User talk:Funcrunch/RFCdraft

Thank you very much for doing this! I skimmed over the draft and it looks good. One thing I thought of was possibly including the Foam pump and Raw milk issues on the IP user's Talk page. They also speak to this editor's pattern of disruptive behaviour. I'll be back tomorrow with a closer reading and discussion (I'm pressed for time today) but I wanted to let you know that I received your message and I support this. Thanks again. Ca2james (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial feedback. I didn't want to talk much about pages that I wasn't directly involved in editing, but once the RfC is posted we can solicit feedback from editors who were involved. I only pointed out the earlier edit where IP claimed "consensus" where there obviously wasn't any to show that they are using different definitions of terms than most people... Funcrunch (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of that; you make a good point there to include only issues you involving you. Is it appropriate to notify the editors involved in the disputes on those other pages, as well as the administrator that blocked the IP editor last year, once this goes live?

I'm wondering if it's worth mentioning that you went back to the original BLPN request a second time to ask for help on March 1 because we were still having consensus issues. I say this not just because you asked for help from an experienced editor but because of the IP user's response: "I have agreed that we need help. I have been continuing to edit? is that an example of disruptive behavior? If so please just BLOCK ME so that the censorship issue is clear."

In the Evidence section, I'm thinking that we should maybe include some additional diffs of each of us specifically trying to address the problems. I don't think that it's worth showing a diff for each example given in the preceding section, but it would be good to show some of the clearer attempts that each of us has made. Here are some of mine:

Fringe theory/original research:

16:00, February 18, 2014 tried to reasoning with the IP user
20:14, February 24, 2014 tried to reason again, not realizing I was engaging in WP:FORUM
15:27, February 25, 2014 describing OR issues

03:27, March 1, 2014 telling the IP user their behaviour seemed disruptive

Consensus-building:

03:35, March 1, 2014 asking to find a way to work with the user, to which I got no response
17:07 March 6, 2014 asking the IP user for policy objections and suggested wording to which I got no response

Verifiability:

19:02 March 7, 2014 asking the IP user for reliable sources, to which I got no response

Overall, I think it's good. Once it's up I'll certify it as the second user. Ca2james (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your feedback and for agreeing to certify. I'll add some of your diffs to the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" section, and look for more relevant examples from own edits as well. Re the BLP forum and IP's taunt about blocking/censorship, I did include that info and comment in the evidence section.

I'll try to get this finished up and posted tomorrow, and will see about alerting past editors/admins once this is live. Funcrunch (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've linked to the IP user's talk page, but s/he has blanked the whole thing with an edit summary mentioning a lynch mob. I just wanted to give you a heads up to make sure to use diffs to point to the history there. I don't know if it's worth mentioning this in the doc; it'll come to light quickly enough, I suppose.

I was also thinking about getting other editor inputs... I don't want to be accused of WP:CANVASS. This editor has filed some ANI notices against others in the last few months so I'm guessing that some editors might track this one. Ca2james (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the blanking. The edit summary said they couldn't figure out how to archive it, so I'm not going to hold that against them, and I have all the diffs I need in any case.

However, IP has already accused me of WP:CANVASS (see my talk page). But I believe I am following the WP:RFC/U process correctly. I think I have enough to get this tidied up and filed tonight, then after certification we can open it up to comments from others. Funcrunch (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I just wasn't sure if you'd added anything that linked to that page and I was inappropriately concerned about the timing for it. I also believe that you're following the correct process; it's well-nigh impossible for two (or more) editors to put together this type of document without one contacting the other(s). I guess you could have done the whole thing on your own, if you wanted, but to my mind it makes sense to contact people for help. Ca2james (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was careful to only link to diffs on talk pages. The RfC/U guidelines specifically suggested creating a draft in a userspace and inviting others to collaborate, so that's just what I did. In any case, it's up now, as I posted on your talk page, so please certify ASAP if you can (otherwise it will get deleted in < 48 hours). Thanks again for your help! Funcrunch (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]