Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

There are some pages in the BMJ's Rapid Responses columns which may be relevant:-

For instance

Also this page (on the Whale.to site which is the subject of another RFC commencing shortly before a definite intensification in the making of entries giving my name and alleging various bad things occurred in WP. )

I'm not sure how to classify them overleaf. Midgley 23:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] WP:DICK

I contemplated making a list of several WP: to initiate this RFC, and concluded, perhaps in error, that everyone likely to join in would understand this, and that it is a characteristic of this user - probably a lawyer - that the more specific one is, the more detailed argument about the finest specifics of that specificity will ensue. I also thought that provided I was not coming to a sole conclusion based on my own experience about him, that others would probably produce more specific points, and that if they didn't there would be little point my making a long list.

It is descriptive, not pejorative. At least in its intent, as in the intent I expect of whoever originally wrote it.

I've also considered striking it through, and if nobody else had mentioned it, I would at this moment strike it out, in favour of the specifics such as WP:CIV and WP:NPA and WP:POINT. I could easily be persuaded to... Midgley 13:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Same here - if someone can find some better classification for the pseudosociological post to Angela and the "worthy of the attention of my highly attuned and intelligent mind" bit. The former might come under WP:POINT, the latter - as an "I'm better than you" comment - under WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Tearlach 15:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion (and wikilawyering)

This is a request for comments. Having been made, it has attracted some, and may attrract more. WP:ISNOT a courtroom with a charge and defence. This is the place for discussing this RFC. Midgley 21:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. RFCs, like all Wikipedia articles, evolve and accrete on a collaborative basis, so it is not odd that one editor may post a skeleton that the co-signatories expand. Tearlach 21:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a reference to something very similar with regard (WRT) to ArbCom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/How_to_present_a_case Is anyone aware of an essay or other reference making the same points WRT to RFCs? Midgley 14:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

The initial response 86 made, unusually for an RFC by making a link to text elsewhere, he then refactored[2] to be a link to elsewhere.

It read

" Hi. I noticed your addition to the RfC.

   +       
        +       :You might like to look at this [[3]] which is not the contribution of a "troll" (whatever that pejorative term means).
        +       
        +       :The three editor protagonists have a history together and keep adding to the RfC so I cannot really respond to it yet until I know they have finished their handiwork. The fact that they keep adding to it is odd - and you will later see that there is no "dispute" nor has there been any prior effort to resolve "it".
        +       
        +       :You seem to have made up your mind on the basis of what the protagonists have written without waiting to see the response? Care to wait?
        +       
        +       :Talk - The Invisible Anon 06:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

" [[4]]

I suspect the general view would be that this is not the way to edit an RFC, not least because it increases the difficulty of anyone following what has been added to it, or seeing what any other participant had read when they commented. I was tempted to revert it, but that also adds difficulty.

The instructions in RFC templates are simple enough, "write here", that construing them to mean "put a link in, after a while change that link to point to something else, while complaining that others are adding comments" doesn't seem like a mistake. Midgley

WP:AGF (that is, assume unfamiliarity with the process). I've posted a note [5]. Tearlach 00:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we can assume unfmiliarity with the process, given the comments on the nature of the process, including teh move of material[6] from another RFC page to the talk page, witht eh comment that that is where discussion is supposed to take place at [7] and in the half dozen edits prior to that. That RFC does impinge on others, and there is a degree of contact and overlap relevant to this one. (Summary: 86. knows his way around an RFC and in january was telling otehr people how to do it - therefore in April he is not unfamiliar with the process.)Midgley 14:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. I have never seen anyone else do that before, and since I couldn't see guidance on it in the RFC instructions I've posted to Talk:RFC a question/suggestion about such guidance, mentining this one as an/the example. We'll see what is remembered by older hands. Midgley 00:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Tifego's user talk page

To save wading through a lot of diffs:-

That RFC

Thanks. I'd forgotten to do that. I've put it straight into the 2-up-and-running section since it is now. Midgley 09:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed your addition to the RfC.
You might like to look at this [[8]] which is not the contribution of a "troll" (whatever that pejorative term means).
The three editor protagonists have a history together and keep adding to the RfC so I cannot really respond to it yet until I know they have finished their handiwork. The fact that they keep adding to it is odd - and you will later see that there is no "dispute" nor has there been any prior effort to resolve "it".
You seem to have made up your mind on the basis of what the protagonists have written without waiting to see the response? Care to wait?
Talk - The Invisible Anon 06:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC) —The preceding comment was added by 86.10.231.219 (talk • contribs).
The statements and evidence appear to have stabilized already; I don't believe they will make any substantial changes, especially not after I've signed there. If they do add anything objectionable I can always withdraw my endorsement, as can you qualify your response, so the possibility that they might do so is not much of a reason on its own to delay proceedings. –Tifego(t) 06:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Endorsement is supposed to be independent of the response, as well, which is why I didn't think it necessary to wait for your response. As for that link you provided ([9]), if that is not evidence of trolling (I am unsure of whether it is), it is at least unpleasantly long and was not endorsed by anyone but you. You should try being considerably more brief than that and avoid making as many statements that could be considered accusations; people just might become more willing to listen to what you have to say. –Tifego(t) 07:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and the definitions of "trolling". It seems they have not yet finished adding in more issues as can be seen here [[10]]. It would assist if you could advise where the timescales and procedures for an RfC are found.
Talk - The Invisible Anon 23:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Essentially, forget resemblances to a court of law. RFCs, like all Wikipedia documents, tend to accrete: someone posts a skeleton argument; co-signatories add to it; subject adds response; other editors for or against (either involved, or outsiders who've seen the RFC listing and offer outside views) add further, and so on. As long as editors stick to the prescribed sections (indicated by instructions in italics) the whole thing is fluid. It goes on until (with luck) some kind of consensus appears. Tearlach 00:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Wikipedia:Requests for comment gives general guidelines on how the process works. Subjects can respond at any time (i.e. as soon as a picture of the complaint develops). Tearlach 10:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tifego#.5B.5BWikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2F86.10.231.219.7CThat_RFC.5D.5D

[edit] Version link for what the vandal wanted you to see

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219&oldid=50004342

It could get wearing if there was much of that. Midgley 00:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Additional note: the above refers to the blanking of much of this page by 210.49.161.182 (talk • contribs), whose address traces to Optus Internet, NSW, Australia. Tearlach 01:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom "precedent"

It is probably illuminating, if nothing else, to see what similar RFCs there have been, and what ArbCom has had to sort out of they didn't work in resolving a dispute.

Midgley 16:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why more people haven't shown up here. There must be at least 5 other people that were previously involved and would want to have a say here. I am also sort of wondering why this isn't a RfAr, considering the accusations being made. –Tifego(t) 09:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It's official policy - see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes - to try lighter options before RfAr. Tearlach 10:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a sequence which I read as: ask, suggest and/or seek mediation, discuss with experienced users, RFC, and only if - for instance - the editor whose conduct is the subject of the RFC declares that the RFC is improper and they need not answer it - or otherwis consensus is not reached, would it become a matter for ArbCom. Midgley 10:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 86. response on another page

This is from Tearlach's talk page. I've added the link to distinguish "...terms such as "dick" ..." from the correct "... terms such as WP:DICK " which is another bit of trolling - or misrepresentation - or obfuscation or if one feels critical, a lie IMHO.

"

RfC to Mount Personal Attacks, Harrassment & Uncivility

An RfC "must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." It must be about a pre-existing dispute. There must have been prior attempts to resolve it.

This RfC was commenced by User:Midgley in a fit of pique after I had properly canvassed opinions of other editors about seeking a block on him because of his continuing "obnoxious" behaviour. That arose because User:Pansophia had approached me for advice about User:Midgley Wikistalking her and editing articles he had never previously shown interest in. He started Wikistalking her after she supported me when Midgley impersonated me and his sockpuppets were blocked.

He was in such a hurry he did not even start the RfC properly. See here See here where the full extent of the dispute is described as "troll" - [[11]].

Instead of dealing with it properly he visited your talk page and invited you to join in.

You have now raised multiple "disputes" and involving multiple individuals.

There is also no single pre-existing "dispute". This is the first time in this RfC that this comprehensive allegation of "trolling" has been raised.

The RfC also contains gratuitous abuse such as use of terms like "dick".

Overall, this is an oppressive use of the RfC and not a bona fide use of the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures.

Talk - The Invisible Anon 10:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please reply to the RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219. I explained the typical process for RFC development at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219. Tearlach 10:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

" You'll notice that the definition of WP:TROLL points out that whatever specific complaints are made, the typical troll will work around - I think that my initial formulation of the RFC - "troll" - as well as being economical of words is not inaccurate. 86. is affecting not to know that on WP any document may be refactored and indicting that comments being added to a request for comments is improper and unfair. Does one need to comment on that further? Midgley 10:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Relevant quote from the RFC description of complaint:-

"He has received a number of warnings over conduct, to which he has responded belligerently, always blaming the other party, and in some cases accusing the warning admins of bias and involvement in conspiracy."

Midgley 10:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

86. Further response on another page

(Yes, this does irritate and cause trouble).

Please reply to the RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219. I explained the typical process for RFC development at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219. Tearlach 10:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a separate dispute not covered by the RfC. I am following the dispute resolution procedures.
Talk - The Invisible Anon 10:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
What is the separate dispute, with whom is it, and why is it on Tearlach's user talk page? I do not think it is a separate dispute and I have copied it and will copy further reelvant material tot eh RFC talk page. It would save time and effort and clarify matters if you did th ediscussion and response there rather than on several other user's pages. If you persist, someone may assume that you are deliberately causing difficulty and confusion. Midgley 11:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Tearlach please let me know if you propose to respond to this dispute. Talk - The Invisible Anon 11:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Tearlach please let me know if you propose to respond to this dispute. Answering will establish the RfC you have raised is inappropriate. These are simple specific points. I look forward to hearing from you but I soon might not be able to spend much time on this and will have to pick it up later. Talk - The Invisible Anon 12:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219 is about your conduct. Continuing that conduct in response to it comes under the existing RFC. Take your responses there. Tearlach 12:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This is about your conduct in running an RfC in this way and not my conduct. See [[12]]:-
  1. "RfCs which are brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are highly frowned upon by the community. Repetitive, burdensome and unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack."
  2. "Note that the RfC you file may itself turn into an RfC against you, if most of those voting and commenting are critical of you. It may also be the first step in dispute resolution leading to arbitration. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste."
I have some considerable justification raising this with you on the basis of what you have been doing and your overall conduct of this matter.

Talk - The Invisible Anon 12:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC) "

I note that 86 is asserting not merely a good understanding of the procedure of an RFC, but that he understands it better than anyone else involved in this one. Any suggestion that his choice of responding on several user pages, and with individual attacks rather than to the criticisms presented in the RFC here arises from ignorance or lack of understnading would seem unlikely to be correct. Midgley 13:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC procedure

Reposted from above for clarification:

Essentially, forget resemblances to a court of law. RFCs, like all Wikipedia documents, tend to accrete: someone posts a skeleton argument; co-signatories add to it; subject adds response; other editors for or against (either involved, or outsiders who've seen the RFC listing and offer outside views) add further, and so on. As long as editors stick to the prescribed sections (indicated by instructions in italics) the whole thing is fluid. It goes on until (with luck) some kind of consensus appears.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment gives general guidelines on how the process works. Subjects can respond at any time (i.e. as soon as a picture of the complaint develops).

There is no requirement for the subject to wait until evidence addition is "finished". Nor is such a condition possible, because evidence generally continues to be added during the course of an RFC (including evidence based on conduct in response to the RFC). Tearlach 12:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleting parts of response.

It would be regarded as unusual to delete anything from a response. The convention is clearly to strike it through. Deleting material once said tends to cause confusion, would tend to be assumed to be intended to cause confusion, and is likely to be reverted. There is space on this page for comment and discussion, and therefore absoulutely no need to comment in the RFC page, nor any reason to assume that what goes there is temporary. Midgley 16:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Previous activity by 86. (nobbling)

Previously 86. persuaded Michael Ralston to withdraw from an RFC by introducing specious claims of misconduct against him in, among other places, on the Admins noticeboard. These included ""subtle" vandalism" and anti-semitism. There was no vandalism, and the accusation of anti-semitism was exactly contrary to the truth, however nevertheless the experience was clearly sufficiently unpleasant for Michael Ralston to reach an agreement with his harrasser to withdraw. Possibly he still feels constrained by this agreement or inhibited by the unpleasantness. Exactly which heading on this page this should go under is uncler to me - opinions? The stepping up of attacks against me and repeated postings on User:Tearlach's talk page seem to me to be another effort at this, and there is a specific effort to dissuade another user by repeated comments on his talk page[13].Midgley 21:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mark Sweeps remarks: "...a.k.a. "The Invisible Anon" is strongly encouraged to register a username. Anons don't "own" their user pages and talk pages the way registered users do. The notice on top of 86.10.231.219's talk page ("Attention: The Invisible Anon's Talk Page") is inappropriate. If you want your own talk page, register an account." are relevant to the matters on this (RFC) page. and his further comments "I don't see any evidence of personal attacks, wiki-stalking, or bad faith on Michael Ralston's part. Judging from 86.10.231.219's comments above, it seems you are more interested in escalating the underlying dispute rather than resolving it. --MarkSweep" likewise. Midgley 21:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troll soup

DNFTT. JFW | T@lk 18:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
But surely from what I have seen [User:Jfdwolff|JFW] spends a goodly deal of time doing this - feeding the trolls. Is this breaking the habit of a lifetime (spent on Wikipedia - sadly it seems)? 81.111.172.198 20:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So in November last year 86.10 was willing to express an opinion on the feeding of trolls, therefore he knew and understood the meaning before the beginning of this RFC.

Both 86.10 and 81.111.172.198 made contributions to that RFC, BTW, not indicating identity (two separate outside views) and mutually supporting. Which is not merely sock-puppeteering, but improper sock-puppeteering of the classic and most disruptive sort. Is there a statute of limitations (statute of imitations even) on that on WP? It is currently relevant since the RFC is again active, because with Ombudsman involved in a request for ArbCom, and the linkage to this, I relisted that RFC. Comments on action? RFC on Ombudsman Midgley 00:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

86.10.231.219 definitely seems to have made those comments as 81.111.172.198, but it might be worth laying out the evidence for that more directly some time, unless you want to be accused of being a chess opening. –Tifego(t) 22:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, however if it is not denied, there may be no need, and that RFC on Ombudsman is not that long, yet. Midgley 00:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:81.111.172.198 contains a note that the question of trolling had been raised. This is in contradistinction with a claim - of dubious relevance - that the _precise_ matter of trolling had bnot been raised prior to this RFC, and for that matter is yet another indication that this user was disucssing trolling in a knowledgeable fashion prior to affecting an ignorance of its nature. Midgley 00:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This may become recognised as a classic of the type, a response to an RFC denying that it is a response - "Holding response" - denying that there is a dispute while asserting that there are many disputes, denying that any effort at resolution has previously been made, not far down the page from the list of attempts to resolve the disputed behaviour, and interleaving an insult, an assertion that time has been too short -"got to go and earn a living" - which follows a large outpouring of typing carefully directed elsewhere than the response and amounting to part of it.

As is noted on WP:TROLL it denies the authority of existing arrangements, and as is common with this user it notes objectionable behaviour - attempts to interrupt the RFC process on various user talk pages - as though it is not merely reasonable, but more admirable than anyone elses, and of course no suggestion that any part of it might be changed regardless of any other users' request or reasonable wishes.

And of course attempts to avoid actually finishing, with the assertion that he'll be back.

As an art form it is notable.

As a response it is miserable. I submit that it is actually the response, and that given the contempt that drips off it the time is night to take it to a request for ArbCom attention. Midgley 18:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

edit conflict-- I think we might as well be patient for a while longer. You can use his response as evidence of disputed behavior in the meantime. (You already are, although that point could do with an edit diff or two.) –Tifego(t) 22:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no question there are lots of content disputes, but then you file an RFC over the relevant articles, not against an individual. Similarly, admonishments about behavior are also common enough (and, I might add, invoked as strawmen in content disputes) that they don't themselves substantiate the basis for an RFC. I think that 86.10.231.219 should register an account and have said so several times; and I don't particularly care for his accusations of allopathic conspiracies. But neither of these rises anywhere near to the level of an actionable offense, annoying as they might be to you. I realize that you suspect 86.10.231.219 of being someone you already know, and I have no basis to judge whether that's the case or not. It's not relevant.
As for "contempt" that drips off it, your inferences and interpretations are not appropriate for ArbCom. I think 86.10.231.219 is right in asking that this be resolved through less formal means. --Leifern 22:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that 86.10.231.219 is not asking that this be resolved through less formal means, because he is claiming that there is nothing to be resolved. And this has very little to do with content disputes, because 86.10.231.219 has had very little to do with content. –Tifego(t) 22:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The RFC does not relate to content disputes, but rather personal ones. If there were RFCs about specific articles, I would certainly agree there were disputes, and lots of them. My dilemma is this: the editor who deserves disciplinary action for inappropriate behavior, is without doubt Midgley. I don't believe in tattletaling and sucking admin and Arbcom time as a good mechanism in Wikipedia, both because the results all too often are arbitrary, and because these people are already completely under water. What invariably happens, though it takes time, is that someone goes after the disputed articles with indisputable facts and logic, and people like Midgley give up making WP an outlet for their convictions. I've encouraged 86, whale.to, and others to be factual rather than argumentative; but the only response to an RFC against 86 is to file an RFC against Midgley. And in order for that not to be frivolous, a lot of work would have to be done to substantiate it. Which is possible, but a lot of work. I don't want to do that, and I don't think others do either. And I suspect that's why 86 is trying to put off this RFC - it's not to defend himself/herself, but rather to use his/her time more productively elsewhere. --Leifern 13:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Concur with Leifern, per above. Ombudsman 15:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
This is not about content, but about misconduct repeated across various article and user Talk pages. 86 etc has had repeated warnings and advice about editing conduct - for instance [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] - and ignored it. That takes it well into the territory typically covered by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Tearlach 15:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no basis for calling this RfC frivolous. –Tifego(t) 21:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Leifern's view is interesting, and barring Ombudsman's endorsement, singular, but should not be mistaken for objective, independent or disinterested. The RFC is about what it says it is about, regardless of who says it does not exist or is about whatever they want to discuss. Leifern has been making threats for months now, legal and otherwise, and bothering admins and others with his poorly-founded accusations, and as with anyone else is free to call an RFC on anything he thinks fit to. He remarks that it is a lot of work, but does not remark that therefore one only does it for serious matters where behaviour has indeed been problematic. Leifern has noted that 86. should register an account, (which actually it appears he probably has, having one named account as well as the two contemporaneously active IP address ones detailed herein) and that his conduct is annoying, but is illogical in suggesting that the possible responses to this RFC number only one, and do not include making a response to this RFC. There really isn't anything remotely useful there, just an excuse for an attack. Ombudsman ... is Ombudsman. Midgley 23:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Midgley, I have done none of the things you accuse me of, and you have done all of them. --Leifern 11:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I am quite certain that you have suggested to 86. that he should register an account. It is beyond any onlookers doubt that you have thretened to do "such things ..." eg an RFC above. As for anything elsewhere, you have used your talk page to deny to Steve Block that you have any dispute with me, in rejecting his suggestion and offer of mediation - and offering the subject of this RFC another opening to try to stir up trouble, so what you say now is inconsistent with what you said then. You've been advised what to do previously - RFC or ArbCom or shut up - [19] for instance. Regardless, it looks as though as a closing admin said of another discussion - "and it's readily apparent that Leifern has turned up mainly to be unpleasant (he doesn't make even a tangential reference to the article)."{User:Splash at [20]. Leifern's first words to me were ill-considered and uncivil, they were followed by a poorly conceived AfD founded on a trivially demonstrably untrue statement, and his behaviour has not improved since. Meanwhile, the desire to be nasty about me to people who don't want to hear it is leading him into questionable judgements, a pity, because he otehrwise does some good work on Norwegian geography and (non-nuclear) politics. Midgley 12:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

(Resetting indent). Midgley, your accusations are these: "Leifern has been making threats for months now, legal and otherwise, and bothering admins and others with his poorly-founded accusations, and as with anyone else is free to call an RFC...." I have not made threats, though you have; I have not bothered admins, though you have; I have not made accusations, but I have documented your personal attacks against me. Anyone can read the discussion about mediation - I have not refused it, but I have asked for a clarification of what is going to be mediated, when your incessant personal attacks against me seem to work. I haven't written anything in Wikipedia about "nuclear politics," whatever that means, though I have had to correct some of your theories about the positions of a previous Norwegian prime minister in that area. Yes, I have repeatedly suggested to 86 that he/she register, but it is not a crime to do so. As for admin opinions, they are just that; and I am free to disagree with them. --Leifern 14:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A digression on the end of April in England

Apropos the holding threat on Thursday: "I have to go and earn a living for a while and force these jokers to behave properly after that. I will be back."

Monday is a Bank holiday. No work is done by many people, particularly most lawyers, particularly that which involves dealing with businesses other than shopping. Many of us take Friday off, to make it a long weekend. Those who do not are unlikely to have a particularly productive day. Midgley 20:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to Close

It appears to me that we have probably had as much response as we are going to get, and alternatively that if User:86.10.231.219 has more to say he has had at least sufficient time to say it, been impeded by nothing, and had the time and inclination to say _other_ things in that time.

His response thus far, that it is everyone else who is out of step, coupled with no indication that he proposes to change anything, and the threat that he is going to take further action to "sort us out" suggests that action is required.

Anonymous IP users are able to simply unplug their router for a minute and reappear as a different IP address, so action needs to refer to those presenting the appearance of the underlying user, rather than whatever location he edits from on a particular day. Midgley 11:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(An anonymous IP user User:86.11.84.3 has been making edits to User_Talk:86.10.231.219 and other pages of interest, and using a signature fabricated made to have the same appearance of User:The Invisible Anon Talk today. User:TenOfAllTrades has implied that he regards him as the same person, and there is something about the style and content of the postings that may lead to that conclusion.)

[edit] Have all the protagonists now finished adding to the statement of the dispute

And does this mean I can now have my turn to respond, please?

Talk - The Invisible Anon 14:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You have had your turn to respond for some days now. Midgley 14:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes but have all the protagonists now finished adding to the statement of the dispute. All that needs is a simple "yes" by them. This is meant to be a dispute resolution process, so if you want to resolve disputes rather than create them, it is easy to say 'yes' or 'no'. It is very easy.

Talk - The Invisible Anon 14:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It has repeatedly been explained to you already - see above, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219#RFC procedure - that no-one can answer this. Statement of the dispute is never "finished" because anyone add can further views at any time; for instance, in response to what any of us have written, or in response to conduct associated with the RFC.
See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ombudsman: RfCs ... stay open so long as people are willing to comment, thus the name. [21] Tearlach 17:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to put words in 86's mouth, but it seems to me that he/she wants to make sure there are no further accusations/charges before responding to those that have been made. In other words, have those requesting comment at least outlined their case completely? --Leifern 17:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Read the above. This is not a court of law where the prosecution has to state its case in some "finished" form before the defence can respond. There is always the possibility that new evidence or a new outside view will be added, and this is normal for RFCs. Tearlach 19:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Tearlach, where did I state that this was a court of law, or draw parallels between this and a court of law? Just curious, since you seem to know what I mean better than I do. --Leifern 03:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
You drew a parallel, without mentioning the words, in the paragraph immmediately above. It is a trope which has been running through this discussion. I think it is actually just another Bernian game though. Midgley 07:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
No, Midgley, I wasn't drawing a parallel; you were making an invalid inference. --Leifern 10:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to the terminology: "charges" and "case". Sure, it's metaphor, but not useful metaphor since it so easily slips into mistaken assumptions that RFCs work like a court of law (for instance, the continuing mistaken claim that the statement of the dispute must come to some fixed form before a response is possible). The Wikilawyering articles warns against conflation of Wikipedia procedure and common law. It needs reiterating: Wikipedia is not a system of law. Tearlach 09:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
WP also requires that people assume good faith, avoid rhetorical fallacies, etc. In this case, you leaped to a conclusion that there was no basis for, other than your own prejudice and the use of two random words. --Leifern 10:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
This argument is a digression, and I suspect unhelpful - an outside view in the RFC may be a better way to join in than arguing in the talk page. However, Tearlach did not suggest that Lefeirn had said an RFC is like a court. I apologise for making an assumption about Leifern's random words. I suppose I could have said "used words which suggest it to at least one reader" instead. "Like a court", as I said above, is a trope which has been running through this discussion. I think it is actually just another Bernian game though. 18:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Above [[22]] is Wikilawyering by protagonists. Dispute resolution processes clarify disputes. Any dispute should be well defined whenever a formal stage is reached.

The desire of the protagonists to change the Statement of Case at any time, even after the Response is made, is bad faith. They ought to know their case by now and they do not. That is evidence no good faith effort has been made by the protagonists to resolve the "dispute".

The Statement of Case is long and complex and will take a long time to respond to. The protagonists' intransigence in wanting to change their case at any time means the Response will have to be made when completed. It is impossible in these circumstances to post instalments as they are completed. It seems necessary to spend the time required and then submit the Response.

User:Leifern's intervention is welcomed as a voice of reason. However, the issue of concern is the protagonists desire to change their case after seeing any part of mine and not particularly any efforts on their part to break any world record for the length of a "dispute". The more they add the longer it will take to respond. If they go to ArbCom before I have completed digesting their "dispute", collecting evidence to respond to it and posting a response, that is up to them, not me. Had prior stages of dispute resolution been followed this "dispute" would neither be so long nor would it require so much work to respond to and I would have had the opportunity to have considered the arguments and collected evidence in response at earlier stages. Again, evidence the procedures have not been followed and hence a bad faith "dispute" raised by the protagonists.

Talk - The Invisible Anon 04:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The desire of the protagonists to change the Statement of Case at any time, even after the Response is made, is bad faith.
You're wrong - you've been told how RFCs work. The Statement and Description are unikely to change at this stage (though they might be extended, if you did something new). However, new evidence or new outside views can come along at any time. Tearlach 09:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Its What is Fair

User:Midgley here [[23]]:-

  • quotes a draft essay on presenting a case that "The first to try to rules-lawyer the arbitration process invariably loses — because they wouldn't be rules-lawyering if they had a case." and,
  • "... you are invited, again, to consider making a response in the response section of the RFC ..."

Interestingly, the first to "rules-lawyer" were the protagonists of this RfC who dictated that anything goes [[24]].

What I am saying is not "rules-lawyer"ing or wikilawyering but common sense. It is not fair to expect someone to hit a moving target. Either you know what you claim the "dispute" is about by now or you do not. With all the time that has passed and all the requests I have made for the position to be clarified on the finalisation of the Statement of Case, you should all be in a position to confirm you have nothing further to add to this RfC of elephantine proportions.

If you do not know what the dispute is how can you in all fairness expect anyone to respond to "it"?

Accordingly, you are all cordially invited to confirm whether or not there is anything further you want to add before I respond. A response is a response to something that exists not to something that changes depending on what I put in my response.

If you cannot see the force of that and you cannot see that is fair and not wikilawyering then I cannot help you overmuch. It is going to be odd if this case gets to the arbitration committee and my response is aired there for the first time.

If you think you have such a strong case already you can confirm you have finished? If you have not got such a strong case as you thought, then you should consider withdrawing it or withdrawing your individual endorsements to the Statement of Case.

So if you know what the dispute is about you should confirm that and therefore confirm the Statement of Case is complete. That is fair. Anything less is not.

Talk - The Invisible Anon 15:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

And what, if anything, are you offering? Midgley 16:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The essay is at [25]. Midgley 20:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The esay is not a draft, save in the sense that WP is a draft - to describe it so is to disparage the authors thus far. 20:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
And, the quote is "Arguing about flaws in the Arbitration process is usually a waste of time and will make Arbitrators look dimly upon you. Take the time that you could spend arguing about the details of process and apply it to trying to gather useful evidence....". Midgley 20:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Since then, BTW, I've contributed to some articles, one new one and one big edit - that being the purpose for which most of us are at WP. Midgley 20:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So - no reply then...

Other than blustering, threats, repeated attacks and a change of identity. Shall we leave this open in case the gentleman in question returns to WP? Or look for action in advance of that? Midgley 20:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_comment_86.10.231.219_a407.html"