Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/orthogonal

message: I would feel like there was a better chance at discussion here if orthogonal's response had been something other than deming the complaint invalid and making another accusation that I make power grabs. To expidite the matter, would you like to call this an abject failure and move up to mediation now, instead of waiting a week or two? Snowspinner 15:49, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
:That would be unfair to orthogonal.
:The basic fairness of this Request for Comment has been called into dispute, and you now want to conveniently skip past the proper process for considering this matter and escalate it to mediation, which would then tar orthogonal with the additional stigma that comes with being accused in that forum as well.
:Snowspinner, given that the ink is barely dry on this Request for Comments, it seems rather unfair to move forward so quickly with additional measures simply because it appears to not be going well for you at this level.
:I ask that the Wikipedia community be given an opportunity to more fully weigh in on the merits of this Request for Comments before additional measures are taken, especially given that even its certification is in dispute (and certification is required for the matter to proceed forward). --DV 21:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, this would be ripe for mediation, as long as both parties agree. I don't think there's too much more than can be accomplished here. We've had a range of differing views, and I think it's clear that both parties really need to work their differences out between them. Unless the parties decline, and thus plan to proceed to arbitration, I think it should go to mediation - and has more chance of resolution that way. (note that this is just my opinion as a user, not as a mediator). Ambi 23:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: So Snowspinner could simply have asked for mediation, rather than oppening an RfC? -- orthogonal 03:54, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems I could have. I was unaware that the policy had changed, though I'm glad it did. Snowspinner 04:50, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Better late than never, I say. You might start by both apologizing to each other for making such a public spectacle out of a personality conflict. --Michael Snow 16:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I would feel like there was a better chance at discussion here if orthogonal's response [to this RfC]  had been something other than de[e]ming the complaint invalid and making another accusation that I make power grabs.
I did (and do) argue that the RfC was invalid, but where in my response did I "mak[e] another accusation that [Snowspinner] make[s] power grabs"? 
Please note, in the next section, below, Snowspinner calls using the words "power grab" a "personal attack", so (apparently) Snowspinner is saying I'm both pettifogging and making (yet another) personal attack in my response to this RfC. 
Snowspinner, where in my response do you see me "making another accusation that [you] make power grabs"? -- orthogonal 07:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Productivity

message: While I agree that Fennec cannot validly certify this dispute, I don't think Guanaco (or anyone else) should move another user's signature, as Guanaco just did to Fennec's signature. 
Doing this misrepresents what the signing user intends, and tends to decrease faith in the validity of signatures in general, which is harmful to wikipedia. 
I would humbly ask that Guanaco revert his edit and instead explain the reasons he believes Fennec should himself move the signature; possibly Guanaco could do that endorsing David Vasquez's "outside view" which says as much, or by adding his own "outside view".
For obvious reasons of appearance of impropriety, I am NOT going to revert an RfC open on me. -- orthogonal 00:01, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Touchy Problem