Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 3

message: The vast majority of RFCs are never officially closed as 'resolved', people just stop editing them when the answer is satisfactory (or, but rarely, when there's no point in continuing it). This has lead to the RFC page becoming overly long with old listings. I have been manually cleaning it out every couple weeks, by taking a bunch of old ones and moving them into the archive, and nobody has objected so far.
I would think it sensible to employ a bot for this work. It seems possible to have it come by weekly (for instance) and look at all RFCs linked from this page, and archive any of them that have not been edited for two weeks. I think it's reasonable to assume that if an RFC is dormant for two weeks, it will not continue very often (and in the rare cases where it does, moving it back is trivial). Any thoughs? Suggestions? Objections? Radiant_* 08:13, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
*There are no objections up to now. If there aren't any in the next couple of days, I will ask the botters to go ahead and automate. Radiant_* 11:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
I completely object to a bot running on this page.  Disputes do not expire after two weeks - this task requires a human touch. -- Netoholic @ 01:09, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
*What I mentioned was after two weeks of inactivity, not two weeks after creation. How else do you propose we solve this mess? Very few people ever close an RFC or unlist it; the list of article RFCs, in particular, had over a hundred old entries before I started archiving them. Now I just manually check, if it's been edited recently, and if not, archive it. That's eminently bottable. Radiant_* 09:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
:: The proposition is flawed, but I agree you're moving in the right direction with it. What should be done with a bot is to archive all RfCs, regardless, 30 days after creation. It doesn't matter whether there is recent activity or not; no new ideas come to the table after that point, only the same voices going around in the same circles. 30 days and out. — Xiong熊talk* 10:52, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
::*I think that's a good idea. An RFC that drags on too long is probably 1) repetitive and pointless, or 2) grounds for RFAr. In those few cases where it isn't, it's a simple matter of re-activating it. Radiant_* 11:29, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
:::Object the process is annoying enough without adding yet another layer of annoyance to a human editor having to fight a bot. There are plenty of edit disputes that go on for months, plural, and having a previous RFC is evidence that an editor, or group of editors, are not going to resolve the problem. Pushing things "down the memory hole" for the sake of a clean page is unwiki. Stirling Newberry 17:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, policy here is now unclear. The RFC on DreamGuy is effectively closed and should probably be archived, but we've currently got User:-Ril- trying to speedy delete it. -- Solipsist 11:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving RFC

message: The discussion on the above looks pretty dead, but it's still listed right at the bottom of the page under General convention and policy issues.  I would remove it but does it need to be archived or something? --Hiding 20:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I worked it out all by myself. Hiding 22:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia talk:Content labeling proposal 

message: The RFC on Gabrielsimon has been certified properly. Four users have signed in the section Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gabrielsimon#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute. This is the standard place for users to certify an RFC. It is contained within the RFC - it is not "somewhere else." Asking other editors to look there, as I did in this edit summary -  - is completely appropriate. Because this RFC has been certified, standard procedure dictates that it should now be listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment under the heading Approved pages - have met the two person threshold.  FreplySpang (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  /Gabrielsimon - certified properly?  

message: I think that a caution to Wikipedians that any process should not be taken lightly is reasonable.  Some Wikipedians take formal processes lightly, and some do not.  
There is a distinction, as I see it, between an RfC about article content, and an RfC about editor conduct.  The latter should be far more formal, and should not only not be taken lightly, but should be "taken heavily".  The procedures for an RfC about article content and an RfC about user conduct are completely different.  In either data modeling or business process engineering, this implies that there are different business rules.  This means that it is misleading to call them by the same name.  An RfC about user conduct is meant to be punitive, or at least a prior step to punitive action.  
It might be useful to use different names for what are really two very different sorts of inquiries.
Robert McClenon 04:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not take lightly, but make distinctions

message: The RFC on Gabrielsimon has been certified properly. Four users have signed in the section Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gabrielsimon#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute. This is the standard place for users to certify an RFC. It is contained within the RFC - it is not "somewhere else." Asking other editors to look there, as I did in this edit summary -  - is completely appropriate. Because this RFC has been certified, standard procedure dictates that it should now be listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment under the heading Approved pages - have met the two person threshold.  FreplySpang (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  /Gabrielsimon - certified properly?  

message: I think that a caution to Wikipedians that any process should not be taken lightly is reasonable.  Some Wikipedians take formal processes lightly, and some do not.  
There is a distinction, as I see it, between an RfC about article content, and an RfC about editor conduct.  The latter should be far more formal, and should not only not be taken lightly, but should be "taken heavily".  The procedures for an RfC about article content and an RfC about user conduct are completely different.  In either data modeling or business process engineering, this implies that there are different business rules.  This means that it is misleading to call them by the same name.  An RfC about user conduct is meant to be punitive, or at least a prior step to punitive action.  
It might be useful to use different names for what are really two very different sorts of inquiries.
Robert McClenon 04:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not take lightly, but make distinctions

message: I've attempted another rewrite of this disclaimer, in light of recent events. The diff is here. FuelWagon 19:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: disclaimer rewrite

message: I've tweaked the instructions on the "example user" RFC. The diff is available here. Since an RFC is viewed as a tool for revenge by some and since it can be a soft requirement for entering arbitration, I changed the instructions to say a user RFC is for one specific user. Looking at all the archived RFC's, only one user RFC was against two users, and I found that RFC to be highly questionable. This also ought to help prevent an "RFC within an RFC" from occurring, which also happened on the two-user RFC. The other piece added was to clarify that there are three sections (statement of dispute, response, outside comments) and users signing/voting/endorsing one section should not edit the other sections. The two-user RFC, by the end, had people who were endorsing the RFC also putting statements into the "response" section, disputing the views of users who posted in teh "outside comment" section. This didn't help resolve any dispute, it only helped to widen who was involved in the dispute. Finally, the bottom of the RFC says, all discussion should go to the talk page, and I added a clarification to say, no, really, all discussion should go to talk. Everytime I've seen threaded replies occur on an RFC, it only escalated the dispute, rather than resolve it. The idea that all responses should go to talk is intended to at least give everyone some space on the RFC page to state their side fo things without the opposite side getting in their face about it. FuelWagon 14:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: example user RFC instructions

message: Several weeks ago, this section was added:
===User conduct RfC===
:* For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by diffs showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours. The diffs should not simply show evidence of the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The two users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it. (However, an RfC subject to deletion for lack of evidence should not normally be deleted by an editor whose conduct it is discussing, but rather by a neutral Admin.)
:* An RFC is considered a soft requirement for entering Arbitration, which can bring punitive actions against an editor. However, do not open an RFC simply to better your odds at getting into arbitration and punish another editor. An RFC is intended to operate in and of itself as a means to resolve a dispute. An RFC is not arbitration application paperwork. An RFC is a tool for resolving a dispute. Use it as such.
There was no vote or discussion that I am aware of, and in addition to some instruction creep, this adds a requirement for diffs.  I don't think such a requirement is called for, because it has the effect of stifling discussion.  In some cases there may not be any clear diffs, as when discussion occured via email or IRC.  I removed the section from the project page and invite discussion here. 
The original purpose of the certification mechanism, where two users must certify, was to reduce the volume of frivilous RFCs from vandals and trolls.  It was not intended to make RFC a mechanism of last resort.  RFCs serve a purpose in that they provide a central point of discussion.  People will discuss things they're upset about, either here, or at the village pump, or the administrator's noticeboard, or on the mailing list.  Let's continue to have RFC be a suitable forum for somewhat less formal discussion, and leave the diffs and evidence-gathering to RFAr where it is more appropriate.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the removal. Maurreen (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Also agree with the removal. The requirement could just be to have certification by 2 real distinct editors - for the basis of a legitimate Request for Discussion of the matter, only..  --Mysidia 19:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added requirements for user conduct RFCs 

message: I've nominated the RFC page at Wikipedia:Maintenance collaboration of the week. Maurreen (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Maintenance collaboration

message: I have had some issues with willmcw and the edits he reverts on the Biff Rose page. As it stands it is frozen with eidts I agree with. I ask that people research the lyrics of Biff Rose, and his websites, which include many of the offending racist and anti semitic statements as well as the lyrics from some of his songs. It is important to get a whole overview beyond that of Rose himself. 
I will abide by the findings, however they play out. I would ask that willmcw would no longer post on my user page as he is insulting and making me out to be something I am not. It effects my relation with other wikipedia users. ThanksSteve espinola 07:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment regarding Biff Rose entry, and User:willmcw 

message: :By the way, is anyone aware of the rationale for choosing 48 hours as the time limit?  Perhaps 72 hours or greater would be the more appropriate time limit for certification, so that people can actually notice an Rfc before the time has already been called.  This important, since not just any user can notice, research, and get an Rfc certified... other actual parties to be involved in a similar dispute with the user have to notice -- it could therefore take a while for them to become aware, especially if they don't log on every day, or is the Rfc process only designed for situations where disputes involve dozens of users?
:Users are able to build Rfcs in their own userspace (i've seen it happening), perhaps calling people to get their Rfc certified before they move it to Wikipedia: namespace... I don't know, perhaps this is standard practice, or just smart, but I think of it more as an undesirable reaction to the time limit than a good practice, as it limits the amount of comment...  Instead of delete RFCs after 48 hours, I think the rule should be made de-list RFCs after 48 hours, with an option to re-list, provided the party re-listing
is also certifying the listing, but do not delete the pages unless they were just patent nonsense... --Mysidia 19:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the practice was to delist and not to delete. Maurreen (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a minor point, but I think that we have one pre-mediation system, five mediation-type systems, and one judicial system.  Of them, three are working, and four are not.  The three that are working are RfC, as a pre-mediation system, 3O, as an informal mediation system, and RfAr, which is judicial.  I agree that the formal mediation systems are not working, and would be interested to know what exactly is wrong with them.  Robert McClenon 12:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: * I believe that merely by providing a suitable forum for users to criticise each other, RFCs serve a purpose.  Before we had RFCs, people would post similar critical material all over the Wiki, most often at RFA (in the form of de-adminship requests), or at the Village Pump, or at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship.  While it is most unusual for the subject of an RFC to make substantive changes in their editing pattern as a result of the RFC, a purpose is nonetheless served. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: * Mediation rarely works, either at Wikipedia or elsewhere.  It does not work here because the mediators are not taken seriously; as a group they are not seen as being community leaders whose insight and judgement are among the best of those at Wikipedia.  There are various reasons for this, many of them historical.  The mediators do not act as a unified group; they lack strong leadership, and as a result do not speak with a single voice.  Part of the problem IMO is that they have accepted intractable cases which they should have left to others.  Part of the problem is that their confidentiality standards make it difficult for them to take proper credit for those disputes where they have had a positive influence.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The time limit used for Uncertified RFCs

message: There is a current RfAr concerning the complaint that a user has an inappropriate signature.  (At least, the summary says that that is the issue, but there seem to other complaints about the user's conduct.)  An RfAr seems to be a drastic step to deal with a complaint about a signature.  Should inappropriate signatures be dealt with under inappropriate user names, or should there be a separate section of this page?  Robert McClenon 11:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate Signatures 

message: The RFCs on article content had been split a while ago among nine topic areas. These have now been moved to subpages. This will allow experts in a certain area to keep that subpage on their watchlist, and contribute to what they know best. There is also a central page that transcludes them all. Please comment here, and tell us if you think the current subject areas are too narrow, broad, overlapping, confusing, or if any are missing. Radiant_>|< 08:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
:"Requests for comment/All" does not indicate the topics. Maurreen (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, on the one hand, we can now categorize the topic sections. But on the other hand, it splits the people RFCs and users must now go to multiple pages to start the RFC. Maurreen (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Damn.  A bunch more pages I need to find to add to my watchlist. --Carnildo 04:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC has been split! 

message: I disagree with all the splitting up and subpages. This page used to be simple -- one page. Now it's scattered. Maurreen (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, how should we resolve this, have an RFC about the RFC page? Maurreen (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A meta-RfC.  Yes.  Fun for logicians, and reasonable for other Wikipedians. Robert McClenon 18:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting up

message: I'm looking for second opinions on a rewrite of ABC (talk).  Where should I go to request comment? --Smack (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on a disambig page 

message: Does anyone know what happened to the dispute archives? Maurreen (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: I added a category for language and linguistics, since I know there have been heated disputes about it before and I simply could not see this fitting in any other category. My hope is that it won't actually be used and can be deleted later on, but I doubt it. A lot of people have a lot of opinions about language and not all of them are either well-informed or civil.
Peter Isotalo 22:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added category 

message: I see some discussion about deleting it, but no decision was made.  Yet it is gone. Do the missing RFCs have to be replaced. Or do I look around until I find out where the dispute on Cricket (sport) vs Cricket (insect) was placed? Nereocystis 23:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Article title disputes]]?

message: Should an anonymous IP count towards the 2 user threshold for certification of an RfC? Since we generally don't count IP votes on RfA or VfD votes, it doesn't seem like we should allow them to certify. Specifically, I'm referring to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:Robert McClenon, where the creator and first certifier was User:24.147.97.230. I think it would set a bad precedent and possibly encourage abusive sockpuppets to allow RfCs to be certified by one (or more) anonymous IPs. Carbonite | Talk 00:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it dubious, at best. I'm not sure what policy is regarding an RFC. I did find this, though.  "In some votes, guidelines require you to be a registered user for it to be considered." FuelWagon 05:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the one hand, to the extent that Wikipedia is "bound by precedent", it would indeed make a bad precedent to permit anonymous certification, precisely because it would encourage abusive sockpuppets.  On the other hand, since Wikipedia is not "bound by precedent", it is not really important whether the RfC is considered to be "properly certified".  I did raise the issue of whether it has been properly certified in my Response.  The RfC is a revenge RfC aimed at retaliation against my filing of a previous RfC against the anonymous editor.  The endorsing signatures in support of the anonymous editor on both RfCs are almost entirely those of admittedly first-time users who have created accounts for the purpose of supporting the anonymous editor.  It does not matter much whether the RfC is "properly certified" because a user conduct RfC, as I understand, serves two purposes.  The first is as a means for obtaining community input about a user's conduct that might enable him to change his behavior.  There has so far been no such constructive input, only new accounts supporting the anonymous editor, and frustrated Wikipedians saying that this anonymous editor is out of control.  The second purpose of an RfC is as a preliminary step toward arbitration.  When the response to my RfC about the anonymous editor was belligerent, I filed an RfAr.  I trust that when the ArbCom does accept the case, which largely does involve whether there is sockpuppet abuse, they will have the sound judgment to distinguish between real and unreal editors.  Robert McClenon 11:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous IP certification 

message: First, it is clear enough to me that there are now long hard feelings between FuelWagon and SlimVirgin because he filed a user conduct RfC against her.  Obviously, she and many other Wikipedians thought that he was attacking her.  I think that he was, but he disagrees.  I agree with her effort to post a warning that posting a user conduct RfC will be seen as hostile.  She is trying to avoid a misunderstanding like the one that already exists between him and her, by saying that such an RfC will be seen as hostile.  She is right in saying that it will be seen as hostile.  If FuelWagon disagrees, then the fact of this exchange is proof enough.  
So why is FuelWagon eager to allow similar misunderstood filings?  Why does he not want to spare others the hostility that he caused without meaning to do it?  I think that SlimVirgin is trying to do future users a favor, and say, "Please be wary before posting a user conduct RfC.  It is a serious measure."  
I think that FuelWagon was in part a victim of the fact that the posted rules are in complete disagreement with the usual understanding of how dispute resolution should be done.  He did what the rules said, and not what the understanding was.  There was a genuine cognitive disconnect.  The posted rules were wrong.  
In retrospect, FuelWagon should have posted an article RfC rather than a user conduct RfC.  He had no way of knowing this, since he only read the rules, and did not read the minds of the community.  This was always really a content issue more than a conduct issue.  One of the limitations of a wiki is that there is no obvious fast way to handle content issues quickly.  Robert McClenon 00:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two comments

message: There seems to be some confusion as to the history of this recent discussion. I've posted the following diffs for your review.
::15:58, 24 August 2005 SlimVirgin writes: "because of the RfC you filed." 
::19:06, 24 August 2005 FuelWagon writes: "you are still holding onto that RFC I filed against you" 
::21:21, 24 August 2005 FuelWagon pastes RFC into his personal userspace.
It seems fairly straightforward to me. FuelWagon 23:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: for your review

message: There does seem to be residual hard feeling between FuelWagon and SlimVirgin, and it is wasting Wiki space that would be better spent on improving the dispute resolution process.  If the two of them still have hard feelings, why not request mediation to at least agree to express those hard feelings somewhere else?
Second, I restated what SlimVirgin said was the consensus of the Wikipedia community, that a user conduct RfC is a serious allegation that will lead to hard feelings and is commonly considered a step toward arbitration.  FuelWagon disagreed as to whether this is a consensus.  Is a quickpoll in order? Robert McClenon 00:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Comments

message: Talk:Barbara Schwarz has become the site of a flamewar over the article in question; a number of suspected sockpuppets have popped up and are not only defending the article's subject, but verbally eviscerating anyone, such as Texture or Tilman Hausherr, who tries to edit new information into it.  User:Lily Firered and some anonymous user who signs all his posts "A Mormon" are largely at fault for the hostile atmosphere, and I think we need some new blood to take a look at what's going on in there. I haven't participated in any editing on that page in over a month myself, and I don't think I can resolve this conflict alone. - 206.114.20.121 18:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This fits none of the categories, but it's important 

message: Given that the page has now been split again, and my RFCs are no longer listed on the RFC page, would someone at least tell me where they are? Maurreen (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I wanted to hold a survey, I would do so. Maurreen (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: So where are my RFCs?

message: Radiant or anyone: What do you think of dividing all requests for input (RFCs, surveys, whatever) among two types, article-specific issues and all other issues? Maurreen (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise proposal: RFCs and surveys

message: SlimVirgin, FuelWagon:  Can both of you please get over it?  Please be civil and refrain from these innuendos.  Terri Schiavo died in April. It is now September.  
First, when SV says that FW was trying to use an RfC to control content, if she means that FW had written the Bensaccount request for comments due to a content dispute, that is just mistaken.  The Creation Science article was very out of control.  FW was heroically trying to restore reason and civility (which is not easy for an editor who has lapses in civility, but he was doing it very well).  As he says, he was trying to "write for the enemy", and to present a wrong-headed point of view as the point of view that is permitted in a pluralistic society.  There were serious breaches of POV and civility, as well as personal attacks, on both sides.  Bensaccount was by far the worst of the POV pushers, and was trying to get Wikipedia to say that Creation Science was known to be a pseudo-science.  FW tried to reason with Bensaccount, and did not write the RfC until all other efforts at dispute resolution failed.  Any suggestion that he was too quick to write it is mistaken.  
I do not know why he has now requested that it be deleted.  Since it appears that it has been deleted, it is difficult for me to find it and research its history as to why two of the certifying signatures have been cancelled.  The mistake appears to have been not filing the RfC, but withdrawing it.  If I had certified the RfC, rather than only endorsing it, I would take strong offense at having it then deleted.  (I only endorsed it because I did not try to resolve the dispute, but I did observe it and I was in complete agreement with FW's summary.)
I don't know what the rules are about withdrawing a user conduct RfC or a signature to a user conduct RfC.  I know that I recently made the mistake of offering to withdraw my signature to an RfC, and I have learned that that is a mistake.  While it can be intended to be a gesture of reasonableness, once a user conduct RfC has become necessary, any willingness to compromise is likely to be seen as a sign of weakness by a troll, POV warrior, or puppet-master.  
Rather than withdrawing the RfC, couldn't an update have been included stating that there had been agreement?  Why did two of the certifiers withdraw their signatures?  
SV:  FW was not using a user conduct RfC to control content.  That is not an accurate or reasonable summary of what happened.  I do not know why he withdrew the RfC.  The withdrawal gives the appearance that he was bullied into submission by a sock army.  
SV, FW:  Can the two of you please either take your simmering resentment of each other to mediation, or open an exchange-of-insults talk page?  Robert McClenon 11:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert, I have emailed you a copy of the RFC before it was deleted. It includes my comments explaining why I withdrew my certification. FuelWagon 15:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A request for a truce

message: There has been a problem on several recent user conduct RfCs that editors have edited portions of the page that they were not supposed to edit.  Sometimes the person whose conduct is the subject of the RfC will insert comments into the Summary, or the certifiers will insert comments into the Response.  I have a suggestion.  The template should have wording added that states that this is not permitted.  I would suggest wording at the top of the Description and the Summary of the form:  "The person whose conduct is the subject of this RfC MUST NOT edit this section.  Editing this section by the subject may result in a temporary block by an admin and may be seen by the ArbCom as evidence of bad faith."  Similarly, the top of the response should have wording of the form:  "The certifiers or endorsers of this RfC MUST NOT edit this section.  Editing this section by the certifiers or endorsers may result in a temporary block by an admin and may be seen by the ArbCom as evidence of bad faith."  Robert McClenon 15:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Coloring within the Lines

message: As I have stated elsewhere, mediation should not ask to use a user conduct RfC (Request for Corrective Action) first.  It should be clarified that the proper sequence of dispute resolution steps should be:
# Discussion on article (or user) talk page.
# Article Request for Comments.
# Mediation.
# User conduct Request for Comments (which should be renamed Request for Corrective Action, because it is more serious than an RfC and has possible punitive implications).
# Request for Arbitration.
The statement in the RfM page that RfC should be tried first needs to be clarified that article RfC should be tried first, but that user conduct RfC should not be a precondition to mediation.  Mediation should be tried prior to Request for Corrective Action when a content dispute has spilled over into being a conduct dispute.  
The requirement for certification, to the best of my knowledge, is still 48 hours.  I did not see any statement that it had been changed.  What SlimVirgin is proposing is a period of discussion before the RfC is filed.  Once it is filed, I think that we agree that it should be certified by two real editors within 48 hours.  
I think that there is a need to disambiguate two types of conduct issues.  There are "simple" conduct issues, where an editor engages in obvious policy violations, typically either personal attacks or 3RR.  I see no need for a numerical time minimum before filing those, although it should still be necessary to try to resolve the dispute by reminding the offender of the policies.  Then there are what I will call "hybrid" conduct issues, which originate as content issues, and the problem is stubbornness or incivility.  (Personal attacks are uncivil, but not all incivility is personal attacks.)  There should be a more stringent threshold for those, but at the same time, I am concerned that imposing "too many hoops" could simply result in "consensus" being decided by who was willing to shout more loudly and revert more.  Robert McClenon 17:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute Resolution, again

message: There seems to be no place to put "uncategorized article RFCs". I think this discourages people from creating RFCs and prompts them to go straight to RFM - which is uncategorized. Please help me by putting the following RFCs where they belong. 
Also, I don't really know how to set up the RFC template. Please help with that, too. Thanks. Ed Poor, MedCom acting chairman. Uncle Ed 00:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
*Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jonathan Sarfati
::Demonstrating further justification against subpages. Maurreen (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I have no idea where to put this

message: The Bureaucrat consensus poll got me thinking about consensus and how we arrive at it. I think RFCs have too much of a stigmata attached to them, and that they can be used in cases like this. RFCs can be used for consensus building and not just dispute resolution. Think of the format user conduct RFCs use, a statement of scope, evidence and "views" that people endorse. There's all sorts of ways RFCs can be formated and managed (and closed out) without people saying yea or nay on something. It's a form of voting for sure but it's in a form that has people endorsing a result/solution rather than possibly just voting something down. If you're not seeing a "view" you can endorse you can create one which others can then take into consideration. Just some thoughts...Rx StrangeLove 04:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFCs, voting and consensus

message: On an RFC filed against me Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Erwin Walsh the list of applicable policies includes WP:NPOV, which is a policy that applies to articles, not users (to my understanding).  I have tried removing it but it was reverted.  Perhaps an admin or RFC regular could clarify the situation.  Erwin 
:NPOV is a policy that applies to articles.  I have not read the RfC in detail.  My assumption would be that this is an RfC that combines content issues and conduct issues with respect to how to resolve the content issues.  The content policies are relevant if there were allegations that you were not being reasonable about content.  
:If you tried to delete some of the listed policies, then you were "coloring outside the lines" by editing a portion of the RfC that should be edited only by its certifiers.  The proper place to have questioned the inclusion of NPOV would have been in your Response.  Robert McClenon 16:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate charges on RFC 

message: Questions have been raised on several RfCs about when and how additions may be made to a user conduct RfC after it is certified.  Is it reasonable for the certifiers of the RfC to add additional language to the Description, or the Policies, or the Evidence of Disputed Behavior, after the RfC is certified?  My own thought was that it should be, either because the certifiers, in the course of further research, identified earlier misconduct by the user that they had previously overlooked, or because the user in question begins to behave worse in some respect (e.g., vandalizes another user's user page as revenge).  However, a few editors argue that adding to an RfC is "sneaky vandalism".  Is it?  If so, does that mean that the certifier should write a second RfC against the same editor?  Robert McClenon 12:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen an RFC that spanned over several weeks (a month or two?) as certifiers kept adding diffs for evidence. A few editors who originally supported the RFC later withdrew their support, but that wasn't because of added evidence, it was because of some disputes that broke out on the talk page. Basically, the RFC instructions say it must be the same dispute with the same editor or that it must be evidence of the same type of behaviour from that editor. As long as the additions meet that requirement, it should be fine, and other editors are free to withdraw their endorsement later if they wish. FuelWagon 23:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Propriety of Additions to RfC

message: Should it be permitted to add evidence of disputed behavior after the RfC is certified?  If so, should that be only for the original certifiers, or can new certifiers or endorsers also add?    Robert McClenon 12:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The RFC instructions say it must be the same dispute with the same editor or that it must be evidence of the same type of behaviour from that editor. As long as the additions meet that requirement, it should be fine, and other editors are free to withdraw their endorsement later if they wish. someone should easily be able to determine if new evidence is related to the same dispute or disputed behaviour. New editors should be able to add evidence if they wish. If the original certifiers wish to keep their RFC separate, then that would be up to them. FuelWagon 23:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence of Disputed Behavior

message: This statement
::An RfC may be the first step toward arbitration, which can bring punitive actions against an editor. It is therefore not a step to be taken lightly.
is little more than slippery slope argument. An article RfC could just as easily be considered the "first step toward arbitration" because if an article RfC fails, then a user RfC may be next, and if a user RfC fails, then arbitration may be next. Any step in the dispute resolution process "may be the first step toward arbitration".
This statement also creates a linkage that does not exist in policy. A user RfC is not a requirement to enter arbitration. You can request arbitration without going through any other steps in the dispute resolution process. This statement implies a linkage and hides the fact that the linkage isn't official by hiding behind the term "may". "An RfC may be the first step toward arbitration".  Although a linkage is implied, none exists in policy.
The end result of this statement is the same as any fallicious slippery slope argument: be afraid, be very afraid. Don't start because you may not be able to stop. It is therefore not a step to be taken lightly is nothing more than an admonishment to avoid the user Rfc based on the previously explained fallacious slippery slope argument. Since it's little more than a slippery slope argument, since it doesn't reflect any actual policy regarding "user RfC -> Must precede -> arbitration", and since it closes with what amounts to "be afraid, be very afraid", I've modified it to more accurately reflect actual policy and the difference from perceptions of a user RfC. FuelWagon 14:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement actually reflects reality, no more. Jayjg (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: any stage in the dispute resolution process may be the first step towards arbitration. That's also a reflection of reality. But we shouldn't put similar warnings on all the other steps too. FuelWagon 21:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: be afraid, be very afraid

message: Does this conflict with what RFC policy says in some way?
::"A user RfC is not required before entering arbitration, nor must a user RfC necessarily lead to arbitration." 
Did I miss something in teh dispute resolution process? Or is some magical policy at work that says this is wrong? FuelWagon 21:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits aren't good English, though not as long-winded as before. The word "may" in my version meant that an RfC might (but might not) be the first step toward arbitration. That's what the word means, and this is the English Wikipedia, so we have to rely on readers being able to read English. You've been revert warring about this for months, opposed by several editors. I've tweaked the edit to make your concerns even more explicit; now please leave it alone. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know my English just fine. Speaking of language, your use of "although" mirrors the use of However. "Text like "A asserts Y. However, according to B, Z." implies that the latter assertion is truer or better than the former one. Avoid this construction in favor of simply stating: "A asserts Y. Others, including B, believe Z."," FuelWagon 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I reported simple facts of policy, you've rewritten them into "Although A, B may lead to Z", which does the same thing that "however" does: imply that the latter is truer or better than the former.  Policy should be reported as simple facts without couching it in although/however language to weaken the facts you don't like. FuelWagon 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, your "don't take lightly" addition has no policy to back it up and could be considered original research and/or your personal POV. Even if some policy does point to this admonition, this particular admonishment is essentially useless since it gives no objective guidance as to when to file or not to file a user Rfc. It boils down to telling the user: "be afraid".  FuelWagon 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Uh, huh, sure. people can't understand the fact that filing a user RfC doesn't mean you have to go to arbitration. Sure, if you say so, Jayjg. Since that seems to be the problem at the moment, I've left it out. I have removed the use of the word "although", which follows the "words to avoid" description of "however". This version cannot be "incomprehensible". So I await the new excuse for your next revert. FuelWagon 20:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You argue about "better grammar" but conveniently ignore that "however" and "although" are both the same from a grammatical point of view. "Although" is being used in this sentence exactly the same way that the "words to avoid" article says about "however": to "implies that the latter assertion is truer or better than the former". the first statement is a simple fact. The second statement is SlimVirgin's and your opinion of user RFC. I've given up trying to remove the POV pushing because it keeps getting reverted by the pov pushers. Instead I inserted a fact of RfC policy. And now the POV pushers are taking that fact and rewording it to imply their point of view is truer or better than the facts. How about let the facts speak for themselves and let your POV speak for itself. FuelWagon 22:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to put up with you following me around removing the word "although" in your Orwellian fashion. You're being unbelievably petty (well, not unbelievably, sadly). SlimVirgin (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the chuckle, SlimVirgin. I'm following you around. Yeah, sure. Just a refresher for you, I tried to clarify the rules on the RFC page a little while after I filed that RfC against you. Interestingly enough, you appeared to have followed me then and reverted my changes back. During the ensuing edit war, you inserted your "be afraid" statement. Any attempt by me to state the simple facts of an RfC has since been reverted by your insistence of coloring actual policy to your personal view of user RfCs being horrendous actions like putting someone in the stockade and reserved for unsalvagable trolls. Funny, I keep asking around, and no one else has quite that brutal of a view of a user RfC. But you've insisted on it being there, so I finally gave up. Instead, I try inserting a simple fact of policy: "A user RfC is not required to enter arbitration" and still you insist on altering it and reinforcing your personal view on RfCs. FuelWagon 05:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The other wording is better stylistically and easier to understand. Jayjg (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And we all know that reading nice is more important than it beingbiased. FuelWagon 20:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Your link has nothing to do with the existing wording. Jayjg (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: magical policy?

message: 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)
replies: text: If we're cutting to the chase, then it's pretty clear that RfCs often do lead to RfARs, that the Arbitration Committee often demands something resembling a RfC before taking a case, that people do take them quite seriously as a result, and that your additions have generally been extremely poorly written, and often difficult to comprehend. Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh huh, I could see how taking out the word "although" would be difficult for some to comprehend. Sure. FuelWagon 21:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm so confused! This is beyond my comprehension! help! FuelWagon 23:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: No, this isn't based "solely on the wording of policy". I've been asking around. I've been talking with people. Not everyone views an RfC the way SlimVirgin does. Not everyone views it as a horrendous action, putting someone in teh stockade, to be reserved for unsalvagable trolls. And I'm NOT trying to modify policy. All I'm tryign to do here is fix the addition that SlimVirgin keeps pushing into the instructions. But I get these bogus explanations about "style" and "grammar". We're talking basically about the word "although" being the only difference here. If their only concern is grammar, two sentences are just as grammatically correct as one. If they're talking about "style", then they're saying it isn't about content, and there are plenty of other style issues to fix elsewhere on wikipedia. But they don't care about "style", they care about the tone they create massaging a policy fact into their opinion about RfC's. They want to control the tone. If they didn't then, two separate bullets and two separate sentences shouldn't be a problem because the same content and facts would remain. If all they care about is content and facts, then it shouldn't matter how those facts are presented as long as they're facts. FuelWagon 22:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Robert, I don't want to change policy here. I'd just be happy to report the facts of current policy, rather than have SlimVirgin's brutish opinion of them. FuelWagon 22:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FuelWagon still has not answered my questions either as to how to change the policy or as to whether user conduct RfCs do have a use besides as a step toward arbitration.  At least perhaps we can move on to something other than rules-lawyering what the policies now are.  Since SlimVirgin has said that the current user conduct RfC procedure is horrendous, does she have any suggestions for how to change it, or what to replace it with?  Robert McClenon 12:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I answered your question. I don't want to change policy. That's your thing. I gave up on that a while ago. Now I just want the instructions to reflect actual policy. I don't have that big a problem with current RfC policy. I have a problem with SlimVirgin taking current policy and biasing it to her personal opinion of horrendous RfC's. How about we get the instruction page to reflect actaul policy in a neutral way first. Then we can worry about changing policy if that's what happens. FuelWagon 15:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: cutting to the chase

message: 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)
replies: text: No, this isn't based "solely on the wording of policy". I've been asking around. I've been talking with people. Not everyone views an RfC the way SlimVirgin does. Not everyone views it as a horrendous action, putting someone in teh stockade, to be reserved for unsalvagable trolls. And I'm NOT trying to modify policy. All I'm tryign to do here is fix the addition that SlimVirgin keeps pushing into the instructions. But I get these bogus explanations about "style" and "grammar". We're talking basically about the word "although" being the only difference here. If their only concern is grammar, two sentences are just as grammatically correct as one. If they're talking about "style", then they're saying it isn't about content, and there are plenty of other style issues to fix elsewhere on wikipedia. But they don't care about "style", they care about the tone they create massaging a policy fact into their opinion about RfC's. They want to control the tone. If they didn't then, two separate bullets and two separate sentences shouldn't be a problem because the same content and facts would remain. If all they care about is content and facts, then it shouldn't matter how those facts are presented as long as they're facts. FuelWagon 22:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Robert, I don't want to change policy here. I'd just be happy to report the facts of current policy, rather than have SlimVirgin's brutish opinion of them. FuelWagon 22:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FuelWagon still has not answered my questions either as to how to change the policy or as to whether user conduct RfCs do have a use besides as a step toward arbitration.  At least perhaps we can move on to something other than rules-lawyering what the policies now are.  Since SlimVirgin has said that the current user conduct RfC procedure is horrendous, does she have any suggestions for how to change it, or what to replace it with?  Robert McClenon 12:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I answered your question. I don't want to change policy. That's your thing. I gave up on that a while ago. Now I just want the instructions to reflect actual policy. I don't have that big a problem with current RfC policy. I have a problem with SlimVirgin taking current policy and biasing it to her personal opinion of horrendous RfC's. How about we get the instruction page to reflect actaul policy in a neutral way first. Then we can worry about changing policy if that's what happens. FuelWagon 15:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A Comment and a Question

message: 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)
thread_title: Magical Policy, or Magical Thinking

message: 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:
#Be succinct, and
#Be nice?
brenneman(t)(c) 06:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Not to be taken lightly" 

message: *It's structure lends itself to "voting", with resulting little emphasis on the comments.
::Because it appears to be a structure intended for "voting", it can be abused by the use of sockpuppets. Robert McClenon 12:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current perceived problems with RfC 

message: 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:
*Discussion on talk pages.
*Article content RfC, if there is a content issue.
*Request for Mediation and mediation, regardless of whether a content issue, a conduct issue, or both.
*User conduct Request for Comments (by some other name).
*Request for Arbitration.
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)
thread_title:  RfC's ideal place (purpose?) in the mediation chain