Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Neutrality 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sincere apologies to Neutrality for not taking the trouble to inform him of this RFC at this early stage. It had not even been certified until a few minutes ago, but I agree that I should have informed him prior to listing this on Schoolwatch. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On edits to WP:POINT

[edit]
Now is someone going to apologise for amending wp:point to make his actions against the rules after the fact? There is clearly a dispute, but judging by the delete votes on the articles there surely is no consensus. It's not time yet to update our (quasi-)policy pages. --Gmaxwell 05:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this [1]? The user who performed that edit, User:Lupin, is not a party to this complaint, and as far as I am aware he has not commented on this RfC or been in communication with any of the complainants (I did check). I am in complete agreement with you that this dispute is not an occasion for setting policy on use of VfD. I think Neutrality's behavior is mildly disruptive (as a VfD closer I can assure you that this volume of nominations over a period of time may well put a severe strain on the process) but tend to the view that he is acting in good faith--though I freely admit that I have to bend over backwards to do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lupin posted to schoolwatch about wp:point, where you edited right along side him. In fact, it was in reply to his remark about wp:point that you decided to place your first announcement of this RFC. At that time, Lupin was no longer the top editor on WP:Point, but this is because Kappa, another notable inclusionist, had made further edits to wp:point. Perhaps you didn't communicate, perhaps you didn't look at wp:point with Lupin's edits before posting the RFC, but it's not fair to claim he is a complete outsider. Furthermore, Lupin has voted on most (all?) of the school VFDs, and as mentioned participates on school watch where you posted notice of this RFC, so it's not unreasonable to expect *him* to come here and apologies. I do not consider your views on Neutrality to have any merit because, as discussed on IRC, you have an extremist view of what should be included in wikipedia which I believe to extend far outside of what consensus would accept. --Gmaxwell 14:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify completely and plainly: Lupin has not edited this RfC at any time. He and I have never knowingly communicated and I am not responsible for his actions, nor can I predict them. He is a complete and utter outsider. He doesn't seem to have edited Neutrality's user talk page. Attempts to link Lupin's unilateral activity with this RfC are completely unfounded.
In particular, your statement "it was in reply to his remark about wp:point that you decided to place your first announcement of this RFC" is completely and utterly untrue. I had no idea that WP:POINT had been edited until I read about it (written by you?) on this RfC, I do not agree with the sense of the edits, and the RfC in no way appeals to that guideline.
As for my view of what can be deleted from Wikipedia, it is based on Wikipedia policy and, on past experience, seems to err on the deletionist side. Attempts to paint me as an inclusionist of any hue are somewhat misplaced. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was careful to mention the fact that you may not have knowingly communicatied with him, but you'd think that with all your claims that you've checked and that I'm stating complete and utter falsehoods, you think you would have noticed this. Yes, Thats Lupin, he put that there right after editing wp:point, two edits ahead of your comment that was placed directly under his text. --Gmaxwell 17:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like Neutrality to take notice of the results of his listings, carefully tallying how many of the articles he has listed arrive at consensus for deletion. We're days away from closing any of them, admittedly, but it is my impression so far that a very small proportion are headed for deletion, perhaps a few are headed for merging. Now if it should turn out, for instance, that 20% or fewer of these articles are eventually deleted, I think Neutrality would be foolish to continue with his current modus operandi, working through the alphabet and blindly listing articles for deletion without first carrying out a realistic assessment of their chances of being deleted. Perhaps he should aim, by careful vetting of school articles, to have at least 30% of his listings command a consensus for deletion. Would that be onerous? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bad bad bad bad bad. Targets are evil, and targets on actions necessary to the running of Wikipedia are doubly so. This behaviour is absolutely not acceptable. I'm no saint, but even I wouldn't stoop to the disgustingly low level of using RfC to badger another user with whom I disagree. Chris talk back 11:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What an odd interpretation. I think it's reasonable to ask Neutrality to reconsider his VfD listings in the light of the signal failure of almost all of them to gain consensus for deletion. These VfD listings have consumed an absolutely huge amount of man-hours and the end result will probably be less satisfactory than if Neutrality had spent a few minutes carefully vetting each one and deciding if there was a realistic chance that it would command consensus for deletion. Either he did not do that or he needs to improve the process he uses, which is clearly badly flawed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you suggest the vetting process which would determine which of the school articles will be deleted and which will be kept? I can't see one, part of the reason that these schools are being nominated is that they are all alike, worthy of an entry in an almanac of schools, but not having encyclopedic merit. --Gmaxwell 14:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At present it seems to me that a far more stringent vetting process would be needed. From what I can see of the experience on WP:VFD, it seems to be extremely difficult to write a school stub that can be guaranteed deletion.
A good first step in vetting stubs would be to ask: "is this a true stub? is it capable of expansion?" Well those are in deletion policy already, and Neutrality has read it, so he should be able to carry out those checks.
Of course, while performing such checks one tends to find enough information about the subject of the article to enable one to write a good stub. So my conclusion is that if Neutrality tightened up his procedures sufficiently to avoid having most of his deletion listings for schools end in no consensus or keep, the consequence of following the procedure would be that he would never list any school article for deletion, and only transform poor stubs into good stubs or even quite respectable articles. He would then no longer have a dismal record of listing no-hoper school deletions, and he would have an excellent record of cleaning up school articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we have Neutrality's attention

[edit]

Neutrality, you claim that what you have done in listing some three dozen school listings yesterday, nine the day before, and ten the day before that, is not a breach of common practice. You have done nothing wrong, you say. Well in that case you are in dispute with quite a number of people. It follows that in refusing to respond, in blanking our attempts to discuss with you, you have breached dispute resolution policy.

You describe our attempts to contact you in strong terms: "threats or insinuations ""polite" but unreasonable requests."

This is what BaronLarf wrote:

Some sort of school compromise: Would you have any interest in cobbling together a compromise on school articles? I had been trying to create on with Radiant!, but he seems to have lost interest.[2] Right now it seems that every school article nominated will just line up the two entrenched sides against each other, without any real progress. Cheers. --BaronLarf 05:08, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This is what I wrote:

Your recent VfD listings: I think if you consider this for a bit you'll realise that it isn't unreasonable to find nearly thirty nominations by one editor in the space of twelve hours somewhat excessive. There is no evident urgency to consider these articles, and feeding them at a slower rate would be less disruptive and be less likely to exacerbate feelings of unjustness felt by those who disagree with your reason for nomination: non-notability, which does not command consensus as a reason for deletion.
Please seriously consider limiting your listings to ten or less in any twenty-four-hour period. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Evilphoenix wrote:

I agree. I would sincerely appreciate if you would limit the quantity of school related nominations you would make to VfD. Best regards, EvilPhoenix 00:08, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


Where are these threats. Where are these insinuations? Where these "polite" but unreasonable demands?

Is it really unreasonable to ask someone to consider listing no more than ten articles for deletion every day? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "The only "dispute" here is a disagreement: the authors of this RfC happen to disagree with my stance."

Yes, that's what a dispute is. A number of editors made it known to you that they viewed your actions with some concern. You utterly ignored them. This is what this VfD is about. You breached policy in rebuffing good faith attempts to resolve the dispute. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the list. BaronLarf, Carnildo, myself, Ketsuban, and eight others, we all seem to agree that things would be better if you made your listings at a slower rate. Why do you continue to claim that there is no dispute? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I did not appreciate my comments being blanked, I take that as a very poor choice of action, and an unwillingness to address a reasonable effort by other users to engage in discussion. EvilPhoenix 05:36, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
So far as I can see, then, the substance of this RfC is that Neutrality behaved a little less than courteously, somewhat overreacted to other Users' comments, and blanked comments on his Talk page — all of which other users, such as User:Sam Spade, do all the time in a much more aggravated and aggressive way, uncensored by RfCs. No policy is even claimed to have been violated here.
This is another in a spate of recent bad-faith RfCs, brought with no real basis, wasting time, and leaving their subjects with the taint of having been RfCed whatever the result. It reflects on those who brought it and support it, not on its subject. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the complaint again. You say " No policy is even claimed to have been violated here" and yet at the top, in the list of applicable policies, there it is:

Dispute resolution. First resort: talk to the other parties involved

Three separate people contacted Neutrality in good faith, notifying him of their concern over his behavior. He ignored them, deliberately snubbing their good faith approaches by blanking his page without archiving. This is unacceptable behavior. This is what this complaint is about--a simple breach of Wikipedia dispute resolution policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can see, then, the substance of this RfC is that Neutrality behaved a little less than courteously, somewhat overreacted to other Users' comments, and blanked comments on his Talk page — all of which other users, such as User:Sam Spade, do all the time in a much more aggravated and aggressive way, uncensored by RfCs

Well the problem is that he didn't respond at all to very polite complaints, except to blank them. If other editors do this then they also are breaching policy, whether they are censured for it or not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Szyslak

[edit]
I'd like to address the claim that simply listing a school article for deletion is "against policy."

Relax, nobody has claimed that simply listing a school article for deletion is "against policy". Oh now I see that User:DS1953 expressed that opinion. Well that's an outside view. The complainants acknowledge that the excessive posting on VfD (what is "excessive" is a matter of opinion and we can disagree politely on what it means) is not a breach of policy.

My position is that 30 a day is pretty unreasonable. 10 a day is probably okay, though in my opinion as an occasional VfD closer not advisable over sustained periods.

The complaint is over Neutrality's failure to respond to good faith attempts at dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC) (Updated Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)) [reply]

One could argue that 30-something VfD nominations in one day is a little "excessive," and perhaps I'd agree to an extent. But where's the policy violation?

See above. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Calton and User:Firebug

[edit]

Calton:

The nominators themselves note that Neutrality is not violating policy,

Firebug echoes this:

There is not even a claim that User:Neutrality violated any Wikipedia policy

This isn't correct. We note that he breached Wikipedia policy on dispute resolution. See also my response to Mel Etitis above. This is stated clearly in the description of the complaint, as follows:


Calton continues:

Neutrality has made a rather large number of listings on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in recent days (among which, he made about thirty article listings in twelve hours), and his only response to a reasonable request that he slow down was to list some more articles on VfD and blank the request from his user talk page without responding.

When editors are in dispute with someone who will not even acknowledge their complaints, the next step in dispute resolution is to go to RfC. Neutrality knows this, he's an arbitrator. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We don't contend that the large number of VfD listings was a breach of policy. So, you're contending that it's a violation of policy not to discuss a non-breach of policy? There's a form a logic that eats itself.
...a reasonable request... Sez you. He disagrees, clearly, and is well within his rights to do so and act accordingly -- and unless you're suggesting some objective standard for "reasonable" here, he's under no obligation to respond and forcing him to do so under the guise of enforcing policy is a form of pettiness I thought you were beyond when I voted for your Adminship. You got a complaint about the listings? Make them in the VfD discussion, where they belong. --Calton | Talk 02:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You write "So you're contending it's a violation of policy not to discuss a non-breach of policy?" Absolutely. Dispute resolution is for resolving disputes, not dealing with policy violations (many of which can be dealt with summarily though usually after a prior warning--3RR and vandalism, for instance).
You write: ...a reasonable request... Sez you. He disagrees, clearly, and is well within his rights to do so and act accordingly Yes, even though this violates the principle assume good faith. In that case the next resolution step, which BaronLarf, EvilPhoenix, Unfocused and I correctly followed, is RfC. And here we are.
You write: he's under no obligation to respond and forcing him to do so under the guise of enforcing policy is a form of pettiness I thought you were beyond when I voted for your Adminship. Indeed it would be. However the purpose of this RfC, as all RfCs, is to get third party opinions. It's the next step in the dispute resolution process when a dispute between two or more editors and another cannot be resolved on the talk pages. I've got my third party opinions--and they're pretty solidly against what Neutrality was doing, and he's stopped. Thank you, Neutrality.
You write: You got a complaint about the listings? Make them in the VfD discussion, where they belong. Absolutely not. Check Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Criticisms of this RfC are misplaced. It is the classic, standard-policy way of handling disputes where one party is uncooperative. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
he is, in my opinion, under no obligation to clear in advance perfectly valid VfD nominations, no matter who finds them inconvenient.

Absolutely. Be bold, etc. I wouldn't want to limit Neutrality's capacity in that respect. But see above. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to limit Neutrality's capacity in that respect. Your actions suggest precisely the opposite. Since your explicit goal is to get him to stop doing it, your claim is disingenuous at best, and strikes me as a lip-service nod towards principles you want exemption from, like David Blunkett talking about privacy rights. --Calton | Talk 02:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be mistaking a difference of opinion (Neutrality thought his actions were just fine, at least a dozen others thought they were counter-productive at the very least) with an intent to force someone to agree with them. It seems to me then that you either think RfC has some kind of motive power above and beyond simple persuasion by pooling of shared opinions, or you're opposed to the principle that people who object to a course of action taken by an individual should be able to group together and express their opposition publicly (which is what this RfC has enabled over a dozen some 19 people to do with respect to Neutrality's actions). Since this is a manifestation of the basic consensual principle upon which Wikipedia is built, and an explicit goal of the RfC mechanism, you'll not be surprised to find that I disagree. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Chriscf

[edit]
Worth noting that not only is it clear that there is no breach of policy, but the section identifying the other party in the "dispute" is notably absent.

See responses to Mel and Cal above on your belief that a policy has not been breached.

There is no section missing from this RfC as far as I'm aware. Neutrality is identified as the part about whom the complaint is being made, three users identified themselves as certifying its basis--that they had tried and failed to resolved the dispute with Neutrality. The policy breached is clearly identified as Dispute Resolution.

If there is some section missing, please let me know and I'll fix it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tony, it appears you have misunderstood "Applicable policies". This is where you list the specific conduct policy you believe Neutrality has disobeyed (e.g. WP:NPA or WP:CIV), not the procedural policies you have followed so far. Chris talk back 11:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • More importantly, as you say, this is supposedly a dispute, and there are two parties in a dispute. "Us" and "Them". You have clearly identified Neutrality as "Them", but you have neglected to state anywhere who "Us" are. This is not the same as people certifying the statement, as any third party who feels the statement is accurate may certify the summary. You have missed out the people actually initiating the complaint (whether this is just you, or you with some other people, etc.). Two sides make a dispute. One side makes a witch-hunt. Chris talk back 11:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to respond to reasonable, good faith dispute resolution overtures *is* a breach of policy. This is the applicable policy. There has been no error. ON being made aware that three separate individuals had politely indicated that they felt that there were problems with his campaign, he failed to follow dispute resolution.

You write "You have clearly identified Neutrality as "Them", but you have neglected to state anywhere who "Us" are. " Those certifying a dispute are saying that they have attempted and failed to resolve a dispute with the named party. Those who certify the dispute in a RfC are "us" in the sense that the RfC provides evidence that they have attempted to resolve a dispute but that this attempt has faitered for one reason or another. In this case, on Neutrality's rebuff of three separate, polite, good-faith attempts to resolve a dispute over some fifty-to-sixty listings he posted on WP:VFD in the course of three days. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of "failing to follow dispute resolution" is nonsensical, particularly when it is you who has started the procedure. Had Neutrality started the procedure and then failed to follow it, I might take a different view. Procedural and conduct policies are very different things. One tells you what to do, the other how to do it. Ultimately, to bring a personal RFC against someone, they must have done something which is de jure wrong. Since you have started the procedure of resolving a "dispute", you have to identify some conduct policy you feel has been violated. The clearly-stated instructions for VfD have been followed for the nominations, and it seems the only "dispute" I can see here is that you feel that the articles should be kept, which is a matter of your opinion against that of Neutrality, and there's never an excuse for commencing a formal dispute resolution process simply because you disagree with someone's opinion. I restate that the small number of those who feel this is an actual problem are doing nothing more than badgering a user with whom they disagree. Chris talk back 21:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the suggestion that someone must have done something wrong in order for another person to bring a RfC. This simply is not current policy. An RfC is brought when the first step of normal dispute resolution fails, that's it.
However it is true that, being aware that there existed an ongoing dispute over his behavior (evidenced on his talk page by comments from BaronLarf, Evilphoenix, Unfocused and myself, his response was to blank the comments without archiving or making any response. At that point, being aware of a dispute and making no effort to resolve it, Neutrality was in breach of the dispute resolution process. So if you want to insist that someone had to be doing something wrong, well Neutrality indisputably was failing to follow official dispute resolution policy with respect to at least four disputes over his activities on VfD.
You're also inserting a straw man argument here by suggesting that the dispute was over whether the articles should be kept. The dispute is clearly described in this RfC--that activities such as listing nearly 30 articles for deletion in a twelve-hour period are "probably beyond what could be considered reasonable use of VfD." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Gamaliel

[edit]
This strikes me as a petulant rant against someone who didn't answer their messages and caused them some minor inconvience.

If you can find an area of the RfC that resembles a rant, please point it out and I'll remove any such rant. This RfC was taken as a step in dispute resolution under "Further dispute resolution", and the complaints are identified in a sober and formal manner. Are you sure you aren't exaggerating just a little, or even imagining a rant where none exists? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The people responsible for this should be censured, frankly

When an editor refuses to respond to good faith dispute resolution attempts, then RfC is the next step for all those who wish in good faith to raise a dispute with him. Editors cannot be censured for following policy as a result of other editors failing to do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the RfC doesn't contain the rant, the RfC is the rant. It may be politely and soberly worded, but it is a petulant response. RfCs should be for serious problems or disputes that are otherwise unresolvable, not launched less than 24 hours after someone didn't answer a talk page message. Did you try anything else? Gamaliel 16:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on your characterization. I'm confident that it's a wild exaggeration.

Neutrality removed four talk page messages without archiving, in circumstances indicating that he had no intention of responding to them. At that point it was clear that he was refusing to participate in dispute resolution. This is contrary to his obligations under Wikipedia policy.

RfC is the next step in dispute resolution when a party will not discuss. If I went to mediation, for instance, the first thing that they'd ask would be "did you try his talk page? Okay, he is clearly ignoring you. But did you try RfC?" If you can think of another way of getting someone's attention, please propose a policy change and we'll all use that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I first opened this RfC, I was aware of two editors who had attempted to discuss the problem with Neutrality and been deliberately ignored: myself and Evilphoenix. We now have four such editors, each of which independently approached Neutrality with the intention of discussing the effects of his deletion listings, at least three of which were polite and non-confrontational. This isn't just one person's rant, it's clear evidence of an editor's failure to cooperate in the most basic manner with the procedures of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy or procedure which requires Neutrality to answer talk page messages. I would take this RfC seriously if it were the step of last resort instead of second resort. RfCs should not be used to get people's attention, they should be a serious measure employed when other measures have failed. Had you taken a single intermediate step, warned Neutrality ahead of time, and not rushed into this RfC less than 24 hours after you posted your initial message to his talk page, then I might think this was worthy of discussion. But you did not, and I so I can't escape the conclusion that this was a hastily assembled witch hunt. Gamaliel 17:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. Check Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If a genuine attempt to discuss fails (and at this point I knew for sure that two polite attempts to communicate had been rebuffed, and Neutrality had listed another eight articles for deletion) Rfc really is the preferred next step. It is by far the quickest. What good would warning Neutrality do? What would I warn him *about*? "If you don't respond to me I intend to get the opinions of some other people...?" This sounds like a very odd thing to warn someone about.
Finally, where is the witch hunt? Four people acting independently have demonstrated a genuine problem communicating with Neutrality. This is undeniable. He failed to respond to good faith attempts to resolve disputes. Pointing this out is by itself justification alone for the RfC, whose sole purpose was to record his failure to communicate and gather other opinions. For whic I am grateful. I started with two, now I have nine. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I take RfCs seriously and I think they should only be employed after a lengthy pattern of serious violations unresolvable by other means. Your RfC was apparently merely to get Neutrality's attention and doesn't even allege any breaking of Wikipedia policy. If this really was a genuine problem, then it was important enough to find some intermediate steps, such as directly emailing Neutrality. Instead you rushed from first talk page message to RfC in less than 24 hours.

I understand that by the letter of the law you have done nothing wrong by submitting this RfC. But by the letter of the law Neutrality has done nothing wrong either. If you demand that he go above and beyond what is directly called for by policy, you should be willing to do that as well. Gamaliel 00:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I have only ever had to use the RfC process on two occasions. On both occasions it was to pool and focus opinions in a case like this where a single person was ignoring a group who expressed concern about his actions. I strongly disagree with any suggestion that an RfC should "only be employed after a lengthy pattern of serious violations unresolvable by other means". Not only have I done nothing wrong by submitting this RfC, it is the recommended course of action where directly communicating with a person with whom you're in dispute breaks down. I'm shocked to see it suggested that it be used solely as a way of dealing with serious and longstanding policy violations. RfC is an intrinsic, and very useful, step in dispute resolution, completely without power beyond the opportunity to discuss a dispute and express opinions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I take RfCs more seriously than you because the ones I've been involved in were about chronic offenders like Rex and TDC. But even if I'm taking them far too seriously, I can't agree that a page where the community is invited to complain about what a single user is doing wrong, a page that is permanently preserved as a record and can be used against him in elections and arbcom proceedings later is inherently harmless. Communication didn't break down between you and Neutrality, he ignored a single message from you and then you filed this less than 24 hours later. That's far too hasty and I'm quite surprised you can't see that. Really, you couldn't have taken the time for a single intermediate step? Such as a simple email? A discussion on Talk:Votes for Deletion?

Lots of things happen here and we deal with them without RfCs. In a VfD related example, a single user posted dozens of Star Trek episodes for deletion at once and the issue was resolved without an RfC. I'm surprised you couldn't have managed the same thing without resorting to such a quick RfC filing. I acknowledge that by the letter of policy you are doing nothing wrong, as I have already said, but by the letter of policy neither is Neutrality, and yet here we are.

The only difference between this and the Star Trek incident is that there are about a dozen users dedicated to pushing the idea that nominating a school for deletion at all is improper, and this is another front in their campaign to push the idea that (to paraphase Monty Python) "every school is sacred." I'm surprised that you're willing to play a part in that. Gamaliel 20:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You write: Communication didn't break down between you and Neutrality, he ignored a single message from you and then you filed this less than 24 hours later.
Not so. Neutrality ignored four separate approaches by different editors all concerned about his activities on VfD.
That's far too hasty and I'm quite surprised you can't see that.
Absolutely not. Neutrality not only made it plain that he had no intention of responding, he filed eight more VfDs. In other words, his activity was ongoing. You will note that following this RfC he stopped. The RfC was an action taken precisely as recommended by dispute resolution policy, and it was very successful in giving four people who were concerned about Neutrality's activities to express their point of view. Their view was endorsed by a further five people, a further six people supported Carnildo's view that "flooding VfD with nominations" (their words, not the words of the original complaint, which was much less forthright in its description) "is not the way to deal with concerns about the quality of many school articles. A further two editors, supported by one who had supported Carnildo, said that Neutrality's actions "violate the deletion policy."
Three other people including one who had already supported one of the above shared "the frustration of many users at seeing an endless series of school VFDs and the same arguments rehashed over and over again." I won't count these as frustration at Neutrality per se. They were expressing an opinion on a wider issue.
Linas and Kappa had their own comments to make--both critical of Neutrality's listing of many articles for deletion.
So, this was an RfC in which a total of 19 people expressing a view that can be summarised as opposition for Neutrality's actions in listing man school for deletion in a very short period of time.
Now two people including Neutrality have said in his response that he was doing nothing wrong, and a further twelve editors have made some variety of censurious comment about this VfD--which despite the unprecedented support of some eight others who either certified or endorsed this RfC, they choose to see as an act of petulance directed solely by me at Neutrality.
This is also a large amount of opposition, and I take it seriously.
Very seriously.
I believe that those editors who have said that I abused an RfC should probably study the dispute resolution process. I am shocked at the ignorance that has been demonstrated here.
Finally you write: "The only difference between this and the Star Trek incident is that there are about a dozen users dedicated to pushing the idea that nominating a school for deletion at all is improper."
Well if these dozen or so people really exist and you have a beef with them I suggest that you take it up with them. Insinuating that I am one of these people, or that this RfC had anything to do with it, is completely unacceptable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are one of those people, which is why I expressed surprise at your willingness to participate in this dogpile on Neutrality. But "if these dozen of so people really exist"?? I understand that my rhetoric, which admittedly was a bit overheated, may have put you on the defensive, but that's no reason to deny reality. Gamaliel 19:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a "dogpile on Neutrality", I am not only participating in it, I initiated it. I do not agree with this characterization of this RfC, which was certified with evidence by four editors and is endorsed by five more and was intended, and has been used, solely to pursue normal dispute resolution.
We'll have to agree to differ on your belief that this RfC exists solely because of this "dozen or so" editors whom you decline to name. I have at no time been approached by any person asking me to draw up a RfC on Neutrality, not have I been influenced by anyone else's opinion, behavior or attitude to believe that it was necessary to draw up such a RfC. I have drawn up only two RfCs, both in identical caes: failure of the first step of dispute resolution due to the subject's incommunicativeness. Your belief is manifestly without evidence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Kappa

[edit]
I note that this RfC is about Neutrality's response to attempts at discussion, and not about the actions themselves that lead to this attempted discussion.

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment completely. It is unfortunate when a user decides to ignore a whole group of people because of a priori beliefs about their motives for raising a concern. This RfC has permitted us to establish that the concerns extended beyond those whom Neutrality was inclined to dismiss. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Response to User:DS1953

[edit]
nomination a large number of articles in a short period of time with no due diligence on the part of the nominator shows clear disrepect to other contributors.

I would cautiously tend to agree with this statement. See my earlier observation on the low proportion of Neutrality's listings that seem to be headed for deletion. It may be that Neutrality has in fact carried out an intensive screening of schools articles and is only selecting what he considers to be no-hopers, but three or four days down the line it is becoming evident that his judgement does not command a consensus--indeed as an experienced VfD closer I would say that to me the number of clear keeps generated (rather than just "no consensus" cases) is quite extraordinarily high. Neutrality should be taking notice of this and adapting his selection process accordingly, in the interests of reducing the load on VfD and maximising his credibility of his listings. He'd get a lot more support if there wasn't an "oh no another one of Neutrality's no hoper school listings" effect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Response to User:Radiant!

[edit]

You write "It strikes me that this RFC states that it objects to Neutrality's "over-use" of VfD, then proceeds to only list school nominations as examples."

The dispute arose over perceived over-use of VfD, specifically Neutrality's listing of nearly three score articles within the space of three days. Those were school articles so the list necessarily comprised school articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Close

[edit]

While there are disputes, it is not helpful to discuss them here in a personal RfC. The question of the pace and quantity of VfD nominations can be discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion, WP:POINT or elsewhere. Neutrality can be made aware of the discussion and decide whether to contribute or not. Attempts to reach consensus on the schools issue can continue at Wikipedia:Schools. Kappa 09:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur. Radiant_* 09:47, May 18, 2005 (UTC) Do not concur. Radiant_* 13:27, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • That is true, but there is a difference between referring a user to WP:Some random policy, and filing a RFC. For instance, I site WP:NPA at people with some regularity, but I don't RFC them. Radiant_* 09:59, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Filing a RfC is the next step to take in dispute resolution if the user refuses to communicate. A RfC is just an opportunity to get third party opinions, that is all. It isn't a punishment and shouldn't be regarded as one. It's just a very useful way of getting around the problem of uncommunicative editors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, so you filed a RFC because you didn't get a response from him. Since you did now (since he responded to this RFC), it would seem that your request is fulfilled. Hence, motion to close stands. Radiant_* 12:53, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't dispute the motion to close, though I think it's a tad early to close the motion a mere twelve hours after it opened, when very few people will have had a chance to see it. I have no idea what a successful "motion to close" would look like, since validly certified RFCs are never closed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • On Neutrality's responses to the RfC so far, it remains to be seen whether he will read and absorb the substantive consensus on this RfC that he is not going the right way about improving the quality of school articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Neutrality_2&oldid=1086034189"