Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 4

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 

message: 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)
replies: text: That shouldn't have happened unless there was a problem with yours. The requests are supposed to be written in a neutral way, so perhaps the other editor felt yours wasn't. Do you have diffs showing yours and the replacement? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm pretty sure it was neutral, but I can't find anyway to retreive my RfC so I don't know exactly what it said. Is their a way to get it? My RFC did appear above the box (sorry I'm still new at this), but I think it should have been simply moved instead of deleted and replaced with different RFC.--198.93.113.49 17:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I already told you on your talk page, I posted mine, then noticed yours was placed incorrectly after that, so I removed it. I would have moved it but since one was already in place, I saw no reason for the extra work. There is an RfC in place, does it matter so much who put it there? Gamaliel 17:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I placed the RfC in the correct section. It was merely above the RfC box. If I had deleted your RfC and replaced it with another wouldn't you ask why it had happened? Given the fact that you have deleted many of the comments I've made on the John Byrne, Rob Leifeld, and well as user talk pages, surely you can understand why I was concerned when you deleted one of my RfC's.--198.93.113.49 18:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, 198, the diff for yours is here  and actually, I would probably have rewritten this. But it's a moot point, as Gamaliel explains that he had already written his and just deleted yours because it was in the wrong place. Here's the diff for his.  Hope this helps. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting RfC's?

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: 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)
replies: text: That shouldn't have happened unless there was a problem with yours. The requests are supposed to be written in a neutral way, so perhaps the other editor felt yours wasn't. Do you have diffs showing yours and the replacement? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm pretty sure it was neutral, but I can't find anyway to retreive my RfC so I don't know exactly what it said. Is their a way to get it? My RFC did appear above the box (sorry I'm still new at this), but I think it should have been simply moved instead of deleted and replaced with different RFC.--198.93.113.49 17:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I already told you on your talk page, I posted mine, then noticed yours was placed incorrectly after that, so I removed it. I would have moved it but since one was already in place, I saw no reason for the extra work. There is an RfC in place, does it matter so much who put it there? Gamaliel 17:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I placed the RfC in the correct section. It was merely above the RfC box. If I had deleted your RfC and replaced it with another wouldn't you ask why it had happened? Given the fact that you have deleted many of the comments I've made on the John Byrne, Rob Leifeld, and well as user talk pages, surely you can understand why I was concerned when you deleted one of my RfC's.--198.93.113.49 18:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, 198, the diff for yours is here  and actually, I would probably have rewritten this. But it's a moot point, as Gamaliel explains that he had already written his and just deleted yours because it was in the wrong place. Here's the diff for his.  Hope this helps. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting RfC's?

message: 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)
replies: text: Go ahead and unarchive as you see fit, Robert. It was another editor who archived, and I undid it thinking it premature, then thought better of my reverting, and so redid it. ;-) I don't actually mind one way or the other. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Wow, Robert, by insisting that the RFC instruction page describe what an RFC actually is, rather than simply what SlimVirgin wants everyone to think it is, I'm filibustering. Great. Appreciate it. FuelWagon 03:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I left a note for you. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC Reform Added from Archive 

message: :Robert, you wanna know what's wrong with the current user RfC system? nothing. What's wrong is that certain editors cannot handle criticism and those kinds of editors take an RfC as enforced public criticism. There is nothing about about a user RfC that is binding. there is no determinations in a user RfC. There is no finding of facts. there is nothing about a user RfC that can be used as established fact in a case brought before arbcom. A user RfC does nothing but generate comments. Hence the name. The only checkmark on the arbitration form that involves a user rfc is showing that prior stages of dispute resolution have been tried and failed. You wanna fix the only real problem in the design? make the user RfC as inelligible for qualifying as a pre-req for arbitration. Change the process so that a request for arbitration is accepted independent of whether a user RfC was ever generated. Then all a user RfC can do is generate comments and nothing else. Then the only problem is those editors who view public criticism as a terrible thing that must be suppressed.
:See, the people who want to suppress criticism will do stuff like keep bumping up the requirements to create a user RfC, bump up teh number of people required to "certify", bump up the requirements for attempting to resolve the dispute before filing the RfC, bump up the requirements for evidence. The end result is to suppress criticism.
:If someone files a bad faith RfC, all it should do is generate comments that can be ignored. Make it so that it is cannot be considered any kind of prerequisite for arbitration, and a bad faith RfC can be ignored by the editor. If a bad editor creates a bad RfC against a good editor, then the good editor should be able to ignore the RfC and not waste their time responding to it. Since this sort of RfC cannot be used as "evidence of trying to resolving dispute and failing", then the RfC doesn't get teh bad faith editor a checkmark for tryign toget into arbitration. It means arbcom will have to do some work, rather than rely on the "score" of some user RfC, but it would basically be the same stuff that's submitted on the "request for arbitration" with evidence being submitted and all that.
:A user RfC is not required before entering arbitration. This is fact. Make is so that a user RfC can't even be listed in a request for arbitration form, and you've got a true "request for comments" form, because all it can do is request comments. REmove the perception that filing a user RfC may lead to arbitraion will remove any incentive for a bad editor to file an RfC. FuelWagon 04:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. It probably helps ensure that a real dispute/issue/problem is happening, rather than a single editor is simply complaining about someone they dont like. i don't have a problem with the two-person certifier requirement. Editors with legitimate problems can probably find at least one other editor to certify. If not, they can always post complaints on their personal talk page. I look at it the same way as the requierments on teh form itself. The evidence of disputed behaviour is so that outside editors can look at the evidence for themselves, rather than take one editor's word for it. The idea of keeping the "complaint" separate from the "response" also helps because it allows an editor to say something without getting challenged at every step. discussions go to the talk page. It allows people to make their complaint or their response without having to defend every point of minutia from a combative editor. Each side gets to state their case clearly. I don't see that as a reflection of a user RfC being "quasi-punitive", I see it as a reflection of how simply airing your differences can resolve problems in and of itself sometimes. I also see it as a reflection of making the dispute resolution process non-combative. The thing you do not want to happen is for an editor to register a complaint, and then have the editor being complained about to interrupt every sentence of the original complaint to say "that's not true because blah". Allowing that sort of behaviour only escalates the problem, rather than resolves it. It allows both sides to air their differences non-combatively. This isn't a reflection of 'quasi-punitive', this is a reflection of simple human behaviour. You can resolve some problems just by letting someone state their case and getting some outside voices to say "I agree". What you don't want to do is have the RfC page turn into the new talk-page/battleground. FuelWagon 21:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, Robert, I answered your question, now here is mine: What outcome of a user RfC is objectively, measurably punitive? FuelWagon 21:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Defense of current system

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't know. It probably helps ensure that a real dispute/issue/problem is happening, rather than a single editor is simply complaining about someone they dont like. i don't have a problem with the two-person certifier requirement. Editors with legitimate problems can probably find at least one other editor to certify. If not, they can always post complaints on their personal talk page. I look at it the same way as the requierments on teh form itself. The evidence of disputed behaviour is so that outside editors can look at the evidence for themselves, rather than take one editor's word for it. The idea of keeping the "complaint" separate from the "response" also helps because it allows an editor to say something without getting challenged at every step. discussions go to the talk page. It allows people to make their complaint or their response without having to defend every point of minutia from a combative editor. Each side gets to state their case clearly. I don't see that as a reflection of a user RfC being "quasi-punitive", I see it as a reflection of how simply airing your differences can resolve problems in and of itself sometimes. I also see it as a reflection of making the dispute resolution process non-combative. The thing you do not want to happen is for an editor to register a complaint, and then have the editor being complained about to interrupt every sentence of the original complaint to say "that's not true because blah". Allowing that sort of behaviour only escalates the problem, rather than resolves it. It allows both sides to air their differences non-combatively. This isn't a reflection of 'quasi-punitive', this is a reflection of simple human behaviour. You can resolve some problems just by letting someone state their case and getting some outside voices to say "I agree". What you don't want to do is have the RfC page turn into the new talk-page/battleground. FuelWagon 21:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, Robert, I answered your question, now here is mine: What outcome of a user RfC is objectively, measurably punitive? FuelWagon 21:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to defense of system

message: Robert, this edit  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)
replies: text: Good ol' Jayjg, always keeping the instructions sensible. yeah, sure. keep up the good work. FuelWagon 19:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah, I think I see your issue.  I enterpret the "do not take lightly" as being advice, rather than a guideline.  No-one is going to enforce it.  Anyone is allowed to make an RFC within reason.  It is just advice to avoid such RFCs As far as I can tell, the two versions (or variations thereon) are not actually that different.  Neither says that an RFC is mandatory for arbitration, and neither says arbitration is compulsory on the end of an RFC.  To be honest, FuelWagon, I do think my version is the simplest.  I tried to take both sides' opinions into account.  But then, of course, I would think that ;-).  May I just suggest leaving the issue be for a couple of days.  Otherwise, I'm going to lay out the options and we can talk on a talk page, rather than in edit summaries.  Sam Korn 20:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that I'd go along with Robert's version because it separates "policy" from "advice". It also separates someone's "view" from "policy" too. But Jayjg and SlimVirgin want to make their "view" and "advice" more important than "policy". I'd support this because it reports policy, advice,and views, but it reports them as being what they are, versus slopping them all together in a single line that discounts policy and reinforces the opinions of a couple of editors. If functionality were the only concern then my version is just as good as theirs. But they don't care about  functionality, they care about their opinion, and their version makes their opinion more important than actual policy. FuelWagon 20:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: acceptable

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 

message: 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)
replies: text: with a limited number mediators, I'm not sure how you'll find one who is "uninvolved" except in a very loose sense of the word. Also, given my prior experience with mediation, I don't have a lot of confidence in the process. If I'm going to get involved with the work required to do this, then I might as well bring Ed Poor into it as well. SlimVirgin started this grudge againt me when I filed my RfC against her, and Ed had a hand in that as well. I have a hard time believing there is a mediator who isn't "involved" with Ed or SlimVirgin in some way. And given that my prior experience of mediation showed the mediator taking sides, I don't think this is a minor concern. But I'd be willing to give it a try if it means SlimVirgin has to get specific about her accusations against me. She has ignored my repeated requests to point out any specific insults or NPA violations that she keeps refering to. FuelWagon 15:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is mediation in order?

message: 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)
thread_title: Request for more pruning

message: 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)
replies: text: Another reason why the filing of a user conduct RfC should not be taken lightly can be observed on the RfAr page.  A user conduct Request for Comments was filed by several editors, alleging that its subject was a combative editor who engaged in personal attacks.  The RfC was then followed by an RfAr.  In his response, the allegedly combative editor against whom the RfAr was filed requests that the ArbCom accept the case and ban one of his critics (one of the filers of the RfC and RfAr).  I will not try to judge the evidence in that case.  The ArbCom will do that if (as appears probable) they accept the case.  However, his request to add one of the filers into the case as a subject is clearly within the authority of the ArbCom and has been done in the past.  The filing of a user conduct RfC should not be done lightly because it may be seen (by the ArbCom) as the prior discussion of abuses by the filers as well as the subject.  Robert McClenon 15:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We do say on the page "The RfC may even backfire on you and turn into an RfC against you," which is more or less what you're getting at (I think), namely that, once filed, an RfC doesn't remain within the control of the filer. It may turn against the filer (for example, if there are more comments made against the filer than against the subject), and it may be used by anyone at any point in the future, including in an arbcom case. Hence the advice that filing one shouldn't be done lightly or in haste. I'm not entirely sure what you meant with your last sentence. If you meant that the arbcom would take it as evidence of attempts at prior dispute resolution by the filer and by the subject, then yes, that's correct, but perhaps you meant something else. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steps towards arbitration 

message: 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)
replies: text: I wasn't around in 2004. The history you're describing appears to be saying that it used to be a user RfC went to Jimbo, and then Jimbo used that to decide if he should ban a user. Jimbo then offloaded that responsibility by creating the arbitration committee. If that's the case, then all you're left with is a history of the way things were (user RfC could get someone banned) to the way things are (arbcom can get someone banned). You can keep spinning it all you want, but there are no formal consequences to a user RfC. A user RfC cannot get someone banned. A user RfC cannot issue someone a block. A user RfC cannot even generate a "finding of facts", regardless of how many people endorse someone's comment. A user RfC cannot do anything but generate comments. So, here's the deal, Robert, you want to change policy. But there is no policy currently existing that says a user RfC has any outcome other than to generate comments from other users. That is a user RfC in its entirety. Now, I know you want to change policy, and I know you keep taking my point about having the instructions reflect current policy and turning it into a discussion about changing policy, but you can point to nothing that says a user RfC does anything punitive or even quasi-punitive. That is your personal mission that you keep bringing to this conversation. That a user RfC used to be an application to get Jimbo to ban someone doesn't reflect the current situation now. Now, arbcom requires you to submit all your evidence all over again (in a rather painful to create sequential format). There is no "finding of facts" in a user RfC that can be simply accepted as true by arbcom. If you filed a user RfC and submitted 10 diffs as examples of NPA violations, you have to resubmit them at arbcom in their evidence section. So, I'm going to ask you again to separate out my attempt to get the instructions to reflect current policy from your attempt to turn a user RfC into a "grand jury" process. Oh, and I know you keep objecting to the term "policy", but basically, it is based on the way arbcom currently does NOT require a user RfC to enter arbitration, the way that a user RfC does NOT generate any blocks, bans, finding of facts, or the like, and the way anything submitted to a user RfC must be resubmitted anew when using it as evidence before arbcom. The "policy" is based on the way things currently work. FuelWagon 16:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
thread_title:  '''Use less words!'''