I agree with the summary of the RFC. The subject of the complaint has made contributions to Kaiser Permanente that add an important critical element and questions raised about the evidence behind many of these issues has not been addressed.
My only concern is that Panasophia's Talk page shows a history of disputes with the initiator of the RFC, including an RFC that she filed against him. Since I'm pretty new to the RFC process, I don't know that this should matter...and I'm don't know what action I'd be endorsing by signing the RFC so I'd appreciate a little more background on the RFC. Antonrojo 17:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such RFC initiated by Pansophia, as far as I know. Please either point to one, or cross out the text above. She points, quite often, to comments in an RFC on a troll, who is one of 4 members of a clique which includes her. The troll departed after declaring he had a perfect argument to explain why we were all wrong and he right - when he got round to it - and never getting round to it. Another member of that group has progressed from RFC to being a subject of an ArbCom proceeding, and Pansophia makes three. It doesn't seem to be a good way to make an encyclopaedia, although it certainly fogs arguments. Midgley 20:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Signing the RFC - if you agree with the summary and become party to it or endorse it you are endorsing that part you sign, none other. If you have an outside view, put it in an outside view section. The RFC does need someone to sign as a second editor who has attempted to resolve matters, otherwise it will go nowhere, and at a guess neither will that article. Midgley 20:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If I remember correctly I reached the above conclusion because Panasophia claimed that you were the anon IP mentioned on her talk page and this seemed to be verified by an admin (who judging by his user page doesn't seem to shy away from the 'rogue admin' label). In any case I don't have the time to look into this and I realize it's probably not relevant--at first blush it looked like this RFC could be retaliatory. Antonrojo 18:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]