Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Procedural

initial discussion

To the person blanking the Project page, this is not an acceptable state for the Project page, this is technically vandalism.  I am marking my next comment as rv/v as a reminder we have a 3RR rule on Wikipedia, but that reverting vandalism does not count toward 3RR.  This current comment is on a Discussion page, btw.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than continue to attempt to remove my contribution, I will add another. I do not endorse my contributions, which consist of the poll and my initial response, being moved to the page over my objections and without my consent. I believe that forcibly refactoring people's Talk page contributions is a violation of talk page etiquette, but I am not going to continue an edit war at this point and will merely add my clear statement here that this is not only being done without consensus, but since it is my own comment, I am supposed to be able to strike or remove it depending on whether any replies have been made. -- Avanu (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's go over this again.  (1) You were not editing a "Discussion" page, you were editing a "Project page".  (2) The instructions for that Project Page specifically said that "Procedural polls belong elsewhere, such as WP:V/First sentence/Procedural and WT:V/First sentence/Procedural."  I'm sorry about the mess-up about the page blanking here, I didn't get it quickly enough that I was the one that needed to add appropriate material, as it wasn't really your issue that you were reverting to a blank page, and I wasn't thinking about what material you would add to prevent the condition.  Again, my apologies, Unscintillating (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC management, RfC bot tags

History of the RfC template in diffs

Here is some history as shown by diffs:

• oldid=457842693
  • RfC tag is removed, the tag linking was to policy.
  • {{rfc|policy|rfcid=692381E}}

• oldid=457888835
  • RfC partially restored, but without RfC tag being restored

• oldid=457892788
  • new rfc (new name and new rfcid tag), tag is linking to policy bio hist econ media
  • {{rfc|policy|bio|hist|econ|media}}

• oldid=457892954
  • remove linking to econ, add linking to pol and sci
  • {{rfc|policy|bio|hist|pol|media||sci}}

• oldid=458340927
  • rfcquote template added as part of a discussion section

• oldid=458344569
  • {| |rfcid=5CD298E}}
  • rfcid added for rfcquote template

• Current rfc tag:
  • {{rfc|policy|bio|hist|pol|media||sci|rfcid=5FEF850}}

Discussion

Discussion at WP:AN has been archived without an explanation for the claim: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive228#Request_uninvolved_admin_to_close_large_scale_rfc_at_wp:ver

There was a related question with a response at WT:V#RfC bot tags.

Evidence in the discussion at WT:Centralized discussion#time to update listing standards? indicates that excessive tags can be objectionable. 

In looking at some of the bot RfC postings, the posts are inconsistent with the nature of the other entries.  I conclude that Blueboar reasonably used the RfC template to list the RfC at policy.  I conclude that the tags for bio hist pol media and sci are inappropriate and should be removed.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The RfcBot has removed the problem here.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Your unilateral "conclusions" are not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:Feedback request service is that editors that want to receive notices of policy RfCs already have the option of doing so, so adding such policy RfCs onto article RfC pages for the purpose of giving the policy RfC more attention is spamming.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Re-listing an RfC is not "spamming". Please stop your bureaucratic obstructionism which serves no useful purpose. Viriditas (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, other editors have weighed in now, adding policy RfCs onto article RfC pages for the purpose of giving the policy RfC more attention is spamming.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but having a discussion about a discussion outside of the actual discussion on a subpage that nobody watches where you advertise the discussion transcends disruption and puts you on the precipice of outright trolling. You've been repeatedly asked to state your obsessive, bureaucratic concerns on the RfC talk page and to wait for the editors who actually care to reply. Is any of this getting through to you, or should I expect you to begin edit warring again? If there is something preventing you from understanding any of what I've said, let me know and I'll find another way to say it. Again, the place for you to find consensus is directly on the RfC discussion page, specifically with the editors who support adding the tags, which is why they were added in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC extended past thirty days

An administrator has restarted the RfC to extend past thirty days.  As per the previous discussions I am removing the excess RfC postings.  WP:RFC/A had seven listings on the same page.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and your reasons for removing the listings are not acceptable. User:Alanscottwalker has requested their restoration and I intend to fulfill his request. Please stop continually obstructing the system wide notification of this RfC. Consensus is against you. Users who participate in the Wikipedia:Feedback request service need to be informed about this RfC. Because they may not subscribe to every type of RfC, the system wide listing will increase its audience. We already had this debate a long time ago and consensus was in favor of advertising the RfC widely. For a current discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Advertising_RfC. Viriditas (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction that you are not an admin.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"continually obstructing"?.  I don't think such rhetoric strengthens your position.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The short response is, please do not change the RfC as posted on October 6 without discussion.  We went through a months long process with people from both sides of the issue involved to get to this point.  In particular, you should discuss any proposed changes with Blueboar, who technically is the owner of the RfC text (WP:TPO).  Unscintillating (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The modification to the RfC to add new RfC tags was done without discussion.  If you review the documentation on this page, you will see that during a week of asking questions, there has not been a single post to defend the change to the RfC.  Thus it is more than proper to restore the RfC text.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make a proposal to add new RfC tags, an orderly way to do so would be to post such a proposal along with a rationale for doing so.  It would then be possible to discuss the merits of such a proposal.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You're engaging in pure obstructionism. The RfC bot was unable to relist the RfC in its current format for whatever reason. Therefore, I thought quickly, copied and summarized the main thesis of the RfC using only Blueboar's words and phrases, and added the timestamp so the bot would post it. What you've claimed about my actions is completely false. Viriditas (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

anonymous ad hoc change to the RfC text

User:Viriditas has modified the introduction to the RfC, such that it says

Should the policy on Verifiability be modified to move the "verifiability, not truth" phrase from the lead to its own section in order to clarify the lead and address the issue of truth/untruth? For the full proposal explained in detail, see: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#RFC_Proposal_re_first_sentence. 08:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

By not signing his/her name to the post, it currently appears that Blueboar/the-working-group wrote this text.

This text is controversial as stated.  The question is, what do we want to put here, if anything?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is not a single controversial word in the statement, and all the words were taken directly from the proposal. Please stop making false statements. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

proposal to restore RfC text from October 7 RfC

There are multiple issues to discuss, without responding to the newest edits to the RfC text.  I propose that we restore a stable version, that being the October 7 RfC text, and proceed based on proposals for change from there.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been pretty close to it and I'm very confused as to what the several items above are about. North8000 (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have resolved this by writing my own summary and signing it myself. Blueboar (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I accept your revision, however, you did not summarize anything, and the previous version I wrote used only your words. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, discussion at Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service

FYI, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service#adding policy RfCs to Article RfC pages, "need" or "spam"?.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Advertising a discussion on a page that nobody watches is futile. You need to discuss your concerns on the RfC talk page, nowhere else. Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, you are the one that said, "Users who participate in the Wikipedia:Feedback request service need to be informed about this RfC."  I asked those users if they had a "need to be informed", and they said no, that such a need does not exist, they already know how to sign up for the policy RfC service.  Rather, they say that what you are doing is spam.  This issue was already reviewed at WP:AN, where neither SlimVirgin nor anyone else defended the need for these extra RfC notices.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You either do not understand what is being discussed, or are continuing to ignore the discussion. I have not "done" anything, nor has the discussion you pointed to resulted in any consensus on this matter. My restoration of the edits you unilaterally removed without discussion was performed at the request of other editors who had requested the RfC notices. If you had bothered to read the actual discussion page on this subject, you would have understood this fact, the first several times you were asked to read it. Your continued IDHT responses tell me that you don't understand how discussion pages are used, and that you don't care about the opinions of other editors. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there seems to be a consensus emerging that it's spam, Viriditas. It's true that certain users who don't have WP:V or the relevant policy pages watchlisted seem to think they have a right to get angry if you wish to change WP:V without consulting them, but that doesn't mean their behaviour is justified.—S Marshall T/C 08:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to document the (lack of) relevance of this page: It currently has less than 30 watchers (precise number not available), compared to 1444 page watchers at WT:Verifiability and 37 at WT:Verifiability/First sentence. Hans Adler 08:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)