Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for comment

Discussion page of Battlestar Wiki:Requests for comment

I object to this because this was not voted nor discussed. --Shane (T - C - E) 15:03, 20 March 2006 (CST)

The procedure is borrowed from Wikipedia, where it works very well. --April Arcus 16:50, 20 March 2006 (CST)
So this is not Wikipedia as it was pointed before. We can do this all night until I need to go to bed, but I don't care. As long as my point gets accross that you are the only one who has a problem with me. No one yet has suppored your claim because they don't belive your correct and we been doing this back and forth for a while now. --Shane (T - C - E) 19:40, 20 March 2006 (CST)
So are portals. --Shane (T - C - E) 18:02, 20 March 2006 (CST)
I'm not objecting to portals. I'm objecting to you. --April Arcus 18:16, 20 March 2006 (CST)
So you mind that I am taking on the project instead of yourself? Make up your mind. --Shane (T - C - E) 18:46, 20 March 2006 (CST)
I've made my objections quite plain at Battlestar Wiki talk:Portals. The fact that you have ignored them is the purpose of this RFC. --April Arcus 18:49, 20 March 2006 (CST)
Make up your mind. First it's you don't like the Portal system idea now you are syaing you are all up for it, but you have a problem with me working on it. I didn't have a problem with anyone until you objected to me working on it. Everyone else liked the idea who is not an administrator because they are the people who visit the site the most. --Shane (T - C - E) 18:51, 20 March 2006 (CST)
Shane, in all honesty, I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. If anyone else needs me to clarify myself, I will be happy to do so at Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for comment/Shane. --April Arcus 19:25, 20 March 2006 (CST)

Since Shane himself, despite his initial objections to the use of RFCs, has submitted not one, but two RFCs recently (neither gaining the sufficient minimum acceptance, to my knowledge), there appears to be no further commentary on the matter of the use of RFCs at this time. Further changes to the use of RFCs should be added here, but as a new topic. --Spencerian 13:40, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

Comments on RFC Use

I just wanted to comment on the use of RFC's here at Battlewiki. This is a relatively small and informal community, so the use of such formal procedure around interacting with other users immediately sets off alarms for me. Reading the RFC template, that in an RFC "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed." So this isn't about one on one disputes. One on one interactions should happen on discussion pages, via email, or however else it takes to get your issues resolved. An RFC is far more like an intervention. By bringing an RFC a group of people are declaring that they have all tried to work out this issue with the person, but have failed to do so. Through the RFC the community can establish where the consensus really lies with regards to the disputed issue.

RFC's should be rare. They represent a massive communications problem that shouldn't be common around here. They should probably be about an ongoing issue. One-time occurances shouldn't merit an RFC. If I got caught failing to distribute a bribe to the rest of the Ethics Committee, Spencerian shouldn't bring an RFC against me. He could just leave a note on my talk page, we could hash the issue out, and resolve it appropriately. An RFC would be more appropriate if Peter, Spencerian, Joe, Day, and Mop Boy all left notes politely asking for their cut, but I ignore or otherwise fail to respond to repeated attempts to resolve it. Especially if there are repeated instances of the offense, and the attempts to resolve the dispute.

The only way I can really envision something requiring an RFC is somebody willfully failing to cooperate with the other editors. Maybe they think "that's the way it should be." An RFC would show that the consensus disagrees, and that they should yield on that issue.

So to recap, I feel like an RFC is only merited for:

  1. continuious, ongoing issues
  2. that have been repeatedly attempted to be resolved
  3. by good-faith attempts from multiple users

Basically the RFC can help break a tie if one person is saying "is so, is so, is so" with their fingers in their ears and their eyes shut after several people have politely pointed out that it "is not." --Steelviper 14:13, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

What SV said. RFCs are done when a valid contributor(s) have a dispute with the larger body. New editors who willfully fail to cooperate are commonly vandals here, where blocks and bans are handled. Thanks for the clarification, SV. --Spencerian 15:06, 16 June 2006 (CDT)
Very well said. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 17:27, 16 June 2006 (CDT)
Maybe this clarification could/should be condensed into an addition to the official policy. --FrankieG 17:42, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

Updated Version

Not that we hope to use this again, but I've updated the policy with the processes on dealing with article disputes as well as user disputes, attempting to reflect what's been noted on this talk page (which I might archive just to save embarrassment for some). Since this is a major process, I added the cleanup tag, and need all admins to chime in, adjust, and augment this so that the technical and procedural Ps and Qs are clear in the process. I used Wikipedia's policy as well to flesh things out. Have at it. -- Spencerian 15:33, 20 April 2007 (CDT) (Talk - Contrib Skillz - Edit Skillz)

I've begun by adding the input boxes as well as cleaning up the directions on how to properly file the RFC. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 18:51, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
I've done my usual quick typo and grammar fixes. It reads pretty well. The optimist in me hopes that this will be very, very rarely needed, but it is good that it is in place. JubalHarshaw 09:47, 15 May 2007 (CDT)