Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/The Plague

Objections
As this is tangently related to a currently running request for arbitration, it is inappropriate that discussions which directly relate to that case take place as an RFC whilst that case is running. Suggestions should be made on the workshop of the case pages, rather than at an avenue such as this that parties to the case are probably not familiar with. Rd232 moved my previous comments to my talk page at User_talk:Russavia. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I am entitled to mine. I have now stated my opinion, and will say so again, that an RFC which discusses in any great detail an ongoing case of arbitration is inappropriate in my opinion, and that comments relating to that arbitration should take place on the case pages. Not here. Please do not remove my comments from here again Rd232, particularly as RFCs are often used to gather consensus, and it is obvious from the AN thread that several users are trying to do this for their own reasons. There is also a reason that this is called "Requests for comment" - you have my comment, and it is related to this. I would be happy to offer some further comments on such a subject after the current case, and I do have some ideas, but for the time being it is inappropriate here. --Russavia Dialogue 2:23 pm, Today (UTC+8)
 * Rd232: I second the motion to close. The whole community service package is nothing than an EEML trick to escape accountability on the main case. As for the opening reference to Moreschi, I left a not with my opinion on their talk page. NVO (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Let's wait until WP:EEML finishes. Offliner (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You're all involved with the EEML case. Sorry, but your objections look like unseemly navelgazing. ARBCOM isn't supposed to do the sort of thing this RFC is designed to do, which is come up with new ideas on how to deal with a very general issue. Nor is there much chance of any general debate in this RFC feeding into the EEML case, not least because, erm, that would be silly, and Arbitrators presumably have more sense than that. See also my response to Russavia at WP:AN. Rd232 talk 09:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rd, your response here and on AN don't seem to be assuming good faith as to why objections have been raised. I am involved in EEML. Offliner is involved in EEML. NVO is not involved in EEML at all. Please assume good faith with objections. Thanks, --Russavia Dialogue 09:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:AAGF. If I'm assuming anything, it's an inability to see the wood for the trees, which is understandable, and has nothing whatsoever to do with good/bad faith. PS My bad if NVO isn't involved, I thought I recognised the name as being related to that topic. Rd232 talk 10:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A side note: establishment of firm editorial content policies, as suggested by Moreschi and supported by yours truly, logically leads to re-assessment and, perhaps, complete trashing of NPOV, "consensus" and, quite likely, AGF policies. If non-compliant POVs are outlawed from any topic (not necessarily related to nationalism) than there's no need to assume good faith. Encyclopedia Britannica is an encyclopedia, but it's also Britannica, in bold face. NVO (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rd, I can see the wood from the trees. The only problem that I have is that this has all come about as a result of the EEML, and the resultant AN thread has seen involvement from 3 of the parties involved in that case. I just believe that discussions such as this should take place after that case, not during it. If it must take place during the case, I do believe that discussion is best suited to take place on the Arb cases themselves, as there may be ideas raised that may be workable and may actually be supported by those involved in the case, and by the Committee themselves. Then after the case, it can be expanded upon here, and likely will be able to get further involvement from the community. And I am serious with what I say here; there is a prevalent train of thought from editors who are uninvolved in WP:EEML that the entire membership of the mailing list should be banned for a lengthy period, or topic banned for a lengthy period. I don't believe this is required for all of the members of that list, and discussions such as what are of the subject of this RFC could take place on the EEML case pages, and solutions may be found which many will agree to. Would that not be preferable, instead of a ban them all approach, which many uninvolved editors feel is warranted? Well you tell me. Consider what I am saying from this viewpoint, and this viewpoint only, as that is the vein in which I have written it. --Russavia Dialogue 10:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You say "I can see the wood from the trees.", and then you talk about details of the EEML case, proving the opposite. Not interested. Rd232 talk 12:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to discuss this just because there's a vaguely related ArbCom case in progress, but I would suggest that there are two pretty unrelated proposals on the page at the moment - one is about a suggested alternative to blocks and bans; one is about setting up a system of content arbitration. Though they may have been inspired by the same broad set of circumstances, I don't see that they are sufficiently connected to consider them together, and would suggest splitting them into two separate RfCs.--Kotniski (talk) 11:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea is that individual ideas/suggestions would be examined further in individual RFCs if there's enough support for saying "OK, worth exploring further". Secondarily, the discussion here would help ensure those RFCs start with slightly better, more well-thought-out versions of those ideas than would otherwise be the case. Rd232 talk 12:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's two (for now) different proposals both trying to deal with the same issue from different angles. At some point they will need to be split up. I think for now just some brainstorming is fine. I dunno ... let a few more people comment on the specific proposals to get some "meat" in the discussion, then split'em.radek (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(moved from main page) Although I agreed to have this objection moved the talk page, it now needs to be brought here on the main page, as it is now evident that editors are using this RfC as an avenue for lobbying in relation to the currently running case for arbitration. An editor has now drawn the Committee's attention to this RfC, which is totally inappropriate. Is it really going to matter if this RfC is put on hold until the conclusion of the current arbitration case, and if ideas for alternative remedies are thought of they can be presented on the case pages. After the arbitration, it can then be restarted. Whilst Rd suggests that this has nothing to do with the case, it is entirely evident that at least 3 editors involved in that case are using this RfC as a community lobbying tool, and that is completely inappropriate. I also do not give permission for this to be hidden away on my talk page, or the RfC talk page, as it needs to be made known on this page that objections are being raised. If this RfC is to continue, it should at the very least, for the time being, omit things which are clearly related to the Arbitration case, such as community service and the like. --Russavia Dialogue 11:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate RfC
 * I've replied to that post. Marting's comment changes nothing: it doesn't change the purpose of this RFC, or the relevance of it to that case. ARBCOM are not going to pay any attention to this RFC, even if it were going to lead to concretely usable ideas on a relevant timescale, which it isn't. Rd232 talk 11:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)