![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
SlimVirgin and Jayjg, lets just cut to the chase here, because your "reasons" for reverting have nothing to do with "grammar" and nothing to do with "style" and have nothing to do with any other excuse you've forwarded so far. (slim has run out of excuses and simply says "revert" now.)
The fact of policy is that a user RfC is not required before entering arbitration. That is an undisputable fact.
But you won't allow that fact to be stated as is. You want to invoke the "arbitration boogeyman", that somehow filing an RfC is dangerous and could "spontaneously combust" into arbitration without warning. "Don't take it lightly" avoids the fact that a dispute cannot go to arbitration unless someone goes out their way to request it.
If we were writing a wikipedia article about user RfC's, then we'd have some facts of policy: i.e. you don't need an RfC to enter arbitration. And then we'd have some opinions about RfC: i.e. "do not take lightly". Another example of a different opinion of a user RfC is that they "have no teeth". ANother one is that they "do nothing but generate comments".
I've tried modifying your spontaneous-arbitration bit to clarify that it is an opinion of policy, not policy itself. But you reverted. Why? Because you're trying to modify policy by encouraging editors ot relate to an RfC a certain way, to fear it because it might spontaneously-arbitrate. But any attempt I tried to clarify that "some view a user Rfc" this way was reverted by you.
I gave up on that and tried simple adding facts of policy, i.e. that you dont' need a user RfC to enter arbitration. But you wont' allow that either. You've insisted on munging a simple statement of fact about policy and morphing it into your own opinion about user RfC's spontaneously-arbitrating themselves.
You're changing policy by biasing the RfC instructions to your view. Sure, a user RfC may lead to arbitration, but that avoids the rest of teh facts. It avoids that a user RfC isn't even needed to enter arbitration. It avoids the fact that "don't take it lightly" is some editor's opinion of a user RfC, not the facts of user RfC. You are inserting your personal POV about RfC's into the policy of RfC and effectively changing policy.
You can't even stand to have a simple fact of RfC's be stated because it might weaken your POV. Really, now. How horrid a sentence is "A user RfC is not required to enter arbitration" that it must be changed to your variation? I drop the word "although". That's it. This isn't about style or grammar or any other hollow argument you come up with so far. This is about you pushing your opinion of user RfC's into the policy pages.
I figure we might as well cut to the chase here, and call it like it is. FuelWagon 21:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon: You state that Jayjg and SlimVirgin are trying to alter what the policy is about user conduct RfCs. You appear to be basing your statement as to what the policy is solely on the wording of the policy. That is rules-lawyering. They appear to be basing their statements also on what the perception or understanding of the policy is by the Wikipedia community. In this case, the perception is at least as important as the written statement. Can we focus on trying to improve the policy rather than arguing about the wording of a procedure that is widely recognized as flawed? Robert McClenon 22:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
If FuelWagon actually thinks that the existing procedure is sound, when is he saying that it is appropriate other than to determine whether arbitration is necessary? Robert McClenon 22:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon: Could you please focus your energy either on proposing how to change the policy or on explaining to us why it is perfect and does not need change? Robert McClenon 22:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon: I do not understand the (presumably sarcastic) reference to a magical policy. While I think that User:SlimVirgin is in a minority of Wikipedians in viewing user RfCs as being as horrendous as she thinks they are, the majority of Wikipedians, as far as I can tell, do view them as a pre-RfAr or as a primarily punitive procedure, a sort of "timeout" or "warning". If you think that by changing the template for a user conduct RfC, you can change its perception by the Wikipedia community, then I think that you are engaging not so much in making or identifying a magical policy as in magical thinking. What we need to do is to address the policy issues, not the template, and SV's language for the template is closer to community consensus than yours. Robert McClenon 11:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, everyone take two happy pills and call me in the morning.
Secondly, it's clear to me that this issue is being attacked from the skinny end, not the fat one.
Slim Virgin is correct in that requests for comment rarely have positive outcomes. FuelWagon is correct in that while it is part of the chain of events leading to RfArb, it doesn't have to be.
Right now a huge amount of effort is being expended (with just a little drop of poison) in aligning the front page to both of these points of view. A better use of everyone's time would be to fix the problem with RfC rather than arguing about how to describe it. With that in mind, can we use the section below, attempting to:
brenneman (t) (c) 06:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I have recently occasionally seen the MedCom decline to accept a Request for Mediation because a Request for Comments had not been used first. There are at least two types of issues that may require mediation or other dispute resolution: content issues and user conduct issues. In the event of content issues, an article RfC should normally precede a Request for Mediation. In the event of user conduct issues, a Request for Mediation should be encouraged at an early stage, because it should reduce hard feelings, while a user conduct Request for Comment typically increases hard feelings. In summary, the sequence of events in dispute resolution should be:
Also, one of the purposes of a Request for Corrective Action or Request or User Inquiry or whatever should be as a preliminary gathering of evidence. There have been at least two recent Requests for Arbitration that have skipped the pre-RfAr step and have been extremely lengthy, resulting in comments by the arbitrators as to their excessive length. In those cases, a pre-RfAr should have been used to capture the evidence, and then the RfAr could present a 200-word summary of the alleged offenses. Robert McClenon 11:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The procedure currently known as a user conduct Request for Comments should be called by some other name indicative of the fact that it is commonly seen as a preliminary to a Request for Arbitration. It is significantly different from an article RfC, both in terms of how it is perceived, and in terms of what preconditions are required. It should have a different name. Robert McClenon 11:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
"commonly seen as a preliminary to a Request for Arbitration." But has nothing to do with arbitration is not a requirement for arbitration establishes nothing in arbitration. any policy violations mentioned in a user RfC must be re-applied at arbitration, evidence must be resubmitted at arbitration. Even the voting outcome of a user RfC (especially if the total votes are small, and really reflects the existing users already involved in teh debate) have no official bearing on arbitration. Arbitration asks for proof that other methods of dispute resolution were tried, but even that says "well, that, or say why it wouldn't have worked". Whatever you are trying to make "preliminary" mean, it isn't reflected in any policy requirements. A dispute may start out as a debate on a talk page, then a vote or poll, then an article RFC, then a user RFC, then mediation, then arbitration. But we don't say "a poll may lead to arbitration so dont take it lightly." There is no binding outcome of a user Rfc, and that's probably a good thing given that any two editors can get together and create an RFC and certify it. It can be a way for someone to make a public complaint, but it can also be misused and abused. And for that reason, it shouldn't have any consequences downstream, either in mediation or arbitration or even an administrator monitoring a user. Arbcom should not say, "well, some ediors filed an RFC against you, and the overall vote was 6 to 2 against you, so we'll go along with their vote and find that you broke whatever policies they listed." FuelWagon 19:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
What is the policy regarding deleting RfC's made by other editors. I ask because my RfC for John Byrne was erased and replaced by a different RfC for the same page made by a different editor. I ask because I would have thought this was not permissable.-- 198.93.113.49 17:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Seriously. I've had an RfC pending regarding me for some time, even though the governing criteria aren't met, it hasn't been properly certified -- users involved in entirely separate disputes, one of whom actually walked away from mediation of the dispute he was involved in -- the description of conduct involved is objectively false, and the proponents, rather than making any good faith attempts to resolve matters, have been stalking users who posted views that disagree with theirs and working up plans to act in concert to sanitize Wikipedia of the views of people like me who take NPOV and verifiablity seriously. Is there any reliable way to get to ArbCom expeditiously? Monicasdude 03:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The procedure currently known as a user conduct Request for Comments should be called by some other name indicative of the fact that it is commonly seen as a preliminary to a Request for Arbitration. It is significantly different from an article RfC, both in terms of how it is perceived, and in terms of what preconditions are required. It should have a different name. Robert McClenon 11:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
"commonly seen as a preliminary to a Request for Arbitration." But has nothing to do with arbitration is not a requirement for arbitration establishes nothing in arbitration. any policy violations mentioned in a user RfC must be re-applied at arbitration, evidence must be resubmitted at arbitration. Even the voting outcome of a user RfC (especially if the total votes are small, and really reflects the existing users already involved in teh debate) have no official bearing on arbitration. Arbitration asks for proof that other methods of dispute resolution were tried, but even that says "well, that, or say why it wouldn't have worked". Whatever you are trying to make "preliminary" mean, it isn't reflected in any policy requirements. A dispute may start out as a debate on a talk page, then a vote or poll, then an article RFC, then a user RFC, then mediation, then arbitration. But we don't say "a poll may lead to arbitration so dont take it lightly." There is no binding outcome of a user Rfc, and that's probably a good thing given that any two editors can get together and create an RFC and certify it. It can be a way for someone to make a public complaint, but it can also be misused and abused. And for that reason, it shouldn't have any consequences downstream, either in mediation or arbitration or even an administrator monitoring a user. Arbcom should not say, "well, some ediors filed an RFC against you, and the overall vote was 6 to 2 against you, so we'll go along with their vote and find that you broke whatever policies they listed." FuelWagon 19:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
What is the policy regarding deleting RfC's made by other editors. I ask because my RfC for John Byrne was erased and replaced by a different RfC for the same page made by a different editor. I ask because I would have thought this was not permissable.-- 198.93.113.49 17:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Seriously. I've had an RfC pending regarding me for some time, even though the governing criteria aren't met, it hasn't been properly certified -- users involved in entirely separate disputes, one of whom actually walked away from mediation of the dispute he was involved in -- the description of conduct involved is objectively false, and the proponents, rather than making any good faith attempts to resolve matters, have been stalking users who posted views that disagree with theirs and working up plans to act in concert to sanitize Wikipedia of the views of people like me who take NPOV and verifiablity seriously. Is there any reliable way to get to ArbCom expeditiously? Monicasdude 03:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
A few editors have been trying to engage in constructive discussion about reforming the current RfC process. One editor, FuelWagon, as a result of a previous edit war, insists on filibustering this discussion by presenting his own view of what the current process is, rather than what it should be. While I sympathize with the desire of several editors to remove the rehash of the past from this talk page, can we please try not to throw the baby out with the bath water?
FuelWagon: By insisting on rediscussing the Terri Schiavo edit war that happened in July, and having your rediscussions archived, you are increasing the likelihood of a similar dispute by making any solution to the underlying problem more difficult. Please take your complaints somewhere else.
SlimVirgin: I understand your desire not to continue rediscussing your conflict with FuelWagon, and to archive that rediscussion. However (especially since you have said that the current process is horrendous), can we please allow discussion of RfC reform to take place without being archived? Robert McClenon 11:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin: Also, since you have described the current process as horrendous, I would appreciate your suggestions on how to overhaul it. Robert McClenon 16:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I have a simple question. If the current system is not flawed, and if a user RfC is not meant to be quasi-punitive, then why does it require two certifiers to the same conduct? If a user RfC is not meant to be quasi-punitive, then should it not be possible for one person to certify it? Robert McClenon 12:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin has proposed (on a user talk page) that there should be a third type of Request for Comments, besides an article content RfC and a user conduct RfC, known as an issue RfC. I am not exactly sure that I understand her concept, and would appreciate a further explanation here. In particular, I am not sure how it would change the current user conduct Request for Comments that she considers horrendous.
FuelWagon defends the current system, saying that the problem is only that some editors do not accept criticism. I agree that he does have a valid and logically consistent concept. However, his concept is based on the assumption that Wikipedia editors should be willing to ignore bad faith criticism, rather than that bad faith criticism should be discouraged. I think that FuelWagon and I have different concepts of civility. FuelWagon appears to be saying that editors who do not like criticism should find another on-line community. I disagree with that view. Some of us may have come here because Wikipedia is more civil than Usenet. The user conduct Request for Comments process, as stated on paper and as defended by FuelWagon, is consistent with FuelWagon's concept of honesty, but it pays too little attention to civility. What SlimVirgin is trying to do is to ensure that Wikipedians understand that user conduct RfCs should be used only when civility has already failed.
I would in fact go the opposite way from what FuelWagon proposes, and would clarify that a user conduct Request for Comments (which should be renamed to something like Request for Conduct Inquiry) should only be considered a penultimate step toward or to avoid arbitration. I would clarify that the filing of a bad faith user conduct inquiry may itself be considered harassment and so may lead to arbitration. It should always be hoped that a user conduct inquiry can be resolved without arbitration. However, it should not be filed unless the certifier is willing to go to arbitration if the problem cannot be otherwise resolved.
FuelWagon thinks that SlimVirgin is trying to change the current system. I think that SlimVirgin (and I) are trying to reword the policies (and perhaps revise them) to reflect a more accurate perception of what is seen to be the system. (It may be easier to change the wording than the change the perception by a community.) If FuelWagon thinks that there is a consensus supporting his view, then I would suggest that he request a consensus poll.
Does anyone else have any further ideas? Robert McClenon 11:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon thinks that SlimVirgin and I are trying to change policy. That oversimplifies what I am trying to do. There is a disconnect between the policy as written and the policy as perceived.
FuelWagon writes: If you're going to make a form that is a "preliminary to arbitration", tehn you don't call it a "request for comments", you call it something else that indicates what it is. It isn't a request for comments. It's something else. what, exactly, you haven't said. That is correct. I have been saying for more than a month that what is called a user conduct RfC is misnamed. It is not just a request for comments, and leading people to think that it is misrepresents the perception of the user community.
It is quite true that I think that the dispute resolution process does need to be changed, and that we should be working for a consensus as to how to change the process. The Request for Conduct Inquiry is only part of what needs to be changed. The exact wording of the template should not be important, and should not distract us from the more serious job of trying to fix the process. I suggest that FuelWagon, SlimVirgin, and I all leave the wording of the template alone, and focus on how the dispute resolution process can be improved.
FuelWagon and SlimVirgin have hard feelings toward each other because of an article content dispute that became ugly. I think that the fact that that dispute became ugly, and still has unresolved tensions, illustrates that the dispute resolution process needs improvement. I think that FuelWagon is trying to apply twentieth-century management theory to a dispute resolution that was unsatisfactory. In the twentieth century, when something went wrong, a common approach by management was to determine who was responsible for not having followed the defined process correctly. Sometimes, as when an editor is disruptive, or when a law has been broken, the assignment of blame is appropriate. However, if the assignment of blame is the only way that failures are dealt with, then that subjects humans to scrutiny while assuming that the process is satisfactory. Twenty-first century project management recognizes that processes must be engineered to be readily usable by humans, rather than simply trying to force the humans to follow a process.
Rather than just trying to assign blame and saying that the process is good, why don't we try to reach consensus on how to adjust the process? Robert McClenon 21:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Robert, this edit [6] would be an acceptable version to me, not perfect, but good enough that I'd accept it. I don't know how anyone would enforce the "do not take lightly", but the rest of it is clear enough about what is policy and what is opinion that I'd be willing to accept that version. FuelWagon 18:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I have recently occasionally seen the MedCom decline to accept a Request for Mediation because a Request for Comments had not been used first. There are at least two types of issues that may require mediation or other dispute resolution: content issues and user conduct issues. In the event of content issues, an article RfC should normally precede a Request for Mediation. In the event of user conduct issues, a Request for Mediation should be encouraged at an early stage, because it should reduce hard feelings, while a user conduct Request for Comment typically increases hard feelings. In summary, the sequence of events in dispute resolution should be:
Also, one of the purposes of a Request for Corrective Action or Request or User Inquiry or whatever should be as a preliminary gathering of evidence. There have been at least two recent Requests for Arbitration that have skipped the pre-RfAr step and have been extremely lengthy, resulting in comments by the arbitrators as to their excessive length. In those cases, a pre-RfAr should have been used to capture the evidence, and then the RfAr could present a 200-word summary of the alleged offenses. Robert McClenon 11:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, how about this:
I have tried to separate the three aspects of the matter as FuelWagon outlined. I don't think any of the three points is outrageous or in contravention of policy (incidentally, there is no RFC policy: RFC is entirely governed by practice). If you disagree with me, please spell out why. I am not going to change the RFC page until there is consensus on this page. Please can we stop reverting and try talking. [[Sam Korn]] 20:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
On 28 September, SlimVirgin agreed that the version by Sam Korn read well. This morning a Willy-on-Wheels wannabe vandalized the page. Then it was restored to the latest version by FuelWagon, which was basically the Sam version, not the earlier FuelWagon version.
Then Jayjg reverted to the earlier SlimVirgin language. Then FuelWagon reverted it to the Sam/FuelWagon language. Now SlimVirgin has reverted it to her earlier language, calling it the consensus version. I thought that consensus had been reached on the Sam version on 28 September. Could SlimVirgin please explain why she is reverting back to her earlier version after accepting the Sam edits?
SlimVirgin, Sam's version was here. He proposed it on the talk page before he changed it on the article because he wanted to see if everyone supported it. SOme people suggested some minor changes, he agreed. And when it seemed that no one had major objections, I inserted it in the page.
When you compare Sam's version with your version, teh diff looks like this [7]. Your most recent edit summary says "returned to Sam", but it obviously wasn't Sam's proposed compromise. This diff [8] shows that you simply reverted to your own version, not Sam's.
Is this your version of compromise, SlimVirgin? Revert to the version you wanted from the beginning and explain in the edit summary that it was someone else's version? FuelWagon 00:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I like it how Jayjg can say "reverting to Sam's version" in his edit summary while he's actually reverting to the version pushed by himself and SlimVirgin [9]. It takes a special sort of person to pull of such a blatant "ministry of truth" edit like that. In case anyone seems to have forgotten, and Jayjg and SlimVirgin apparently have an extremely short term memory problem, the compromise proposed by Sam is listed above under "a new suggestion". A couple people suggested some minor changes, and then no one posted any substantive objection to the result. Since SlimVirgin has previously shown an inability to scroll up to a different section, I'll post Sam's "a new suggestion" here.
Oh, and I noticed SlimVirgin just did an amazing on-the-ball job of reverting my edit immediately after I made it. Great job, SlimVirgin. Now, Since no one has listed any substantive objections to Sam's suggestion above, I will assume that editors who are going against the proposed version are simply pushing their own agenda here. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? The best that SlimVirgin and Jayjg have come up with is that "it doesn't flow as nice". Yeah, sure Sam's version doesn't "flow" as nice as SlimVirgin's because Sam's version actually reports facts as facts, views as views, and advice as advice, whereas SlimVirgin's and Jayjg's version dismisses the facts of policy and attempts to present SlimVirgin's horrendous opinion of RfC's as if they were fact of policy. So, "flow" is non-issue. Anyone have any legitimate objections to Sam's version? Or will SlimVirgin simply continue to revert without explanation to the version the pushes her opinion into the instruction page? FuelWagon 16:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Is anyone going to file an RFC on the RFC page edit wars? Does anyone notice the irony? -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes as to the second question. Robert McClenon 21:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, FuelWagon: Are the two of you willing to take your issues (allegations of reckless editing, allegations of POV pushing, allegations of wikistalking, allegations of original research, breaches of civility) to mediation with a previously uninvolved mediator? Robert McClenon 15:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
If, as it appears, there is still disagreement, can we take a survey to determine whether there is a consensus? How many candidate options are there? Two (earlier SlimVirgin language, and Sam Korn language), three (earlier SlimVirgin language, previous FuelWagon language, and Sam Korn language), or more than three? Robert McClenon 21:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon repeatedly states that he wants to distinguish between actual policy and SlimVirgin's opinion of the policy. I think that FuelWagon is using the word "policy" too broadly. The only applicable official policy that I am aware of is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The existing wording of the template is not set by official policy. Do we need a survey to determine consensus on what the wording of the template should be? Robert McClenon 14:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Some of the subject RfC pages are in serious need of pruning. As a rule of thumb, I've assumed that items still present on these pages after two months are stale. I've also removed a few undated items that seemd to be rather old. I've added a HTML comment to the top and bottom of each page to remind people to add items at the top and to sign with five tildes (~~~~~). I've removed names where they were added, and depersonalized one or two of the more POV summaries. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 16:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Some of the user conduct RfC pages are in serious need of pruning. Some of the user conduct RfC pages are now in arbitration. Can the links to those pages be deleted? The pages themselves are and should be essentially immortal, but there is no need to keep the links when the RfC has gone to the last stage. Robert McClenon 00:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I have archived much of this talk page. Unfortunately, it is difficult to separate the useful from the useless. I have been, for more than a month, trying to see if there are any ideas on how the RfC process can be improved.
However, what we appear to have is a situation where there is so much hostility between FuelWagon and SlimVirgin that any attempt to discuss process improvement is sidetracked by a discussion of how those two editors each think that they have been wronged. FuelWagon says that the current policies and process are fine as they are, but insists that he has been systematically wronged by SlimVirgin (and others). I could try to argue that this points out that there is a deficiency in the process because it has not resolved this enmity, but he would say that is just because the editors of Wikipedia have bad attitudes or something. SlimVirgin has said that the current user conduct RfC process is "horrendous", and wants to change the wording of the template to make this fact clearer. However, if the process is horrendous, then the process should be changed. SlimVirgin has made one small suggestion, about another kind of RfC, which is a reasonable one. I have suggested that the criteria for mediation should be clarified, so that an RfC should not be a precondition to mediation when user conduct is involved, so that more disputes can be settled before mediation.
Can we please try to keep this talk page focused on specific RfC's and the RfC process? The issue of the wording is both too trivial and too inflammatory. Can we have a truce about the wording, and take discussion of past and current wrongs somewhere else? Can we try to talk either about specific RfCs, or about the process, or both? Robert McClenon 19:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
If you're looking for evidence of Wikistalking, after SlimVirgin
reverts an insertion by another editor FuelWagon shows up there for the very first time
to revert her. On September 26 after SlimVirgin edits
Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, FuelWagon show up there for the very first time,
to revert her. He then goes to another item on SlimVirgin's most recent contribution list,
Israel, and for the very first time
starts editing there. Again, on September 30, he notes that SlimVirgin has
edited Historical persecution by Jews, and shows up at there for the very first time and
reverts her within minutes. He now claims he
happens to have an interest in middle east politics, but this "interest" never actually manifested itself in any way before he decided to start following SlimVirgin around and reverting her. He also claims he is "widening his area of interests", but that "widening" appears to only extend to articles SlimVirgin edits.
Jayjg
(talk)
02:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin has a history that shows she's been monitoring me ever since our run in at the Terri Schiavo article:
12 minutes after I post something to my talk page, SlimVirgin notifies Ed [10]
SlimVirgin admits she's been monitoring my contribs [11]
I have a subdirectory under my talk page listing edit/admin behavioural problems with SlimVirgin and make a note of her deleting an entry from the "words to avoid" policy after I used that entry to criticize one of her edits. [12]. Five hours later, she's aware of my edit on this subdirectory [13]/
I withdraw certification on an RfC against Bensaccount and ask an admin to delete it [14]. Less than an hour later, SLimVirgin attacks me claiming "this looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you". [15]. Notice use of teh word "another". The only other RfC that I've filed was against her. And notice for the record that the Bensaccount RfC had been listed for over a week and SlimVirgin made no comment on it, nor was she involved in the article in dispute. She only jumped on it when she thought she could nail me for "another inappropriate RfC". She asked another admin to look at it and the other admin informed SlimVirgin that the RfC looked acceptable. No apology from SlimVirgin for the false accusation has been issued.
In any event, SlimVirgin has a history that shows that this isn't just two editors who happen to show up in the same place right after each other: she's reacted to posts to my talk page 12 minutes after I posted, she's reacted to posts to subdirectories of my talk page within a couple hours, she's jumped on an RfC when she thought she could nail me for an "inappropriate" RfC within an hour after I posted a request to delete it (and even though she had completely ignored the RfC for an entire week up to that point), and she has directly admitted to monitoring my contributions. In case anyone needs to "inform themselves", this ought to put things straight. FuelWagon 16:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I read somewhere on this page that "many RFCs are steps toward arbitration" was my wording, but I can't find the comment now, so I don't know who said it. I don't think this was my wording. I wrote: "An RfC may be the first step toward arbitration." Anyway, I think Sam wanted: "many arbitration cases begin with an RfC," so I've changed it to that. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I tried to research the history of Requests for Comments via the archive of the talk page. It is a useful but incomplete source of information, since the history of the article page has to be viewed from diffs, a lengthy procedure. I would appreciate any comments on the history of this process by any long-time Wikipedians who edited before 2004. However, it appears that a user conduct Request for Comments originally WAS a quasi-judicial process. It is true that it never was a precursor to a Request for Arbitration, because user conduct Requests for Comments preceded an Arbitration Committee. It appears that user conduct Requests for Comments were originally used as requests for Jimbo Wales to ban a disruptive user. If that conclusion on my part is incorrect, then someone who has been editing since 2003 can perhaps correct it.
Then Jimbo Wales established an Arbitration Committee to relieve him of the personal responsibility of banning disruptive editors. The user conduct Request for Comments procedure was left in place, and so was always intended to be used as a preliminary step to banning a user. It is true that Requests for Comments do not always go to arbitration, because most of them are (fortunately) resolved before that stage, and that Requests for Arbitration are not always preceded by user conduct Requests for Comments, because some are preceded by other forms of failed dispute resolution. However, if my reading of the history is correct, then any argument that the process is not intended to be punitive misreads history.
If my interpretation of the history is correct, then we should not waste our energy trying to make the instructions more "accurate" if we disregard content. The process WAS intended to be quasi-judicial and to have possible punitive results. FuelWagon's version of the instructions would disregard that historically based consensus. Either the instructions should be revised, as SlimVirgin argues, to reflect the "accuracy" of history, or the process should be changed, or both. Robert McClenon 15:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
For the love of all that it holy, there are only so many black photons stored in my screen. Can you guys be concise, I just realized that the reason that I am not entering into this discussion if because of the
wordfog on this page.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
01:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
SlimVirgin and Jayjg, lets just cut to the chase here, because your "reasons" for reverting have nothing to do with "grammar" and nothing to do with "style" and have nothing to do with any other excuse you've forwarded so far. (slim has run out of excuses and simply says "revert" now.)
The fact of policy is that a user RfC is not required before entering arbitration. That is an undisputable fact.
But you won't allow that fact to be stated as is. You want to invoke the "arbitration boogeyman", that somehow filing an RfC is dangerous and could "spontaneously combust" into arbitration without warning. "Don't take it lightly" avoids the fact that a dispute cannot go to arbitration unless someone goes out their way to request it.
If we were writing a wikipedia article about user RfC's, then we'd have some facts of policy: i.e. you don't need an RfC to enter arbitration. And then we'd have some opinions about RfC: i.e. "do not take lightly". Another example of a different opinion of a user RfC is that they "have no teeth". ANother one is that they "do nothing but generate comments".
I've tried modifying your spontaneous-arbitration bit to clarify that it is an opinion of policy, not policy itself. But you reverted. Why? Because you're trying to modify policy by encouraging editors ot relate to an RfC a certain way, to fear it because it might spontaneously-arbitrate. But any attempt I tried to clarify that "some view a user Rfc" this way was reverted by you.
I gave up on that and tried simple adding facts of policy, i.e. that you dont' need a user RfC to enter arbitration. But you wont' allow that either. You've insisted on munging a simple statement of fact about policy and morphing it into your own opinion about user RfC's spontaneously-arbitrating themselves.
You're changing policy by biasing the RfC instructions to your view. Sure, a user RfC may lead to arbitration, but that avoids the rest of teh facts. It avoids that a user RfC isn't even needed to enter arbitration. It avoids the fact that "don't take it lightly" is some editor's opinion of a user RfC, not the facts of user RfC. You are inserting your personal POV about RfC's into the policy of RfC and effectively changing policy.
You can't even stand to have a simple fact of RfC's be stated because it might weaken your POV. Really, now. How horrid a sentence is "A user RfC is not required to enter arbitration" that it must be changed to your variation? I drop the word "although". That's it. This isn't about style or grammar or any other hollow argument you come up with so far. This is about you pushing your opinion of user RfC's into the policy pages.
I figure we might as well cut to the chase here, and call it like it is. FuelWagon 21:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon: You state that Jayjg and SlimVirgin are trying to alter what the policy is about user conduct RfCs. You appear to be basing your statement as to what the policy is solely on the wording of the policy. That is rules-lawyering. They appear to be basing their statements also on what the perception or understanding of the policy is by the Wikipedia community. In this case, the perception is at least as important as the written statement. Can we focus on trying to improve the policy rather than arguing about the wording of a procedure that is widely recognized as flawed? Robert McClenon 22:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
If FuelWagon actually thinks that the existing procedure is sound, when is he saying that it is appropriate other than to determine whether arbitration is necessary? Robert McClenon 22:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon: Could you please focus your energy either on proposing how to change the policy or on explaining to us why it is perfect and does not need change? Robert McClenon 22:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon: I do not understand the (presumably sarcastic) reference to a magical policy. While I think that User:SlimVirgin is in a minority of Wikipedians in viewing user RfCs as being as horrendous as she thinks they are, the majority of Wikipedians, as far as I can tell, do view them as a pre-RfAr or as a primarily punitive procedure, a sort of "timeout" or "warning". If you think that by changing the template for a user conduct RfC, you can change its perception by the Wikipedia community, then I think that you are engaging not so much in making or identifying a magical policy as in magical thinking. What we need to do is to address the policy issues, not the template, and SV's language for the template is closer to community consensus than yours. Robert McClenon 11:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, everyone take two happy pills and call me in the morning.
Secondly, it's clear to me that this issue is being attacked from the skinny end, not the fat one.
Slim Virgin is correct in that requests for comment rarely have positive outcomes. FuelWagon is correct in that while it is part of the chain of events leading to RfArb, it doesn't have to be.
Right now a huge amount of effort is being expended (with just a little drop of poison) in aligning the front page to both of these points of view. A better use of everyone's time would be to fix the problem with RfC rather than arguing about how to describe it. With that in mind, can we use the section below, attempting to:
brenneman (t) (c) 06:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I have recently occasionally seen the MedCom decline to accept a Request for Mediation because a Request for Comments had not been used first. There are at least two types of issues that may require mediation or other dispute resolution: content issues and user conduct issues. In the event of content issues, an article RfC should normally precede a Request for Mediation. In the event of user conduct issues, a Request for Mediation should be encouraged at an early stage, because it should reduce hard feelings, while a user conduct Request for Comment typically increases hard feelings. In summary, the sequence of events in dispute resolution should be:
Also, one of the purposes of a Request for Corrective Action or Request or User Inquiry or whatever should be as a preliminary gathering of evidence. There have been at least two recent Requests for Arbitration that have skipped the pre-RfAr step and have been extremely lengthy, resulting in comments by the arbitrators as to their excessive length. In those cases, a pre-RfAr should have been used to capture the evidence, and then the RfAr could present a 200-word summary of the alleged offenses. Robert McClenon 11:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The procedure currently known as a user conduct Request for Comments should be called by some other name indicative of the fact that it is commonly seen as a preliminary to a Request for Arbitration. It is significantly different from an article RfC, both in terms of how it is perceived, and in terms of what preconditions are required. It should have a different name. Robert McClenon 11:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
"commonly seen as a preliminary to a Request for Arbitration." But has nothing to do with arbitration is not a requirement for arbitration establishes nothing in arbitration. any policy violations mentioned in a user RfC must be re-applied at arbitration, evidence must be resubmitted at arbitration. Even the voting outcome of a user RfC (especially if the total votes are small, and really reflects the existing users already involved in teh debate) have no official bearing on arbitration. Arbitration asks for proof that other methods of dispute resolution were tried, but even that says "well, that, or say why it wouldn't have worked". Whatever you are trying to make "preliminary" mean, it isn't reflected in any policy requirements. A dispute may start out as a debate on a talk page, then a vote or poll, then an article RFC, then a user RFC, then mediation, then arbitration. But we don't say "a poll may lead to arbitration so dont take it lightly." There is no binding outcome of a user Rfc, and that's probably a good thing given that any two editors can get together and create an RFC and certify it. It can be a way for someone to make a public complaint, but it can also be misused and abused. And for that reason, it shouldn't have any consequences downstream, either in mediation or arbitration or even an administrator monitoring a user. Arbcom should not say, "well, some ediors filed an RFC against you, and the overall vote was 6 to 2 against you, so we'll go along with their vote and find that you broke whatever policies they listed." FuelWagon 19:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
What is the policy regarding deleting RfC's made by other editors. I ask because my RfC for John Byrne was erased and replaced by a different RfC for the same page made by a different editor. I ask because I would have thought this was not permissable.-- 198.93.113.49 17:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Seriously. I've had an RfC pending regarding me for some time, even though the governing criteria aren't met, it hasn't been properly certified -- users involved in entirely separate disputes, one of whom actually walked away from mediation of the dispute he was involved in -- the description of conduct involved is objectively false, and the proponents, rather than making any good faith attempts to resolve matters, have been stalking users who posted views that disagree with theirs and working up plans to act in concert to sanitize Wikipedia of the views of people like me who take NPOV and verifiablity seriously. Is there any reliable way to get to ArbCom expeditiously? Monicasdude 03:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The procedure currently known as a user conduct Request for Comments should be called by some other name indicative of the fact that it is commonly seen as a preliminary to a Request for Arbitration. It is significantly different from an article RfC, both in terms of how it is perceived, and in terms of what preconditions are required. It should have a different name. Robert McClenon 11:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
"commonly seen as a preliminary to a Request for Arbitration." But has nothing to do with arbitration is not a requirement for arbitration establishes nothing in arbitration. any policy violations mentioned in a user RfC must be re-applied at arbitration, evidence must be resubmitted at arbitration. Even the voting outcome of a user RfC (especially if the total votes are small, and really reflects the existing users already involved in teh debate) have no official bearing on arbitration. Arbitration asks for proof that other methods of dispute resolution were tried, but even that says "well, that, or say why it wouldn't have worked". Whatever you are trying to make "preliminary" mean, it isn't reflected in any policy requirements. A dispute may start out as a debate on a talk page, then a vote or poll, then an article RFC, then a user RFC, then mediation, then arbitration. But we don't say "a poll may lead to arbitration so dont take it lightly." There is no binding outcome of a user Rfc, and that's probably a good thing given that any two editors can get together and create an RFC and certify it. It can be a way for someone to make a public complaint, but it can also be misused and abused. And for that reason, it shouldn't have any consequences downstream, either in mediation or arbitration or even an administrator monitoring a user. Arbcom should not say, "well, some ediors filed an RFC against you, and the overall vote was 6 to 2 against you, so we'll go along with their vote and find that you broke whatever policies they listed." FuelWagon 19:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
What is the policy regarding deleting RfC's made by other editors. I ask because my RfC for John Byrne was erased and replaced by a different RfC for the same page made by a different editor. I ask because I would have thought this was not permissable.-- 198.93.113.49 17:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Seriously. I've had an RfC pending regarding me for some time, even though the governing criteria aren't met, it hasn't been properly certified -- users involved in entirely separate disputes, one of whom actually walked away from mediation of the dispute he was involved in -- the description of conduct involved is objectively false, and the proponents, rather than making any good faith attempts to resolve matters, have been stalking users who posted views that disagree with theirs and working up plans to act in concert to sanitize Wikipedia of the views of people like me who take NPOV and verifiablity seriously. Is there any reliable way to get to ArbCom expeditiously? Monicasdude 03:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
A few editors have been trying to engage in constructive discussion about reforming the current RfC process. One editor, FuelWagon, as a result of a previous edit war, insists on filibustering this discussion by presenting his own view of what the current process is, rather than what it should be. While I sympathize with the desire of several editors to remove the rehash of the past from this talk page, can we please try not to throw the baby out with the bath water?
FuelWagon: By insisting on rediscussing the Terri Schiavo edit war that happened in July, and having your rediscussions archived, you are increasing the likelihood of a similar dispute by making any solution to the underlying problem more difficult. Please take your complaints somewhere else.
SlimVirgin: I understand your desire not to continue rediscussing your conflict with FuelWagon, and to archive that rediscussion. However (especially since you have said that the current process is horrendous), can we please allow discussion of RfC reform to take place without being archived? Robert McClenon 11:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin: Also, since you have described the current process as horrendous, I would appreciate your suggestions on how to overhaul it. Robert McClenon 16:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I have a simple question. If the current system is not flawed, and if a user RfC is not meant to be quasi-punitive, then why does it require two certifiers to the same conduct? If a user RfC is not meant to be quasi-punitive, then should it not be possible for one person to certify it? Robert McClenon 12:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin has proposed (on a user talk page) that there should be a third type of Request for Comments, besides an article content RfC and a user conduct RfC, known as an issue RfC. I am not exactly sure that I understand her concept, and would appreciate a further explanation here. In particular, I am not sure how it would change the current user conduct Request for Comments that she considers horrendous.
FuelWagon defends the current system, saying that the problem is only that some editors do not accept criticism. I agree that he does have a valid and logically consistent concept. However, his concept is based on the assumption that Wikipedia editors should be willing to ignore bad faith criticism, rather than that bad faith criticism should be discouraged. I think that FuelWagon and I have different concepts of civility. FuelWagon appears to be saying that editors who do not like criticism should find another on-line community. I disagree with that view. Some of us may have come here because Wikipedia is more civil than Usenet. The user conduct Request for Comments process, as stated on paper and as defended by FuelWagon, is consistent with FuelWagon's concept of honesty, but it pays too little attention to civility. What SlimVirgin is trying to do is to ensure that Wikipedians understand that user conduct RfCs should be used only when civility has already failed.
I would in fact go the opposite way from what FuelWagon proposes, and would clarify that a user conduct Request for Comments (which should be renamed to something like Request for Conduct Inquiry) should only be considered a penultimate step toward or to avoid arbitration. I would clarify that the filing of a bad faith user conduct inquiry may itself be considered harassment and so may lead to arbitration. It should always be hoped that a user conduct inquiry can be resolved without arbitration. However, it should not be filed unless the certifier is willing to go to arbitration if the problem cannot be otherwise resolved.
FuelWagon thinks that SlimVirgin is trying to change the current system. I think that SlimVirgin (and I) are trying to reword the policies (and perhaps revise them) to reflect a more accurate perception of what is seen to be the system. (It may be easier to change the wording than the change the perception by a community.) If FuelWagon thinks that there is a consensus supporting his view, then I would suggest that he request a consensus poll.
Does anyone else have any further ideas? Robert McClenon 11:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon thinks that SlimVirgin and I are trying to change policy. That oversimplifies what I am trying to do. There is a disconnect between the policy as written and the policy as perceived.
FuelWagon writes: If you're going to make a form that is a "preliminary to arbitration", tehn you don't call it a "request for comments", you call it something else that indicates what it is. It isn't a request for comments. It's something else. what, exactly, you haven't said. That is correct. I have been saying for more than a month that what is called a user conduct RfC is misnamed. It is not just a request for comments, and leading people to think that it is misrepresents the perception of the user community.
It is quite true that I think that the dispute resolution process does need to be changed, and that we should be working for a consensus as to how to change the process. The Request for Conduct Inquiry is only part of what needs to be changed. The exact wording of the template should not be important, and should not distract us from the more serious job of trying to fix the process. I suggest that FuelWagon, SlimVirgin, and I all leave the wording of the template alone, and focus on how the dispute resolution process can be improved.
FuelWagon and SlimVirgin have hard feelings toward each other because of an article content dispute that became ugly. I think that the fact that that dispute became ugly, and still has unresolved tensions, illustrates that the dispute resolution process needs improvement. I think that FuelWagon is trying to apply twentieth-century management theory to a dispute resolution that was unsatisfactory. In the twentieth century, when something went wrong, a common approach by management was to determine who was responsible for not having followed the defined process correctly. Sometimes, as when an editor is disruptive, or when a law has been broken, the assignment of blame is appropriate. However, if the assignment of blame is the only way that failures are dealt with, then that subjects humans to scrutiny while assuming that the process is satisfactory. Twenty-first century project management recognizes that processes must be engineered to be readily usable by humans, rather than simply trying to force the humans to follow a process.
Rather than just trying to assign blame and saying that the process is good, why don't we try to reach consensus on how to adjust the process? Robert McClenon 21:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Robert, this edit [6] would be an acceptable version to me, not perfect, but good enough that I'd accept it. I don't know how anyone would enforce the "do not take lightly", but the rest of it is clear enough about what is policy and what is opinion that I'd be willing to accept that version. FuelWagon 18:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I have recently occasionally seen the MedCom decline to accept a Request for Mediation because a Request for Comments had not been used first. There are at least two types of issues that may require mediation or other dispute resolution: content issues and user conduct issues. In the event of content issues, an article RfC should normally precede a Request for Mediation. In the event of user conduct issues, a Request for Mediation should be encouraged at an early stage, because it should reduce hard feelings, while a user conduct Request for Comment typically increases hard feelings. In summary, the sequence of events in dispute resolution should be:
Also, one of the purposes of a Request for Corrective Action or Request or User Inquiry or whatever should be as a preliminary gathering of evidence. There have been at least two recent Requests for Arbitration that have skipped the pre-RfAr step and have been extremely lengthy, resulting in comments by the arbitrators as to their excessive length. In those cases, a pre-RfAr should have been used to capture the evidence, and then the RfAr could present a 200-word summary of the alleged offenses. Robert McClenon 11:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, how about this:
I have tried to separate the three aspects of the matter as FuelWagon outlined. I don't think any of the three points is outrageous or in contravention of policy (incidentally, there is no RFC policy: RFC is entirely governed by practice). If you disagree with me, please spell out why. I am not going to change the RFC page until there is consensus on this page. Please can we stop reverting and try talking. [[Sam Korn]] 20:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
On 28 September, SlimVirgin agreed that the version by Sam Korn read well. This morning a Willy-on-Wheels wannabe vandalized the page. Then it was restored to the latest version by FuelWagon, which was basically the Sam version, not the earlier FuelWagon version.
Then Jayjg reverted to the earlier SlimVirgin language. Then FuelWagon reverted it to the Sam/FuelWagon language. Now SlimVirgin has reverted it to her earlier language, calling it the consensus version. I thought that consensus had been reached on the Sam version on 28 September. Could SlimVirgin please explain why she is reverting back to her earlier version after accepting the Sam edits?
SlimVirgin, Sam's version was here. He proposed it on the talk page before he changed it on the article because he wanted to see if everyone supported it. SOme people suggested some minor changes, he agreed. And when it seemed that no one had major objections, I inserted it in the page.
When you compare Sam's version with your version, teh diff looks like this [7]. Your most recent edit summary says "returned to Sam", but it obviously wasn't Sam's proposed compromise. This diff [8] shows that you simply reverted to your own version, not Sam's.
Is this your version of compromise, SlimVirgin? Revert to the version you wanted from the beginning and explain in the edit summary that it was someone else's version? FuelWagon 00:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I like it how Jayjg can say "reverting to Sam's version" in his edit summary while he's actually reverting to the version pushed by himself and SlimVirgin [9]. It takes a special sort of person to pull of such a blatant "ministry of truth" edit like that. In case anyone seems to have forgotten, and Jayjg and SlimVirgin apparently have an extremely short term memory problem, the compromise proposed by Sam is listed above under "a new suggestion". A couple people suggested some minor changes, and then no one posted any substantive objection to the result. Since SlimVirgin has previously shown an inability to scroll up to a different section, I'll post Sam's "a new suggestion" here.
Oh, and I noticed SlimVirgin just did an amazing on-the-ball job of reverting my edit immediately after I made it. Great job, SlimVirgin. Now, Since no one has listed any substantive objections to Sam's suggestion above, I will assume that editors who are going against the proposed version are simply pushing their own agenda here. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? The best that SlimVirgin and Jayjg have come up with is that "it doesn't flow as nice". Yeah, sure Sam's version doesn't "flow" as nice as SlimVirgin's because Sam's version actually reports facts as facts, views as views, and advice as advice, whereas SlimVirgin's and Jayjg's version dismisses the facts of policy and attempts to present SlimVirgin's horrendous opinion of RfC's as if they were fact of policy. So, "flow" is non-issue. Anyone have any legitimate objections to Sam's version? Or will SlimVirgin simply continue to revert without explanation to the version the pushes her opinion into the instruction page? FuelWagon 16:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Is anyone going to file an RFC on the RFC page edit wars? Does anyone notice the irony? -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes as to the second question. Robert McClenon 21:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, FuelWagon: Are the two of you willing to take your issues (allegations of reckless editing, allegations of POV pushing, allegations of wikistalking, allegations of original research, breaches of civility) to mediation with a previously uninvolved mediator? Robert McClenon 15:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
If, as it appears, there is still disagreement, can we take a survey to determine whether there is a consensus? How many candidate options are there? Two (earlier SlimVirgin language, and Sam Korn language), three (earlier SlimVirgin language, previous FuelWagon language, and Sam Korn language), or more than three? Robert McClenon 21:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon repeatedly states that he wants to distinguish between actual policy and SlimVirgin's opinion of the policy. I think that FuelWagon is using the word "policy" too broadly. The only applicable official policy that I am aware of is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The existing wording of the template is not set by official policy. Do we need a survey to determine consensus on what the wording of the template should be? Robert McClenon 14:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Some of the subject RfC pages are in serious need of pruning. As a rule of thumb, I've assumed that items still present on these pages after two months are stale. I've also removed a few undated items that seemd to be rather old. I've added a HTML comment to the top and bottom of each page to remind people to add items at the top and to sign with five tildes (~~~~~). I've removed names where they were added, and depersonalized one or two of the more POV summaries. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 16:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Some of the user conduct RfC pages are in serious need of pruning. Some of the user conduct RfC pages are now in arbitration. Can the links to those pages be deleted? The pages themselves are and should be essentially immortal, but there is no need to keep the links when the RfC has gone to the last stage. Robert McClenon 00:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I have archived much of this talk page. Unfortunately, it is difficult to separate the useful from the useless. I have been, for more than a month, trying to see if there are any ideas on how the RfC process can be improved.
However, what we appear to have is a situation where there is so much hostility between FuelWagon and SlimVirgin that any attempt to discuss process improvement is sidetracked by a discussion of how those two editors each think that they have been wronged. FuelWagon says that the current policies and process are fine as they are, but insists that he has been systematically wronged by SlimVirgin (and others). I could try to argue that this points out that there is a deficiency in the process because it has not resolved this enmity, but he would say that is just because the editors of Wikipedia have bad attitudes or something. SlimVirgin has said that the current user conduct RfC process is "horrendous", and wants to change the wording of the template to make this fact clearer. However, if the process is horrendous, then the process should be changed. SlimVirgin has made one small suggestion, about another kind of RfC, which is a reasonable one. I have suggested that the criteria for mediation should be clarified, so that an RfC should not be a precondition to mediation when user conduct is involved, so that more disputes can be settled before mediation.
Can we please try to keep this talk page focused on specific RfC's and the RfC process? The issue of the wording is both too trivial and too inflammatory. Can we have a truce about the wording, and take discussion of past and current wrongs somewhere else? Can we try to talk either about specific RfCs, or about the process, or both? Robert McClenon 19:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
If you're looking for evidence of Wikistalking, after SlimVirgin
reverts an insertion by another editor FuelWagon shows up there for the very first time
to revert her. On September 26 after SlimVirgin edits
Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, FuelWagon show up there for the very first time,
to revert her. He then goes to another item on SlimVirgin's most recent contribution list,
Israel, and for the very first time
starts editing there. Again, on September 30, he notes that SlimVirgin has
edited Historical persecution by Jews, and shows up at there for the very first time and
reverts her within minutes. He now claims he
happens to have an interest in middle east politics, but this "interest" never actually manifested itself in any way before he decided to start following SlimVirgin around and reverting her. He also claims he is "widening his area of interests", but that "widening" appears to only extend to articles SlimVirgin edits.
Jayjg
(talk)
02:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin has a history that shows she's been monitoring me ever since our run in at the Terri Schiavo article:
12 minutes after I post something to my talk page, SlimVirgin notifies Ed [10]
SlimVirgin admits she's been monitoring my contribs [11]
I have a subdirectory under my talk page listing edit/admin behavioural problems with SlimVirgin and make a note of her deleting an entry from the "words to avoid" policy after I used that entry to criticize one of her edits. [12]. Five hours later, she's aware of my edit on this subdirectory [13]/
I withdraw certification on an RfC against Bensaccount and ask an admin to delete it [14]. Less than an hour later, SLimVirgin attacks me claiming "this looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you". [15]. Notice use of teh word "another". The only other RfC that I've filed was against her. And notice for the record that the Bensaccount RfC had been listed for over a week and SlimVirgin made no comment on it, nor was she involved in the article in dispute. She only jumped on it when she thought she could nail me for "another inappropriate RfC". She asked another admin to look at it and the other admin informed SlimVirgin that the RfC looked acceptable. No apology from SlimVirgin for the false accusation has been issued.
In any event, SlimVirgin has a history that shows that this isn't just two editors who happen to show up in the same place right after each other: she's reacted to posts to my talk page 12 minutes after I posted, she's reacted to posts to subdirectories of my talk page within a couple hours, she's jumped on an RfC when she thought she could nail me for an "inappropriate" RfC within an hour after I posted a request to delete it (and even though she had completely ignored the RfC for an entire week up to that point), and she has directly admitted to monitoring my contributions. In case anyone needs to "inform themselves", this ought to put things straight. FuelWagon 16:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I read somewhere on this page that "many RFCs are steps toward arbitration" was my wording, but I can't find the comment now, so I don't know who said it. I don't think this was my wording. I wrote: "An RfC may be the first step toward arbitration." Anyway, I think Sam wanted: "many arbitration cases begin with an RfC," so I've changed it to that. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I tried to research the history of Requests for Comments via the archive of the talk page. It is a useful but incomplete source of information, since the history of the article page has to be viewed from diffs, a lengthy procedure. I would appreciate any comments on the history of this process by any long-time Wikipedians who edited before 2004. However, it appears that a user conduct Request for Comments originally WAS a quasi-judicial process. It is true that it never was a precursor to a Request for Arbitration, because user conduct Requests for Comments preceded an Arbitration Committee. It appears that user conduct Requests for Comments were originally used as requests for Jimbo Wales to ban a disruptive user. If that conclusion on my part is incorrect, then someone who has been editing since 2003 can perhaps correct it.
Then Jimbo Wales established an Arbitration Committee to relieve him of the personal responsibility of banning disruptive editors. The user conduct Request for Comments procedure was left in place, and so was always intended to be used as a preliminary step to banning a user. It is true that Requests for Comments do not always go to arbitration, because most of them are (fortunately) resolved before that stage, and that Requests for Arbitration are not always preceded by user conduct Requests for Comments, because some are preceded by other forms of failed dispute resolution. However, if my reading of the history is correct, then any argument that the process is not intended to be punitive misreads history.
If my interpretation of the history is correct, then we should not waste our energy trying to make the instructions more "accurate" if we disregard content. The process WAS intended to be quasi-judicial and to have possible punitive results. FuelWagon's version of the instructions would disregard that historically based consensus. Either the instructions should be revised, as SlimVirgin argues, to reflect the "accuracy" of history, or the process should be changed, or both. Robert McClenon 15:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
For the love of all that it holy, there are only so many black photons stored in my screen. Can you guys be concise, I just realized that the reason that I am not entering into this discussion if because of the
wordfog on this page.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
01:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)