe (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I am highly interested in history, especially medieval times, I find that these types of dark age flagellation is hardly appropriate in these times. Administrator actions are also not meant to be punitive, but preventative. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the dark ages, cut the buttons off my tunic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The buttons of Dreyfus appear to be missing. Narratively, I mean, not just from the tunic. I myself prefer a straightforward firing squad when my time comes, but only if they look me in the eye. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I *do* like them. Enough that I in my slimmer youth have pranced around in tights on medieval festivals. (The tights was a part of a replica of a dress from a 14th century Polyptychs in the church of my native parish. It had no buttons. 14th century is as dark as it gets around my parts.) --OpenFuture (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an apology? Funny one. Said it before and i`ll say it again, strike your accusations of sockpuppetry, being a liar and a vandal. I do not care for false apologies. mark nutley (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. My last on this page, I hope. These most recent remarks by OpenFuture and Marknutley demonstrate their own inability to work with others in a respectful manner — "respectful" not being synonymous with "agreeing with me all the time" or pretending to take specious reasoning seriously. No matter what the other party does to address or accommodate their objections, they simply dismiss it in No true Scotsman manner: that's not really an apology, that's not really democracy, that's not really a source because it doesn't agree with me me me. Since statistically the great majority of Wikipedians are childless, and I am the mother of a 13-year-old, this behavior is perhaps more familiar to me than to most, but not what I would choose to have to deal with and waste my time on in contributing to an encyclopedia. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cyn, were have i been disrespectful? And do you actually think that was an apology? And i don`t want an apology, i want his ridiculous accusations struck. I have two children BTW, and i have seen this behaviour plenty of times, fake apology`s are worthless, i just want him to retract his remarks mark nutley (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So are you waiving the 48-hour rule?
Pmanderson, I'm for the moment taking your post above to mean that you're prepared to graciously waive the 48-hour rule ("Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified"") for this RfC, even though nobody has tried to "resolve a dispute" or come to a compromise with you, and OpenFuture is going right on scolding. Is that all right? Seems it would be a pity to have to start this all over again, when so many helpful comments have already been made. But it's your call. Bishonen | talk 13:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC).


 * We have tried to resolve it, and this is documented.
 * What kind of compromise are you thinking of?
 * Again: All I want is that Pmanderson stops making personal attacks and engages in constructive discussion. Is that really too much to ask for? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * @OpenFuture: Again: Of course not. No true Scotsman would ask for less. Sorry, but I'm tired of trying to explain the same things to you over and over and getting only suspiciousness and resentment back. Instead I refer you to Cynwolfe's observations about respect, they're very good. I agree that your own attempt was "so pathetic it doesn't count". Well put! You complain a lot about admins not doing anything when you take PMA to WQA, to ANI, etc. It doesn't seem to occur to you that the admins might possibly disagree with your diagnosis of "personal attack" and "no constructive discussion", and therefore do not take any action against him. It's also pathetic that you're not even making nice now. You have asked Pmanderson a favour, right? You want him to do something for you: namely accept waiving the 48-hour rule. Wouldn't that be a good time to try and make a good impression on him ? Instead you go right on scolding. That's simply not sensible. Please try to bend a little. Everybody has to do a bit of that in a collective endeavour. Bishonen | talk 19:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC).
 * admins might possibly disagree with your diagnosis of "personal attack" - That sounds unlikely, at it in that case would make sense to say so. And also, explain to me how you disagree with the diagnosis of "personal attack" when he calls me a liar, a vandal and a sockpuppet, and calls Marknutley a liar, a vandal, a sockpuppet and a semi-literate ignoramus. How exactly is it possible to diagnose that in any other way than personal attacks?
 * Wouldn't that be a good time to try and make a good impression on him - Are you saying that it's OK to make personal attacks on everyone up until they have made a good impression on you? Isn't the reasonable behavior that he treats me with respect from the start? And maybe he could try to make a good impression on *me*? Why is him attacks me always my fault in your mind? Doesn't he have *any* responsibility for his own behavior?
 * I'm also waiting for examples of compromise when it comes to personal attacks. I have no idea what such a compromise would entail. For me it sounds like allowing him to make personal attacks on certain weekdays, which is so absurd that it clearly is not what you meant. :) Please elaborate. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * @Pmanderson: You've made it clear that you no longer believe Marknutley is a sock. I wish you'd formally withdraw the sock charge, since it's obviously important to him. (Mind you, if I had a penny for every time somebody thought *I* was a sock...) Bishonen | talk 19:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC).
 * You and that green little monster of yours would be quite awash in copper. 19:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced it is false, merely that I jumped to a conclusion in believing it true. But I will formally withdraw it, pending more evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of this is helpful; some of it will be useful evidence, and not only against me. Do keep it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to keep it, it should probably be moved from "Candidate" to "Certified" in this page Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList, or any administrator can delete it, as Bishonen has repeatedly threatened to do. Anyone can move it, but I will not, lest I again gets accused of various wrongdoings. It better be moved by someone uninvolved, or in this rather unusual case, even by you. It would in fact be an excellent show of good faith to do so, IMO. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't, and then you accuse *me* of bad faith. Mhm. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What is going on with Weaponbb7
Weaponbb7, you have made an outside view statement which appeared to recommend trouts all round, then you are certifying the RfC. You may not realise it, but I'm pretty sure you can't do both. To certify, you need to have been involved somehow in the dispute. If you feel your attempts to to resolve the dispute mean that you yourself were in dispute with PMAnderson, this would make you involved. Then you can certify the RfC, but you cannot have outside status. You need to move your comments into the statement of the dispute section - you may need to split it up between evidence and desired outcome. If on the other hand, you feel that you are outside the dispute (ie you yourself have never been in dispute with PMAnderson and you tried to resolve the problem only as an uninvolved editor), then you can only endorse and not certify, and you need to move your sig into that section.

Apologies for the high dose of bureaucratonium accompanying this post. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * stricken, sorry misunderstood the process Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * e/c [Bishonen's eyes start to gently cross. ] OMG, you're good..., Elen ..do you do this IRL? I would say: you're absolutely right, but it doesn't really matter. I plan to go on ignoring it, for my part. Bishonen | talk 19:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC).

Comment on Georgewilliamherbert's view
It's good to see that PMAnderson has now acknowledged that their comment that seems to have sparked this was inappropriate and apologized for it. - Where did he did he do that? I have yet to see any indication that he understands that all of his personal attacks are inappropriate. If you refer to his "I'm sorry I didn't use other words to call you a semi-literate ignoramus", or his "I'm sorry I called you sockpuppets, but that's because I think you are", non of these shows any insight that it was inappropriate, quite the opposite, since both "apologies" in fact contains the insult that he supposedly apologize for. Personally I don't care for apologies, one of the reasons are that they are easy to say, but hard to show that they are honest. I want the personal attacks to stop. Seems simple enough to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Have they not stopped? Come on my right hand, for this ear is deaf. PMA has apologized for calling marknutley a name (which he did in the context of the same kind of conditional sentence in which OpenFuture elsewhere sought to imply that I was a liar), and he has retracted his accusation of sockpuppetry. (I might've thought I'd live to a ripe old age without writing an absurd phrase like "accusation of sockpuppetry," but to the barricades!) PMA has taken quill in hand and written I must not tell lies. Therefore he cannot be compelled to pretend that marknutley's comments are informed and logical, in whatever ingeniously diplomatic language PMA might care to deploy in his future discussions. I ask, nay demand, that his remarks be courteous, lethal, and above all amusing. What Georgewilliamherbert has written is a model of dignified calm and plain unaffected language, full of insight into WP sociology. If the "attacks" are continuing, please show us where. If they are not, it's time to shut up. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No they have not stopped. See RfC and above. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As an uninvolved admin - and the one who drafted that outside view - if in my opinion he'd kept up the insults I would have given him a more direct and urgent warning and if it still continued I'd have blocked him.
 * You are welcome to your opinion on his prior actions. If you have more evidence that he's still at it, you can present diffs.  But what he's done on the RFC so far didn't constitute abuse in my eyes.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Except for the "apology-insults" mentioned above I haven't seen any personal attacks from him for at least 48hrs, so at least I have not gotten insulted. If this means that he is likely to have gotten the message that he should "work more diligently to avoid insults in the future" I'll leave up to people more experienced than me in these kinds of cases to judge. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I had hoped that he got the message and stopped insulting people, but now I lost hope. Although not a very bad insult, it still shows that he hasn't changed at all. Instead of answering in a constructive manner (or, if he has nothing to say, not answering at all), he simply insults me: . --OpenFuture (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And more: []. He claims I lie and calls me "OpenFraud". This will *not* stop, he has *not* gotten the message. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I was about ready to endorse this view, until I saw ChrisO using it to launch a paragraph long beatdown on Marknutley. Marknutly is by far not a perfect editor (although who among us IS perfect, I ask?) but perhaps ChrisO should wait for the ArbCom case to finish, or start an RfC about Mark instead of using an outside view as a pulpit. That's not really cricket. In fact it's problematic. ++Lar: t/c 03:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have shifted that to an outside view, endorsements are not a good place lengthy statementsWeaponbb7 (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Response only to query
The question was asked why there might be a pr9oblem with. The ref indicates that pages 11 to 18 are cited, rather than a single specific paragraph. The magazine article is not readily available online, and I did not find it readily available through the usual sources otherwise, making the potential for both OR and SYNTH way too high. In fact, using a broad range of pages for a claim is a "red flag" in most of WP - most claims can be based on single paragraphs at most. Not on 8 pages . That and the fact that I can find no basis for asserting that "The Bridge" is a reliable source for WP usage in itself. Modelski hinself seems primarily to be a proponent of long range global cycles and urbanization - hence I would need to see the exact quote being used for the claim, and in an accessible location . Collect (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is customary to cite magazine articles by range, as is also the academic custom. In fact, the citation of Babst is to a single paragraph, indeed to a single sentence, which explains why Babst's claim of peace between freely elected governments is not extended to rebellions and civil war. Similarly, the citation of Modelski is to a single sentence which discusses exceptions to the rule he is arguing for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could someone here please explain to PMA that using a bunch of different sources to get a conclusion is wp:synth he seems to think i have made up that you can`t combine sources to reach a conclusion mark nutley (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What mark nutley is actually objecting to is the use of a source which says A and a source which says B to say "A and B". Some of us have tried to explain to him that this is not synthesis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that's not true. Some of the content issues are SYN indeed, but that's far from the only content issue, and why using multiple sources here is a problem has been explained in detail, multiple times on the talk page. When it comes to Babst he simply doesn't support the quotes. He doesn't talk about wars between democracies.
 * That Pmanderson does not like this does not give him the right to insult Marknutley or me. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:List of wars between democracies is the only place on Wikipedia where I've seen the argument that information should be excluded because a great number of sources verify it. If this is a correct application of WP:SYNTH, there's a reason so many authorities doubt the encyclopedia. That's why I'm no longer participating in the discussion on that page. (More to the point, the page we're on is not about content disputes.) Marknutley in particular goes out of his way to imagine personal attacks and pick fights: one editor whose comments have been few but expressed with reason and restraint recently alluded to the value of good-faith editors, and marknutley in effect responded "who you callin' a bad-faith editor?" The answer, as anyone who cares to can see from this diff, is no one. Those who read discussion on that page from the time PMA was haled into the tribunal can judge for themselves who's tried to adopt a civil tone and a productive approach, and who continues to offer taunts. Here OpenFuture calls me obtuse; the point is that the two editors who are shouting loudest about continuing to be insulted are, as far as I can see, the only ones doing it. When can this business be closed? Georgewilliamherbert's comment has been endorsed by several editors. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cyn, i see no issue in asking an editor whom he is accusing of bad faith when that is essentially what he has written. Now can you point to a diff were i insult PMA? I`ll give you ten to one you don`t. I asked this guy to remove his accusations, he responded by, more insults. I`m sorry that you think this is a witch hunt, it is not. Being civil is an integral part of wiki process mark nutley (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not what the "good faith" comment said, as any impartial reader can see. You were neither addressed nor named, and if the editor had ever engaged with you directly in discussion, I'm not aware of it; you are assuming you're not among the good-faith editors referred to. That is your self-identification. There was no "accusation," and my point is that if this is the kind of "insult" these two will continue to harp on, this process is worse than frivolous, and should be halted quickly. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a section to the main page about mark nutley's editing. To me they show a pattern of civil POV pushing and therefore we would not find egregious examples of incivility but a continued pattern of disruptive editing nonetheless.  TFD (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell me, is adding an OR tag wp:vandal? i`m sure you know it`s not. TFD please show me your examples of disruptive editing, and i`ll show you your`s. mark nutley (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding a tag which claims that there is no source to an assertion with a source is vandalism, although perhaps the wider term malicious mischief would fit better; in this case, this single source ranks the war as a full-scale war and India and Pakistan as democracies, all three. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was tagged as this since Brecher et al. lump common democracy in with other variables, and consider the greatest difference between pairs of states, not the least, there may be others looks like OR to me, if i was wrong then the tag should have been removed without it being labelled vandalism. I withdraw from this RFC, this user is not about to change his attitude. I shall withdraw from his article as it is obvious he will continue to assume bad faith of me. mark nutley (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is information the reader may want; that the source does not say and specifically does not imply that the one example cited in unique. Mark nutley's perpetual effort to suppress information is bad faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding a tag which claims that there is no source to an assertion with a source is vandalism - No it is not. As usual you fail WP:AGF. It is not vandalism, it's just incorrect. The correct tag to use when a source does not support the text is . --OpenFuture (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But it does support the text; that's where I found that out. . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me make clear: this is not my article; I have reverted no substantive change, and I would welcome sources, especially sources which deny that this encounter is a war or the that that regime is a democracy.
 * If mark had come up with his explanation earlier, and discussed his tag when placing it, instead of tagging text with a clearly false description, that might not have been vandalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it supports it or not is not relevant here since this isn't about the content dispute. You think it does, Marknutley think it doesn't. Then you discuss this issue on the talk page and if you still can't agree you raise it to some sort of forum. The relevant part here is that under no circumstances are you to insult each other. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, a small comment on "found that out". You are a well read and intelligent person, and will find out a lot of things that isn't actually in a source, because that source will drop pieces into place that will make you realize things. So you will find out a lot of things that are not actually in the source by reading it. But you can't put that into Wikipedia, unless you first publish it in a reliable source. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One reason that Wikipedia is edited by humans, not bots, is that editors are expected to understand what they read. OpenFuture is denying this; he is welcome to set up a fork of Wikipedia based on machine intelligence - I will even attempt to read it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis

 * Cynwolfe: 'Talk:List of wars between democracies is the only place on Wikipedia where I've seen the argument that information should be excluded because a great number of sources verify it.'' - I think it's highly unlikely that you have seen this argument, but if you have you are welcome to show the diff. I'm 100% sure I have not made that argument in any case.
 * If this is a correct application of WP:SYNTH - Obviously, it is not. This seems to be a pure straw man argument. Please take this discussion to the talk page, this is not about the WP:V issues with Pmandersons edits, it's about his behaviour.
 *  and who continues to offer taunts - You claimed I engaged in filibustering. I asked you to think about who actually did what in that discussion. It's not a taunt, but a plea for you to take a step back and look at yours and Pmandersons contribution to that discussion and try to look at it with a cool and objective eye. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This is worth discussing. As far as I recall, none of OpenFuture's blankings rest on this precise issue, and it only applies to a few of the entries anyway; but if there is consensus that Fooland is a democracy and consensus that Barland is a democracy and consensus that they went to war in 19XX, OpenFuture argues that we should not include it, unless some one source happens to assert all three things. This seems to me contrary to the wording and intent of WP:SYNTH, which nowhere prohibits putting together A and B to make "A and B". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made no "blanking". I have removed unsupported claims, yes. If those where SYNTH or not I can't remember. I stopped removing entries a long time ago, since you just add them back, and that turns into an editwar, and with the 3RR rule that means you get the last revert. so that would be rather pointless reverting back and forth for no good reason, so I let it stay, and instead try to discuss it on the talk page, which unfortunately has been rather unsuccessful, in part because of your insults, and to the other part because of your stonewalling and general refusal to accept Wikipedia policy.
 * but if there is consensus that Fooland is a democracy and consensus that Barland is a democracy and consensus that they went to war in 19XX, OpenFuture argues that we should not include it - We haven't even come as far in the discussion as if there is any consensus about the states. The discussion has been in cases where consensus rather is the opposite, namely that either Fooland or Barlan, or both were NOT democracies. In the beginning I wanted to remove entries where consensus clearly was that not both of the states was democracies. I have, as mentioned, realized that I was wrong, and that this also if a form of synthesis. Now I want entries to be included if we can find a source claiming the conflicts to be wars between democracies, but not otherwise. That seems fairly straightforward, I think. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am disappointed; I had actually thought that OpenFuture had stopped blanking the article because he had realized it was wrong. I suppose this is the advantage of having policies which discourage freezing articles. His blankings are listed on the RfC page; all of them have sources; almost all of them actually do have one source which claims all three things. So much for mere facts.


 * But we are discussing OpenFuture's invention of policy: that in order to assert A and B and C, we must have one and the same source say all three of them. This is not policy; it is not practice; he has been challenged to find a single article edited on that principle, and has not.


 * Yes, he has been unsuccessful; he has been unable to find an editor who agrees with him (except for mark nutley). Does anybody here agree with this artificial constraint? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have never held or argued for any of the positions Pmanderson now accuse me of holding. It would probably be better for the debate if Pmanderson could answer what I actually say instead. But I guess he simply doesn't have anything to criticize in that and that his response above in fact means that he agrees with everything I said. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If OpenFuture has not been arguing for the necessity of one source, saying (preferably literally and in one sentence) that War X, between A and B, was a "war between democracies", then the only meaning in all his incoherent posts is this:
 * He doesn't want it mentioned that the founder of democratic peace theory, who used the term "freely elected governments", admits that there have been civil wars and wars of succession between such governments.
 * This is no service to the reader, who may be interested in which examples this man used; I was.
 * I am embarrassed, even for this editor, to mention OpenFuture's reasoning, which varies between claims that "freely elected government" doesn't mean democracy (even though reliable sources say it does), and that it somehow doesn't matter if it does.
 * I attempted to deal with this by making clear the terminological difference; but this hasn't helped. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If OpenFuture has not been arguing for the necessity... - That's a different position than then one you claimed I held above, and it's still not my position, but it's getting closer. :)
 * He doesn't want it mentioned... - I never claimed I don't want it mentioned. In fact, I have repeatedly said I *do* want it mentioned. I do *not* want to use it as a source. There is a difference.
 * I think the main problem in this debate is this: I was one of the people who changed the content of the article to match it's title after renaming. Becuase of that Pmanderson, before ever discussing with me, decided that I was an idiot, and he simply does not listen to what I say because of that. Therefore he will, as shown above, accuse me of holding positions that I have not expressed in any way, and in fact often contradicted. Since he doesn't read what I say, he tells himself I say really stupid things (when I in fact often say the exact opposite of what he thinks I say) and as a result continues to insult me. That's not a useful way forward.
 * I attempted to deal with this by making clear the terminological difference; but this hasn't helped. - Right. I think that you should try to deal with this by listening to what I say instead. That way you wouldn't misunderstand me so much and then debate could go forward. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry OpenFuture, but would you help those of us unable to appreciate the subtleties of your position by explaining how your statement "I have never held or argued for any of the positions Pmanderson now accuse me of holding" is compatable with these:
 * You say that you want entries to be concluded "if we can find a source claiming the conflicts to be wars between democracies, but not otherwise"
 * PMAnderson says "But we are discussing OpenFuture's invention of policy: that in order to assert A and B and C, we must have one and the same source say all three of them. This is not policy; it is not practice; he has been challenged to find a single article edited on that principle, and has not."
 * It is also the case that while Mark Nutley lodged this case you work very closely with him not just on the article which generated this RfC, but also here, in fact it is very difficult to separate the pair of you. Given that an RfC examines the behaviour of all editors ... -- Snowded  TALK  06:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Those two are two different positions. I hold one of the positions, but not the other. And so does WP:V. All I'm saying is that List of wars between democracies are subject to the same WP:V rules as all other articles. That seems fairly uncontroversial to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well they look pretty identical to me, and if there is a difference its so obscure as to not justify your accusation against the other editor. It does illustrate a general problem in engaging with you.  Look at what happens here, you simply say "they are different" and then run to your normal claim that WIkipedia policy agrees with you.  You don't explain and seem to avoid putting yourself in a position where other editors can engage in moving forwards other than by agreement or disagreement.  You and Mark both do the same thing (and make similar grammatical errors) and it is immensely frustrating for other editors.   I think the RfC should extend to cover this aspect as well as it explains what might (in isolation from context) be considered an intemperate reaction-- Snowded  TALK  06:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's like asking what the difference is between a glass of orange juice and a nuclear reactor. I have a big difference in explaining that difference yes. The question rather presumes they are similar, but they are not. Maybe you could explain how they are similar instead? You think they look pretty identical. In what way are they identical? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can bottom this. Getting to the bottom of people's view on sourcing may lead to better dialogue and a prevention of further issues. OpenFuture, could you perhaps confirm which of the following approaches you consider within policy and which you do not. I appreciate this may be burdensome, but it could take us further. (*(nb this is actually the case - Diana Spencer was descended from not one but two illigitemate offspring of Charles II)this is not a BLP violation for Harry and Wills)
 * 1) I want to create List of descendents of King Charles II who have married each other. A very reliable source (say royal.gov.uk) states that Lady Diana Spencer and Prince Charles were both descended from King Charles II, and their marriage was therefore a marriage between two descendents of King Charles II. Can I add them to the list?
 * 2) royal.gov.uk says that Prince Charles is a descendent of Charles II, and says that he married Lady Di. The official website of the Spencer family says that Lady Di was a descendent of Charles II.
 * 3) royal.gov.uk says that Charlie is descended from his namesake. The Spencer family site say that Diana was ditto.  The BBC is my source for the wedding of the pair.
 * 4) royal.gov.uk shows Prince Charles's legitimate descent from Charles II (it's a bit convoluted, but everyone involved was married at the time). The source I have for Lady Diana's origins shows that her connection to Charles II is through the illigitemate child of a mistress*. Historians agree that the child's father is King Charles II, but of course he never 'officially' acknowledged the child. The BBC is my source for the wedding.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a problem with your example, and that is that marriage and descendants are quote uncontroversial concepts. There is little doubt on who is married and who is not. There is also no dispute about what "descendant" means. I'd doubt that you find one source that claims that only illegitimate children should be counted, so that Lady Diana was descended from Charles II but Prince Charles is not. You will however, in discussions about democracies, find sources that do claim that Cuba is democratic and the US is not.
 * Therefore 1. Is clearly OK. 2 to 4 May be OK in your example, but it's not OK in the article about wars between democracies. This is because a war between democracies is not like a marriage, in that it is a contested controversial topic, with multiple views of what wars is and what democracies are. You could for example end up claiming that the Bay of Pigs was a war between democracies, since there are people who argues that Cuba was a democracy at that time, and there was people saying that the US was a democracy at that time. To my knowledge nobody claims *both* though. Therefore we really need to have a source that claims a conflict is a war between democracies, or we are engaging in WP:OR. (And this is just the beginning of the troubles with that article, but taking that up here is both OT and is just going to complicate the issue for no reason. Let's take one thing at a time.) --OpenFuture (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: "You will however, in discussions about democracies, find sources that do claim that Cuba is democratic and the US is not." You can find non-fringe sources that make these claims? Active Banana (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think this has taken us closer to the problem. No it is not original research to find one mainstream source that says that X is a democracy and one mainstream source that says Y is a democracy, and use both to source the sentence "X and Y are democracies". The OR policy has the same application to democracies as it does to royal descents.  It would not even be OR to use one mainstream and one fringe source to source the sentence.  What it might be is giving undue weight to the idea that Y is a democracy if the only source is a fringe source.  If other editors find mainstream sources that agree that Y is not a democracy, then there would be problems.  So in your example, if someone claimed with one source that Cuba under Castro was a democracy, and other editors found ten reliable mainstream sources that described it as something not compatible with democracy, then it would be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE to try to put Cuba in a list of democracies.


 * So we can knock OR on the head, and focus on the quality of sources, which is much more helpful. If a reliable source says that X is a democracy, and there are not other reliable sources that say that they are not, then the article should include X as a democracy. If all mainstream sources agree that it is, and only fringe sources say otherwise then X should be included.  If one or a few mainstream sources disagree, then the article would normally be expected to include X but say "Scroggins argues that X is not a democracy."


 * Incidentally, I share your concerns over 'war'. Modern international law has a strict definition of 'war' 'at war' 'go to war' etc that is rarely invoked where the aggressor is a country with a functioning government (democratic or not).  On that basis, there have been no wars since WWII ended. Editors of the article would therefore have to agree among themselves as to what evidence should be acceptable to conclude that something was a 'war'.  One possible solution would be to rename the article List of armed conflicts between democracies, another would be to agree on an alternative definition for 'war' in the post WWII era, but of course any proposition would need consensus. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What you are actually suggesting is that we for each and every conflict in the history of the world, completely ignore everyone who has done research on wars between democracies, and instead in every case finds out what the academic consensus of the type of government that was for the involved countries at that point, and what academic consensus is about whether the conflict was a war or not. In other words, we should according to you completely ignore the research on democratic peace theory and instead do that research all over again. I'm sorry, but that sounds completely unreasonable, and it sounds like a gigantic WP:OR violation.
 * Incidentally, I share your concerns over 'war'. - But not over "democracy"!? I'm very surprised at that, as "democracy" is a much more difficult case than "war".
 * Any proposition would need consensus. - That seems unrealistic. It seems like a way better idea to actually use the research done on wars between democracies. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OpenFuture, there is no aspect of the sentence "democracy X (source A) and democracy Y (source B) went to war in the year dot (source C)" which constitutes WP:OR, because all three statements (X is a democracy, Y is a democracy and X and Y fought a war) are simple facts. OR is where you synthesise a conclusion based on sources that do not support it   - eg "X was having an affair with Y's wife" (source A) and "Y did not give X the job" (source B) cannot be written "Y turned X down for the job because X was having an affair with his wife".


 * Also, if we are to have a list of "wars between democracies", then it must include all wars as defined by mainstream sources between all democracies as defined by mainstream sources, and not a subset of same written up by sources whose focus is making some point or other about wars between democracies. If a lot of historians/political commentators agree that X is a democracy, and the same or other sources agree that Y is a democracy, and there are historical or news sources that X and Y were engaged in a substantial armed conflict...BUT...sources that solely cover "wars between democracies" do not include this, then there may be a case for arguing that the "wars between democracies" sources are themselves WP:FRINGE. Or, more likely, that such sources are cherry picking wars to suit some further theory.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Elen, I wonder whether you could be persuaded to post/copy these eminently sane remarks at Talk:List of wars between democracies? Under a new section heading. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. I've copied the whole conversation over to there at Talk:List_of_wars_between_democracies, and collapsed it here to encourage conversation only in one place.  If anyone objects, they are free to undo Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to mark nutley
mark nutley made the following comment: "Tell me, is adding an OR tag wp:vandal? [11] i`m sure you know it`s not. TFD please show me your examples of disruptive editing, and i`ll show you your`s. mark nutley (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)"

First of all, this RfC is about Pmanderson, OpenFuture and mark nutley, no one else. Despite the fact that numerous editors can be found in the discussions, OpenFuture chose to invite only one other editor to join the RfC. Had I been invited I would have opposed the RfC seeing it as one of a number of frivolous actions taken by OpenFuture. FYI I have added evidence about disruptive behavior by mark nutley. If mark nutley desires to present evidence of disruptive evidence against me and numerous other editors with whom he has conflicted then he should do this. If mark nutley wants me to comment on how adding an OR tag is vandalism, he should present an example where he was called a vandal for removing an OR tag. TFD (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, please read my post again, carefully. Were in it do i say i was called a vandal for removing a tag? As for your behaviour, calling an identifiable living person a crackpot who promotes conspiracy theories strikes me as disruptive. I`m away for a few days, have fun mark nutley (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You said, "Tell me, is adding an OR tag wp:vandal". If in fact you removed an OR tag then you should correct your statement.  I am only replying to what you said, you must show where you added/removed an OR tag and were called a vandal.  Bringing up comments I have made outside this RfC is an argumentum ad hominem.  That is an attempt to discredit the messenger in order to discredit the message.  Again, this RfC is about you, OpenFuture and Pmanderson.  If you want to set up another complaint then you may do so, but it is not relevant to this discussion.  It is also unfair because any response I would make would be a distraction from the RfC that you have signed.  BTW please do not call me "dude" which I find to be an insulting colloquial expression.  TFD (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You obviously did not read my post nor the link within, Tell me, is adding an OR tag wp:vandal? It is a question. Is adding a tag vandalism? Now look at the link Again in case you miss it and tell me is that edit summary correct? mark nutley (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD has not been involved in this conflict in any way whatsoever. I've not made general invitations because I was recommended not to, so I could not be accused of canvassing. The "frivolous actions" probably refer to the list of diffs TFD took to a WQA. The summary of the closing of that WQA alert was "Editors have found little to suggest a personal attack. Those who do see this as a personal attack appear to be bringing a prior animus to bear on their interpretation, which itself smacks of WP:BATTLE by other means. So: no clear WP:NPA violation, not really an issue for WP:WQA." Which should have made it clear for TFD that there was no "frivolous actions". --OpenFuture (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It would seem to me that if you and mark nutley had difficulty with another editor then you should invite all the editors to comment so that the nature and causes of the conflict could be explored. It seems that out of countless editors with whom Pmanderson has come into contact only you and mark nutley have had any difficulty.  However my evidence shows that both of you have had problems with numerous other editors.  Who by the way recommended that you not make general invitations? Your comment ""frivolous actions" probably refer to the list of diffs TFD took to a WQA" is sarcastic.  Obviously I am not referring to actions I took but to actions that you and mark nutley took and sarcasm has no place in this discussion.  If anyone wants to look at the WQA I took, it is at WQA archive 88.  TFD (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that out of countless editors with whom Pmanderson has come into contact only you and mark nutley have had any difficulty. - That is incorrect. As is pretty much everything you say above. There has been no frivolous actions, nor sarcasm, etc. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The proof is in the pudding. mark nutley is the only other editor you invited to join this RfC and you should explain why this is.  TFD (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is also not true. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whom else did you invite? TFD (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not invite anyone, and as with all RfC's everyone are invited. I asked a couple of editors for feedback on the draft RFC to see if there was a case for an RfC. You can call that an invite if you like. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that you informed three editors that you were writing up an RfC: Greg L,, HWV258 and mark nutley.  Greg L said that he had had limited personal dealings with Pmanderson.  mark nutley is the only editor you asked to certify the dispute.  Why is it that out of countless editors with whom Pmanderson has come into contact you only asked one other editor to certify the dispute?  TFD (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A fascinating choice, btw, since the other two were bitter opponents at the date-delinking Arbitration, just over a year ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you are accusing me of. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So maybe you would care to explain? As far as I can see, TFD demands to have been asked to certify an RfD on a conflict where he wasn't involved (and therefore he can't certify it). This all seems fairly absurd to me. Why should I ask him to do something he can't do? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we get some action on this RfC?
I have done what was asked to fulfill the minimum requirements, IMO. The insults and personal attacks are continuing. The existence of the RfC blocks other dispute resolution on List of wars between democracies, could we please get some sort of action on it? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What sort of action were you expecting? The purpose of an Rfc is to give the wider community the opportunity to comment on the situation and strive to reach a consensus.  I can see that happening. In addition, others have joined the discussion at Talk:List of wars between democracies, which has rather taken the heat off PMAnderson, given that there are others now supporting his view. You could close this RfC, and start one on what exactly the content of the list article should be.  That might be promising. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all I'd like to see the RfC moved from Candidate to Certified, so something can happen. That move can be done by anybody, but it it obviously not a good idea that those who certify it do the move.
 * Then what I would like to see has been outlined in the RfC itself.
 * Pmanderson doesn't need to get taken heat off. What he needs is to stop insulting people. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I read the header for this section and instantly had porn music stuck in my head. 718smiley.png &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * An RFC on the list's disputed content and purposes seems an excellent idea. It still seems like trench warfare, over there. Under all the accumulating cludge and fallout. Haploidavey (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but before I want that, I want the insults to stop. We can't have a proper RfC is everyone who expresses dissent with Pmanderson gets insulted. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we could. After all, if he insults more people, he's more likely to get blocked. I thought this Rfc was certified. It's showing up on the ANI header. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have blocked PMAnderson for 48 hrs for ongoing personal attacks. The behavior is somewhat disappointing after prior comments and his promise to stop.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * e/c. No, it's not certified, Elen. Pmanderson has waived the certification rule and I have applied a dose of IAR, that's why the RfC can continue. "Can we get some action on this RfC?" asks OpenFuture. In short: no, we can't. RfCs are for comments, not action. See ;  "An RfC doesn't create sanctions". There are  suggestions on the main RfC/U page for what one can do on the basis of the  comments: "While an RfC doesn't create sanctions, it may provide justification for them by collecting information, assessing consensus, and providing feedback to the subject. Sanctions may then be created separately through the administrative, community sanction, or arbitration processes." An RfC may provide justification for sanctions. It doesn't look like this one would, IMO, going by the Outside views and the endorsements of them, and OpenFuture's own demeanour in this RfC,  but he can always try. Bishonen | talk 22:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC).
 * The RfC is certified. Your objections to it's certification has been fixed. And I didn't ask for action *from* but *on*, that is that someone moves it to the certified bit of the list, and then some one draws some sort of conclusion. It's a pretty pathetic failure of dispute resolution process if I have to do both myself. :-) Every time someone takes up a WQA or ANI and apparently also RfC's concerning Pmanderson, they just linger forever, and nobody does anything. Why it that? Why should some sort of special rules apply to him? If you really think he has done nothing wrong, and it's me and Marknutley that is at fault here, why don't you approve the RfC, and close it with saying so? Why should every effort to get Pmanderson to follow Wikipedia policy linger in limbo for eternity? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bishonen. No, I can't see this going much further. I would say that I don't think the three diffs which GWH cited for his block reason were that bad (other than calling the guy Open Fraud. That was unnecessary), and I really don't want to see OpenFuture left to ownership of the article in question, and his bizarre interpretations of policy. Maybe as suggested above, abandoning this and starting an RfC on the actual article content might be a better bet. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Under additional scrutiny, an active RFC, and despite having acknowledged his problem and apologized, PMA did it again. That's not behavior we want to encourage or tolerate.
 * With that said - there is clearly a larger problem, and though I don't think it was intentional baiting the behavior of others on the article is certainly needing scrutiny as well. PMAs action was something that could be dealt with easily and clearly - the rest is more complex and needs a bit more time.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Outcome
The desired outcome was to have Pmanderson stop the personal attacks. Since his block for personal attacks he has not made any personal attacks as far as I'm aware, and as a result the content dispute discussion has made several leaps forward. I regard this issue as done. I guess I should close it, but I'll leave it open for a while in case somebody else wants to write a summary. (I made one, but as part in the case I would prefer if somebody neutral would write it, but I hope I made a summary that is neutral and acceptable for all). --OpenFuture (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see and appreciate your effort at neutrality, but the fact is your summary is incomplete. RfC means "Request for Comments". There have been plenty of comments from the community; those are the most important result of the RfC, and should be part of any neutral summary of it.


 * The incompleteness is acceptable, as long as your summary is marked as your summary, and I have so marked it, by changing the header to "OpenFuture's summary". No, you shouldn't close it, that's for a neutral editor. Specifically, since we're waiting for comments by Georgeherbertwilliam, the RfC is not ready to be closed. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Ah, you are of course quite correct. I'll improve the summary, and rename it to "Summary" again. If you still don't think it's good enough you can rename it back to "OpenFutures" summary, and we'll leave it at that. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you absolutely cannot do that. Why should the person who made the accusation in the first place (the "prosecutor") be allowed to make what's supposed to be a neutral summary? You can't bring the charge and then pronounce on the case as if you're the judge. That's ridiculous — and also suggests that you have little sense of what a fair process is. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Geez, cool down the hysterics. This is, if you haven't realized, a Wiki. So anybody can edit pretty much anything. Including you. Firstly: Why didn't *you* make a summary? Secondly, I do not "pretend" to be neutral. I'm attempting to make a fair summary. If you have problems with the summary, you can tell me what you find unfair, or even fix it up yourself. As Bishonen did above. Now fixed. Thirdly: I wouldn't have done it, if somebody else did. But as now this RfC has for some reason ended up in limbo land, even long after Pmanderson in fact did get a block. I'm attempting to get it out of limbo by doing something nobody else seemed willing to do: Make a summary, so it later can be closed. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OpenFuture, no, there are some things that can't be edited. Procedurally an RFC/U cannot be closed by the editor(s) who opened it, or by the editor who is the subject of comment. You are quite at liberty to prepare a summary of what you believe has transpired, provided you are clear in your own mind that this is not the same as any summary that an uninvolved editor/admin might make, and you do not attempt to label it as such.  This is why Bishonen changed the heading, and why you were unwise to change it back. Also, RFCs can run for up to 30 days, so this one can certainly wait until Georgewilliamherbert offers his view. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In answer to OpenFuture, I won't make a summary because I'm not neutral in this discussion, and I don't pretend to be. I have strong opinions about what happened here, and why it isn't a good thing for WP. This is not an article page, where editors contribute content from a position of intellectual neutrality based on what informed others have said. A summary here requires the kind of moderate, detached approach that Georgewilliamherbert has already demonstrated. That OpenFuture thinks he should have the last word, or that he would assert his ability to be neutral on a charge he brought, speaks for itself. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never claimed that I should have the last word, or that I'm neutral. Your love for straw men and assumptions of bad faith doesn't suit you.
 * Procedurally an RFC/U cannot be closed by the editor(s) who opened it. OK, good to know. Can you point me at the procedure, because I haven't been able to find one. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. – xeno talk 16:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --OpenFuture (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Summary prepared by OpenFuture
There has been eight outside views given, not counting ActiveBananas withdrawn view, with a total of 35 users endorsing one or several of the views, the summary or the response, not including OpenFuture, Marknutley or Pmanderson (they are not included in any of the numbers below).

Views on Pmandersons behavior

 * The Four Deuces, Cynwolfe, Haploidavey either expresses the opinion that Pmanderson has done nothing wrong, or does not mention his behavior, which can be implied to mean that he did nothing wrong. There is a total of 13 users endorsing one or several of these.
 * This summary of my comment is inaccurate. A summary should be written by a neutral, outside party, not one of the people who made the complaint in the first place. The following summary is also imprecise (relying on numerical assessment of nuanced verbal statements) and similarly biased. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Teeninvestor, Epeefleche, Weaponbb7, Georgewilliamherbert and ChrisO criticizes Pmandersons behavior in some way. A total of 25 endorses one or several of these views and a further five endorses OpenFutures and Marknutleys summary, for a grand total of 29 out of 35 supporting one or several views that criticizes Pmandersons behavior.

Views on OpenFutures and Marknutleys behavior

 * ChrisO, and Weaponbb7 criticizes Marknutleys behavior. A total of 12 users endorse one of these views.
 * The Four Deuces and Haploidavey criticizes OpenFutures and Marknutleys behavior. A total of 9 users endorse The Four Deuces and/or Haploidavey views. In total 15 users endorse a view that criticizes one or both of OpenFuture or Marknutley.

In summary there is a clear majority support for the view that Pmandersons behavior was wrong, with many but not all of the editors expressing the wish for some sort of action like a warning or a probation period. There is a large minority that criticizes Marknutleys behavior, and there was also some criticism against OpenFuture.

Aftermath

 * Pmanderson got a 48h block for personal attacks. by User:Georgewilliamherbert.
 * Pmanderson promised to stay away from the talk page for 48hrs:
 * Regentspark unblocked him.

He did stay away from the talk page and has not done any personal attacks since.

Comments
I've moved this summary here. I'm pretty sure that the RFC should be closed/summarized by a neutral party, or if no neutral party is available, by a consensus of involved parties after being discussed at the talk page. – xeno talk 15:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I'm awaiting comments. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Open future, you have made a reckless move here, this should have been done by a third party. besides we are only thirteen days into this the Typical RFC/U is 30 days Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the stated goal has already happened, so I thought we could just close it and be done with. No point in dragging out the pain. :-) As for "reckless" I don't see how. You might want to read what I wrote above about the summary. I agree it's better to write it on the discussion page than directly on the main page, I didn't have that idea. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Xeno. And also with Cynwolfe's point that "nuanced verbal statements" can't be reduced to simple arithmetic. OpenFuture's figures show what can happen if you try; I've done a little counting myself (likely enough getting somewhat entangled, especially with the figures for users who have endorsed many views), just as an example, and found that there are many ways of doing it. I've only counted Outside views, perhaps a bad idea, but I ran out of steam for anything else. By my count, 13 users have specifically praised PMA's editing; 5 have criticised and praised both OpenFuture, marknutley, and PMA together (with this, I'm referring to endorsements of WeaponBB7's outside view); 4 have criticised OpenFuture, either vigorously or more tamely; and the big one, Georgewilliamherbert's view which is a host unto itself, contains a nuanced mix of views of PMA, and advice to him for the future. It was endorsed by 19 users. Straight, strong criticism of PMA I only find from 4 users (endorsing at Teeninvestor and Epeefleche). I've counted from top to bottom, and skipped any endorser I came across who I had already counted as endorsing another similar view, but not if they'd endorsed a quite different one, which is the reason people like Cynwolfe and Elen have been counted as endorsers of GWH's view... Hello... ? Are you following me? Wake up! A number of people also criticised marknutley specifically... let's not worry about that at this point. Anyway, the counting was very boring and probably didn't come out 100% correctly. That's not my point; my point is how startlingly different my figures are from OpenFuture's. Both he and I, I'm sure, have done our best to count in a neutral way; but there are simply too many imponderables. He arrives at the conclusion that there's a "clear majority support for the view that Pmandersons behavior was wrong, with many but not all of the editors expressing the wish for some sort of action like a warning or a probation period", while I find only 4 users who have unequivocally censured PMA without qualifying their criticism. Obviously, the whole thing is very subjective. It's just not suited to arithmetic.


 * OpenFuture, who filed the RfC, does indeed not get to summarise or close it. That's a no-no, as I hope he has now realised. Note that he has been trying to get somebody neutral to do it, which is decent. But I don't see the hurry; as Weaponbb7 points out, 30 days is the typical RFC/U length of time. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC).
 * OK, I apologize for the rush. As noted, since the issue is done with, I didn't see why the RfC has to hang around any more. But I should have also realized that Elen of the Roads and Cynwolfe would protest anything I say or do, no matter what. In hindsight it was obvious that it was a wasted effort. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No no! Let us agree good faith here. You had some difficulties starting this process due to unfamiliarity, you've made a mis-step here because of unfamiliarity with the process. It is bureaucratic, and people don't expect that. Let us await the final outcome. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --OpenFuture (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue of alleged PAs by Pmanderson has been addressed and if it occurs in future should be handled through WQA or ANI. But we still need to address concerns about editing by mark nutley and OpenFuture, which requires more extensive investigation.  That way we should be able to address the causes of the concerns that led to the filing of this RfC.  TFD (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Alleged PA`s? Funny. There is a question in this section which you never replied to. Is adding an OR tag vandalism? I also asked you in that same section to produce diff`s of my personal attacks on PMA. Still waiting on those btw. My conduct in this is not an issue, i asked questions and was called a liar, a vandal, semi-literate. That is the issue here. mark nutley (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read my comments on the main page. TFD (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have, i assume from your non reply that you think calling a person a vandal for adding an OR tag is ok, and to call them liars, vandals, ignorant and semi-literate is not an issue. We have had quite a few run ins TFD, have i ever insulted you like that? But hey if you think it`s ok to talk to people like that i look forward to our next conversation mark nutley (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Get a room, you two. ;-) PMA got a block because of his PA's, I don't see the point in bickering about whether he did them or not any more. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this RFC over? I ask as pma appears to be canvassing on article talk pages about these disputes and is bringing them to the current arbitration case on CC articles mark nutley (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)