Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:02, 16 February 2007

• ]

Archives
For why RfC was created, see Archive at WP:Resolving disputes Archive 1 Archive 2: Feb 2004–May 2005 Archive 3: May 2005–Sep 2005 Archive 4: Sep 2005–Oct 2005 Archive 5: Oct 2005–May 2006 Archive 6: May 2006–not yet full

Proposal re user RFCs

Please see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Closure of RfCs. Guy 10:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Desperate help needed at the Black people article! Please get involved!!

This article is an absolute mess. It provides no coherent well sourced definition of a Black person and just rambles on and on about various people who were labled Black in different times, places, and languages, and tries to merge them all together as a coherent ethnic group. It would be like trying to merge Native Americans and people from India into a coherent article called Indian people. It makes no sense. We had requested mediation and the mediator said we should use the census as our source. Here's what the U.S. census says:

A Black is “ a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.”

Black Africa is a synonym of sub-Saharan Africa and all of the non-African groups mentioned (i.e. African-Americans, Haitains) are descendents of the recent African diasporas. And yet we still have editors insisting that South Asians be given equal weight in the article and be considered Black. These people provide no cited definitions or census classifications to defend their assertions, instead they cherry pick from different sources in different countries for examples of South Asians being labeled Black, often in different languages. But by the same logic, I could argue that the Black Irish are Black. The point is the people editing that article need to be forced to adheare to a coherent sourced authoritative definition of a Black person, or the entire article should just be deleted as POV and unencyclopedic.

Dictionary.com], the free dictionary online]., the U.S. census], and the British census] all emphasize the idea that Blacks are of African origin-in fact it is against the law for a dark-skinned person of South Asian or Australian origin to claim to be black in the census. An article by the BBC makes a clear distinction between Blacks and the dark skinned people of South Asian ancestry]. This article about race in biomedicines says “The entities we call ‘racial groups’ essentially represent individuals united by a common descent — a huge extended family, as evolutionary biologists like to say. Blacks, for example, are a racial group defined by their possessing some degree of recent African ancestry (recent because, after all, everyone of us is out of Africa, the origin of Homo sapiens)."]. I really need help getting the editors of that article to stick to a coherent definition, instead of just pushing their own POV. Editingoprah 06:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC rules question

User:Ryulong created an RfC against User:Masterhatch and invited me to view it. I have had the same issues with Masterhatch as Ryulong has. The RfC rules seem to say:

The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 03:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted.

I already signed myself in "users certifying the basis of the dispute" at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Masterhatch. But do I need to add evidence of trying and failing to resolve the situation myself? I have had arguments with Masterhatch about this previously, but I think Ryulong already provided enough evidence. JIP | Talk 15:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

does anyone read RfC/politics??

There are disputes listed under the RfC/politics page that are over a month old. I posted one less than a week ago so perhaps I'm being impatient, but does anyone actually bother to look at this page or visit articles that have been RfCd? Is there an easier way to get additional voices to comment on a particular article?--csloat 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Listings usually don't end up getting removed even if an issue is resolved, so the length of the list or the age of the entries does not mean that no one is looking at it or that problems aren't being resolved. Many people do look at these articles and visit the pages. One reason why people would be uninterested in looking at an issue is if the issue is not simply and clearly described with a link to a section that is directly linked from the RfC (). Few will want to respond if they get the feeling they will have to read the whole discussion on the talk page and still might not know what the problem is. —Centrx→talk • 06:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

RFC in the middle of an AFD?

An editor unhappy with an AFD on an article he created has opened an RFC in the middle of an AFD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Iran-Iraq War, arguing that the article was being targeted by "Wikipedians of Iranian ancestry". (IMO the article itself is unsalvageable, but the author's perception is clearly different.) A few of the commentators in the AFD seem to have a number of edits on middle-eastern topics, though I have no idea of their ancestry; I have no ancestry in that part of the world.

I have a concern about what will happen to the AFD process if RFC's are routinely opened in the middle of it. Is there a policy on this? Should RFC's be used to mediate an AFD, or should AFD be considered a separate process which shouldn't be interrupted by another process? I'm posting the same question at AFD talk. Fan-1967 02:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a major problem if someone wants to summon comments in a neutral way like RfC (rather than, e.g., spamming like-minded users on their talk pages), unless it were to become widespread where RfC is not used for its purpose. An RfC will not supersede the AfD. —Centrx→talk • 06:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

All parties

The rules state:

After all parties agree the issue has been resolved

but who are the all parties concerned? If someone -- one of the editors originally involved in the dispute -- does not participate in the RFC, can this editor claim that he did not agree and ignore the RFC consensus? Goldfritha 15:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is more a housekeeping matter, that items should not be stricken from the list of RfCs if people do not agree that the issue is resolved; they are removed after a few weeks regardless. If someone is ignoring consensus on an article, that may require administrator intervention or escalation of the dispute. —Centrx→talk • 23:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What article is it? —Centrx→talk • 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it will be a problem, but I put a Request for Comment on Wizard (fantasy) on Monday, and User:Jc37, the other editor, has made no comments in it, although making other edits on the article. Because this editor has ignored things said in the discussion page until I made edits based on them, and then reverted the edits and only then responded in discussion -- I thought I would like to know what is the Right Thing to Do before I need to know. Goldfritha 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

To be more precise, I wanted to know whether -- granting that a consensus is reached -- I could edit accordingly. Goldfritha 02:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, he didn't notice it because it was placed at the top of the page; I have moved it to the bottom. If you reach a consensus, you should make the appropriate edits; it should at least get the person to notice and respond. —Centrx→talk • 02:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. We can hope it will work. Goldfritha 04:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Is it proper for another editor to add a RFC to a different list? I had made a RFC in Nun and listed it on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy, and the other editor listed it, again, on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. Goldfritha 04:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine for another user to list it in another section; in general such cross-posting should be kept to a minimum though. —Centrx→talk • 22:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reworking some of the categories

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics is perpetually empty or nearly empty, and articles about Carnatic music or Ernest Hemingway do not belong alongside articles about CNN and Eminem, so I think Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature should be split into something like "Popular culture" and "Literature, art, and language", or instead the 'serious' subjects can simply be merged into History? —Centrx→talk • 22:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they should be separated. Though I think just creating an Electronic media: Television, Film, and Computer and video games page should be enough. I also think we should leave Language and Linguistics separate, even if it's a typically small section. - jc37 17:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a typically empty section; few people will go to it and RfCs there will not receive a response. The categories should be divided so that people interested or knowledgeable in a certain area of topics find them together. —Centrx→talk • 17:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That is, people posting RfCs brings a lot of traffic to the page which then responds to the RfC. If no one posts, no one is there to respond to the stray RfC either. —Centrx→talk • 21:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, in looking them over:

• I still think that Electronic media: Television, Film, and Computer and video games should be created as its own sub-section.
• split history and geography into:

• Physical geography and political boundaries (such as countries) - Open to suggestions for a better name. Essentially it's what would be found in an atlas, plus geographical/geological themes.
• History.

• Merge history with art and literature, and language and linguistics (three now smaller but related groupings).

Thoughts and suggestions welcome. : ) - jc37 20:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• For electronic media, why not just calling "popular culture" or "Media and popular culture", that's a simpler title and is basically equivalent to what's meant by electronic media, without making it sound like the technical specifications of the Internet Protocol should be in this category.
• For geography, are there really enough articles for this category?
• Merging history with art and literature, etc. makes sense. After all, it's all history if it's not contemporary culture. —Centrx→talk • 03:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Devilmaycares RfC

I've moved the Devilmaycares RfC into the candidate pages, because it would appear that only 1 user has certified the dispute. As it happens, the RfC is also over the 48 hours. Addhoc 00:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges

I have been directed to the subpage Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges by several administrators who question that I am following the correct procedure to appeal a 6-hours block in ANI (as per WP:BLOCK). I am very confused because the main page of RfC does not make any mention that a RfC could/should be made on administrators' behaviour and because other policy pages clearly suggest otherwise.

If the correct way to conduct an appeal is via RfC, what I doubt, why this is not explicit anywhere in the main relevant policy pages, significatively in this one?

If it is not, why some administrators try to defer the right procedure towards RfC? --Sugaar 17:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You're obviously unblocked -- there's no further action anyone can take. If you are in a dispute with an administrator over whether or not they should have blocked in the first place, then RfC is the right place. Jkelly 17:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How does an editor go about closing a RfC?

As per:

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC).

How does a wikieditor go about closing a RfC, or request that a RfC be closed?

Are there any cases which have recently been closed, which I can see or talk to the wikieditors involved? Travb (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's a user conduct RFC, there's a section on the User conduct page that details how to go about closing the RFC. ~ ONUnicorn 20:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you respond to an RFC?

This article seems to be unclear as to whether you are to respond to requests for comment on an article's talk page, or somewhere else? 02:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Hejsan alla<0)

Amended, . —Centrx→talk • 23:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Content RFC topic area organization

When listing an article content RFC, you're supposed to put it in an appropriate topic area. Now most articles do fit in one of those topic areas, but what does one do with an article that doesn't quite fit in any of them? In other words, why not have a miscellaneous section? ~ ONUnicorn 20:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the topic? —Centrx→talk • 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment on requests for comment

Please pardon me if I'm treading familiar ground here, but it seems to me that many/most RfCs attract few participants, and generally just waste time. And yet, people are always saying, "When having a content dispute, try RfC first." I don't feel like the system is working very well, though, mainly due to lack of participation. Do people know of examples where an RfC really helped? Other thoughts? Thanks. IronDuke 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it varies. I've followed 2 user conduct RFCs, and one had lots of participation, and the other didn't have any. As for article RFCs, I think it depends, at least in part, on the subject area and the complexity of the dispute. Simple disputes get more participation, complicated ones get less. Popular subjects get more, ones with little interest get less. Also, if people follow the instructions and put the RFC in a new section and provide a simple, rational summary of the the dispute so people don't have to wade through 5 pages of repetative, emotional, attack-filled argument to even figure out what the dispute is about, there tends to be more participation. I filed a simple little article RFC towards the end of the day yesterday and so far I've gotten 2 responses on it. IMO, the 2 responses have been quite helpful. Hopefully we'll get more responses and the article will end up improving more as a result then it would if we'd settled it between ourselves. On the other hand, I've seen other article RFCs sit for a month with no response at all until, finally, in the end, the parties resolved it between themselves. ~ ONUnicorn 15:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked at several recent ones in the History and Biography sections and all had received some comment, and will probably receive more given that they have only been open for two days. There were a few which I did not bother to closely check because the link sent me to the top of a long undifferentiated talk page—which is exactly the reason why someone would not want to comment. An RfC that asks responders to search through a page to try to even find the dispute section, or which asks responders to read pages upon pages of stale comments when a brief summary with the different viewpoints would be a sufficient starting point, would be less likely to receive a response. Is there a specific subject area that you think is not being covered properly or a specific aspect that you think is flawed? —Centrx→talk • 23:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

On this subject could someone please come and comment on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell, the user involved are chilled down a bit at the moment - but that could quickly deteriorate and we would be back to some very uncivil behaviour and edit warring. Thanks in advance Lethaniol 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding process

Is it proper to post an outside view before a RfC has been certified? -Amarkov _edits 15:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it is or not, but if I had something to say I'd go ahead and say it. ~ ONUnicorn 15:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

where to put an an rfc about an article about a company?

The sections listed don't seem to include an appropriate one. 67.117.130.181 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Economy and trade maybe? This is why I think there should be a miscellaneous section. ~ ONUnicorn 17:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment for several editors in relation particular articles

Can I submit a request for comment on several editors who share the same POV on particular articles for violation of certain policies? I have prepeared my draft here . Can I open a case here that covers it all together? Thanks --Aminz 01:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the RfC but it was removed. .

It seems that there was no objection on having an RfC that includes several editors on one topic before the RfC was filed.

Reasons provided: Not a valid RFC. Explicit rules: one dispute, single user, all signers must have tried to resolve.

1. It is one dispute. Violation of WP:RS and WP:NPOV; mainly timewasting attempts to trash sound academic research. And this way of behavior can not be addressed through article RfC.

2. Since these editors support each other on all discussions, the issue was addressed in one RfC. Separate RfC's can be posted but they will have much in common. I believe it is the best to present everything in one RfC.

3. All signers have tried to deal with this issue on the talk pages. There is a huge discussion on the Antisemitism talk pages which deals with reliability of Encyclopedia of Islam, that of Johnson. etc, etc. The dispute is in no way a recent one.

--Aminz 20:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• If I'd seen this earlier, I'd have answered the first question "no", and that would have ended it there. The instructions for a user RFC are very specific: the second sentence says, This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. --jpgordon 06:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for eventually replying to the comment. Since the best to present this particular dispute is in one RfC , would you please let me know where can I discuss that. Village Pump? --Aminz 06:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

An article RFC is the right thing for content disputes such as this. --jpgordon 15:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you do if there has already been an RfC for a user?

Hi, I would like to start an RfC for Cplot vs MONGO. But I noticed there is already a closed RfC on MONGO. Does anyone know what we do in this case. Can we Archive the old one and put a link like what many user do on their talk page and then continue with the new one? If so, can you explain how we do this, I've never really ever archived my user's talk page. --CyclePat 06:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just follow the directions on the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct page and title it MONGO 3, since there already was a 1 and number 2 was deleted.--MONGO 13:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/InShaneee

Has seen nothing but the occasional signatory for the last two months. Can this be archived now? --InShaneee 04:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go for it unless somebody has a problem with that. Just H 01:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

...Sure it's kosher to archive my own RfC? If so, I'll go ahead. --InShaneee 03:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not involved in this and have not previously checked out the RfC for InShaneee - but I think that it is extremely bad form for the user under RfC to archive it, especially when the RfC looks like the user in question InShaneee has abused their powers (do not hold me to this - only had a quick look now). Surely if this is the case this RfC is going to go further - potentially to Jimbo or ArbCom. Lethaniol 02:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Doh...I thought no one was going to respond to that, so I went ahead and did it. You can restore it if you think that's appropriate, but it IS essentially dead, and has been for over a month. --InShaneee 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No its fine, have checked with a user who gave a review and think it is okay. Of course there really should be people who read these pages that will close the discussion for you - especially in the case of an admin RfC. That way any perceived WP:COI will be removed. Cheers Lethaniol 13:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. That's kind of what I was hoping would happen when someone else inspected the situation. --InShaneee 23:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite being archived, this is suddently getting a lot of traffic again...could someone do something about that? --InShaneee 14:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Usually, RfCs continue until resolution is found. Many people found fault in the subject of the RfC, and the fact that there is no resolution combined with the number of people who agree with the RFC DEFINITELY does not warrant its closure. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The question was directed to someone uninvolved. --InShaneee 00:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? The RfC is still active and should not have been closed, especially by someone with a conflict of interests. Just because you archived it, doesn't mean no one's allowed to post further comment. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. That's how an archive works. If you read above, the archiving was endorsed by more than one other user. --InShaneee 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

One person said "unless someone has a problem with it". And tell me, why do you seek to have it closed? You archived it because it is inactive, and ironically, the more active it gets, the more closed off it gets. Why should an active RfC be closed? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You opened the RfC; of course you have a problem with its closure. If someone uninvolved in all of this believes it was closed early or needs to be reopened, I will be more than happy to do it myself. --InShaneee 00:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It was closed by a party with a conflict of interests on the basis that it is inactive. If its inactivity was why it was closed, you wouldn't be objecting to its unarchiving now that it IS active. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It was inactive; you've chosen to make it active again. I asked for someone else to do archive it, and I was told to do it myself. I did, and my action was later approved by two separate users. --InShaneee 00:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is still ongoing within the last few seconds; do not try to 'win' by going ahead and reverting to your preferred version of the page. Whichever version belongs there will be implemented once this is complete. In the meantime, if you are so sure that my actions were innapropriate, you should request they they be reviewed by someone uninvolved with this situation. --InShaneee 00:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And it's active now. I didn't make it active. Before I did anything to unarchive it, YOU said it was inactive. People are still discussing it. If the reason for archiving it was because if its inactivity, then being active would warrant unarchiving. It's as simple as that. And besides, the people you asked agreed with the archiving because it was inactive. Are you saying that if you asked them for input on it now that they'd say the same thing?

I am very confused with your objection. If you feel that inactivity is reason enough to archive an RfC, then you should also agree that activity is a reason to not archive it. It seems like you'd do anything to get rid of this RfC. The fact that you are so against it being brought back up doesn't scream objectivity. You yourself gave the best reason to bring it back - it's not finished. And most disturbingly, you reacted to its activity by attempting to squelch the activity. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your accusations and insinuations. As I keep saying, since we both disagree, why not simply ask someone uninvolved to comment on that? Do you have some objection to outside review? --InShaneee 00:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an extremely trivial case that requires no outside view.

Answer this one question. Why should it remain archived? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Simply because it is now closed. If you wish to 'continue the dispute', I suggest mediation, and would like to express on the record here that I am completely open to an attempt by the MedCab or MedCom to find an amicable solution to this. --InShaneee 01:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And of course, it serves SO much of a purpose to try to prevent an RfC from being reopened. So tell me - are you implying that it is bad for Misplaced Pages to resolve issues?

Oh, and here's a suggestion - actually apologize for all of the things you've done wrong and stop abusing your position as an admin as if it made you king over all of the lowly Wikipedians. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I will ask you again to keep your tone civil. You are now doing nothing but making hateful accusations. --InShaneee 01:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I still would like to hear from an outside party what their opinion on reopening a closed RfC is. --InShaneee 01:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I can be an outside party for this. My opinion is that if the RfC was properly closed, it should not be re-opened because people wish to argue again; they're closed for a reason. But I'm not convinced it was properly closed; it seems that absolutely nobody uninvolved agreed that it should be closed. -Amarkov _edits 01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I was misreading it, but I thought that was what Lethanoil's second comment was indicating. I originally took Just H's comment to mean that as well, though I could see how it might not. --InShaneee 01:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Lethanoil was saying he got another editor who had commented in the case to agree. While that's better, definitely, it's still not an uninvolved party. And I don't see Just H's comment anywhere? -Amarkov _edits 01:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's up there - he recommends that InShaneee be bold and go ahead and do it himself. Anyways, I think that regardless of how the RfC was closed, since it's now become active again there should be some place for the new comments. We could always build a second RfC to reflect the more recent comments, but that seems confusing to me and wasteful. Just re-opening the earlier one would seem the more reasonable approach to me. However, I don't have any idea if that would be correct policy-wise. --TheOtherBob 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My problem exactly. I'd like to say that 'closed' means closed, but I can't find anything in writing to adress this type of situation. --InShaneee 02:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing; it prevents something being closed unless it actually should be, and people agree on that. -Amarkov _edits 02:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

But the question remains what to do here. Can we start off by agreeing that it was inactive (by the definition) when I archived it? --InShaneee 02:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, nobody should be seriously disputing that. -Amarkov _edits 02:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that's a start. Now, here's where I see an issue forming. This is happening fairly recently, but what if a year had passed? Or two? Should we say that anyone can reopen an RfC at anytime? My other issue is, I don't think that any significant arguments have really been added since the closure; is that worth the trouble of reopening? --InShaneee 02:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

On the second question, I'm in favor of reopening if there is more to say (except in rare situations.) So I'd say it's worth the trouble, generally.

On the first question, I'm not sure what the community view is on closed RfC's - are they always available to re-open, or is it a dead issue? I don't know - I can see arguments on both sides, but don't know of any guidance on that point. (But if you do know of any, please point me to it; I could definitely use a Wiki policy about now to help sort this stuff.)

Even if RfCs should eventually be dead, however, I personally don't think that the slope you propose will slip. If we believe that RfCs should "die" at some point, 1-2 years is plenty of time for them to be dead and buried.

What makes this situation hard to sort out is that the RfC had closed only about a week before it suddenly got "hot" again. While we may want to have closure on these at some point, at the same time we don't want a rule that says "once closed (even prematurely) the RfC's always closed" - and an RfC that gets hot soon after closing is typically prematurely closed. At the same time, however, this one was more or less inactive for a while before hand, so it's hard to call the closing premature. Nonetheless, the arguments that have been added seem to be generally related, and so make more sense on this RfC than on another one. So all that confusion about the proper course of action gets me back to my above comment - I think if there are a few substantive comments to add that fit with this RfC, it's just cleaner to add them to it rather than starting another one. That also creates a more complete record, in case this thing is ever needed for anything. If there were a whole separate issue, however, we might want to make a second RfC. But I have no policy guidance to support that - I just think it's a reasonable approach. (And now enough long-windedness from me.)--TheOtherBob 02:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. So I suppose here's the next question: can we call what has recently been added 'substantial'? --InShaneee 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd call the new additions substantive (i.e. they're not just formatting fixes or someone saying "me too.") So, yes, I think. By the way, to raise another issue - I'm not sure, but this RfC may be becoming inactive again. If so, I'm of the opinion that even if we reopen it, it can be put back to sleep in a week or two. Does anyone disagree with that? --TheOtherBob 03:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In that lies another problem that I am actually concerned about: what happens if Link has something new to say a few weeks after that? It's always been my concern that this will be dragged out to perpetuity. I'm alright with your suggestion of leaving it up for a week or two for now, but I'd like to discuss how this might be handled in the future. --InShaneee 03:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a tough question - I'm thinking about how we could keep this from dragging on in perpetuity. I don't think closing off the RfC would really do it, because if the issue is going to drag on, it will just drag on somewhere else (and I'd think it would be better in an RfC than in talk pages and such). My initial reaction is that we either have to hope that things have run their course and don't drag on, or have to resolve things somehow and then declare it water under the bridge. (I've got no idea how we can resolve it, but let me think some more about that.) In any event, you're right - this thing can't go on forever. --TheOtherBob 04:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright. If you think of anything, please do contact me. I suppose for the moment, we just leave the RfC up and see where things go. Can you keep an eye on it? Obviously, I can't archive it myself a second time. Thanks again everyone for your thoughts here. --InShaneee 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that these so-called "additions" were substantive.

1. "RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted."
2. RfC's are supposed to be about ONE dispute. This is a pure pile-on of WP:IDONTLIKETHEM. Quickpolls were for the 5 minute hate. RFC's were supposed to be focused. Here are the January changes. . Nothing of substance but whiny users whining about someone slapping them on the wrist. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Substantive means "having substance." You disagree with the substance, and that's your right. But it's not the case that they were, say, formatting changes or very minor comments.--TheOtherBob 21:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Substantive means "having substance." You are confusing light and heat for mass. I'm not saying I disagree with their concerns - I'm saying their concerns are trivial, and that their obvious goal is not to have their concerns adressed (seeing as the only additive user has expressed his satisfaction, already), but rather to drive the final nail in. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a rare bit of heat and light that can drive a nail without some variety of mass. Is that mass wrong? Maybe. Would it go better somewhere else? Maybe. Does it sway any argument? Maybe not. But is it there? Of course. Your view of its purpose or its merit is inconsequential to this question. The question is "is this RfC being added to - is it active?" Yes, it is. You think the additions are in bad faith and don't help things, but they're clearly not patent nonsense or minor comments. And now if you want the last word on this, I'm going to bow out - it's fascinating, but somewhat rhetorical, so I'm going to go do work I actually get paid for. --TheOtherBob 22:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed a couple of recent signatories, but none with comments. At the risk of kicking an ant hill, does everyone agree that we can finally put this issue, and this RfC, to bed? If so, could someone with more technical prowess please do so? --TheOtherBob 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to ask that myself. --InShaneee 15:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Less than 24 hours after this was closed, a new one has now been opened up. Any thoughts? --InShaneee 02:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the two are related (though I am at a loss for why the user in the second RfC felt the need to file one over a month after the events he's complaining about - I thought we had resolved that issue). --TheOtherBob 03:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing was resolved. I have been trying to get a meaningful response to my questions from InShaneee for that month - trying and failing to resolve the dispute. Surprised to see he's capable of complaining about RfCs against him, but not capable of stringing together just a couple of sentences to explain why he applied a block, even when given a month to do so. Worldtraveller 09:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, the personal attacks are already well underway. I think my main reason for posting here is I'd like to make sure that the old signatories from the last one don't flood in to keep this one open for another howeverlong. --InShaneee 15:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, my old RfC is being edited again. Can someone please either look into this or pass it along to someone who can? --InShaneee 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, my new RfC has now been uncertified for two days, so I'd appreciate if someone could delete it. --InShaneee 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You're spending plenty of time campaigning for the removal or closure of RfCs against you, and yet you refuse to spend a couple of minutes explaining why you applied this block? You're a terrible administrator if you can't or won't justify your actions. Worldtraveller 18:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cindery's RFC

Would someone kindly format the RFC and move it to a subpage for her? I'd do it myself, but Cindery might have a problem with it if I did it. ---J.S 07:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, it's under User Conduct. ---J.S 07:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Added section to template

I've slapped a "what in the name of pete moss and the mulches is this about?" section into the template. Starting with the end is usually a good thing. - brenneman 06:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how to report a user

Can someone explain the steps? I've seen the infobox markup, and the radio button which takes you to a separate page, but I don't really understand how to go about reporting someone who is breaking rules and being abusive. Please take this as an opportunity to make this system more accessible. Please explain.22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joie de Vivre (talk • contribs)

User who certified dispute now editing "Response" section

At RfC/Tim Smith, FeloniousMonk, who started the RfC and certified the basis for the dispute, is now editing the "Response" section, responding to my response. The instructions say that "Users signing other sections ('Statement of the dispute' and 'Outside Views') should not edit the 'Response' section", so I moved his comments to the talk page. He then moved them back, claiming "common practice". My understanding is that the "Response" section is for the user whose conduct is disputed, or other users who object to the initial "Statement of the dispute", and that further comments by the signers of the initial statement belong elsewhere. Is that correct? I'd appreciate advice on how to proceed. Tim Smith 21:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Early end to an RFC?

I'm having second thoughts about a RFC I initiated and may be interested in rescinding my endorsement of my own description. Since the RFC hasn't been certified yet, would a rescission bring an early end to the RFC? I would rather not drag everyone through a needless process. There would be only one other person endorsing the description. Simões (/_contribs) 06:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Help

Could someone give me some advice regarding bringing an RFC's for a content dispute involving the Taj Mahal? I've drafted a statement on my talk page and I'd appreciate some comment and perhaps mentoring before I make the request official. Many thanks. --Joopercoopers 12:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've now filed the RFC at Talk:Taj Mahal#Request for Comment: Inclusion of minority points of view. I put it in the Media, Art and Literature section because there isn't one for architecture - hope this is ok. --Joopercoopers 16:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Request to delist the Proabivouac RfC

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Proabivouac has not been certified for 4 days. I request that an admin delist this RfC. --BostonMA 12:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The RfC is way beyond the deadline for certification, and its filer has acknowledged it to have been out of process.Proabivouac 08:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't think it'll have to be an administrator that does it. I think I'll just be bold and do it myself. -- Karl Meier 20:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC/NAME archives

...actually the archives don't exist at all. We should create an archive for this, as we do other boards, rather than just deleting old requests. This will especially help out to a) make sure the request hasn't come up before, and b) if a user is blocked, will help explain the block. Agree, disagree? Patstuart 06:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I was just going to ask about this myself. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Same here; it's disconcerting, to say the least, to engage in a discussion, come back the following day, and just find that the whole thing has disappeared. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. Why don't they just get archived with the other RfCs in the main RfC/User Conduct Archive?--Aervanath 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of Math & Science RFCs

People have been cutting and pasting the top RFCs in math and science, resulting in a bizarre series of "sub-categories" like "Playstation 2" as a subset of "Math and Science" when there's a perfectly good "Technology" category just below. Tidied and sorted, I hope. I'm a little nervous about editing "meta" pages, but I decided to be bold and see if anyone complains. --MattShepherd 13:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: RFC/User Clerks

I have posted a proposal for the creation of a clerk corps to help out at RFC/User at the Village Pump (Proposals); it's currently gathering crickets and dust over there, so hopefully some folks here might be interested in comment. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

An excellent proposal. Note that Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/CltFn never met the two-user certification threshhold, yet still somehow got listed.Proabivouac 10:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No no no bob help us all no no no ... the last thing we need is yet _another_ set of minor chieftans here... If a backlog develops, just use one of the many "hey look at me" forums available. - brenneman 12:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And that's the general response to the concept, which is why I've withdrawn the proposal. I seem to have misread the need for such a thing. I should note yet again that there was absolutely no intention to create a "set of minor chieftains" with this idea, something that I thought I had made abundantly clear in the proposal and the note on the Village Pump, but either way, it's obvious that it wouldn't gain consensus at any point in time anyhow, so. On to something else. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User who already responded to RfC deciding retroactively to certify

Tbeatty decided to retroactively certify the RfC against me in spite of having already written a response that had informed the process. I ask that his certification be voided. --BenBurch 01:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... why should it be? -Amark moo! 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Move archive link to top of page?

Does anyone else think there should be a more prominent link on RfC to the Archive? --Aervanath 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

New notification template

Just a quick note to let you all know there is a new notification template to inform users of discussions about their usernames: Template:UsernameDiscussion (just insert {{UsernameDiscussion}} in their talk page). Regards, Asterion 20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's best to "subst:" the username templates:

{{subst:UsernameConcern|reason for objection}}

{{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}

{{subst:UsernameAllowed}}

One advantage of this is that when that user edits the page to reply, the full text of your message (not just the template tag) will be visible in edit mode, so he can reply point by point if he likes.

Also note that the templates will add the four-tildes signature for you, so you needn't add it yourself. This is explained on each template's page. But this feature only works right when subst'd.

Typing something into that "reason for objection" space tells the user just what you find worrisome about the name, like "I worry that this name may be taken to imply an official role on Misplaced Pages." Ben 22:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for missing this. Great work with the templates. Thanks, --Asterion 12:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving username discussion

Right now, we simply remove stuff from Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names once it has run its course. Should we perhaps archive them somewhere? I'm thinking of a system similar to WP:DRV, in that it is a compressed version of the entire discussion (such as Bought Science). Some of our discussions are short-and-sweet, while others (such as a recent one for User:James Brown) could be relevant to setting precedents when dealing with usernames.

What does everyone else think? EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't see the point. So little discussed there is earth shattering. Most usernames are changed and become history, or are left as they are, so i don't see how useful these archives would be. Especially for the short and sweet ones. Seems like a waste of time and server space. When this page starts making decisions that change the course of wikipedia, maybe. Right now it just isn't needed. pschemp | talk 05:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Disallow. Feature creep, no precedential value. Phooey. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 05:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

*shrug* This is why I asked before up and doing anything. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What might be useful is when someone is blocked, leaving a link to the diff of the closed discussion on their talk page ... that way, if somoene wonders why a username was blocked a month down the line, they can see the discussion. --BigDT 12:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not needed, however, storing a list of the diffs used to removed a name would be nice. But who would do it? HighInBC 16:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I can make a bot that finds any edit that removes an entire section, and adds a link the the last version of that section to an archive page. It would require no change of behavior in humans and will provide an archive that could be a great use in looking at future names. It can even run retroactively and provide an archive of all names past. HighInBC 16:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact I have already downloaded the entire revision history of WP:RFCN, 35 megs. HighInBC 17:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wouldn't archiving the usernames take up a lot of space megabyte-wise? I agree it would help as a reference, I'm just concerned about the space-factor. Acalamari 20:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The information is already being stored in the history, my archive would be a single line for each username with a link to it's already existing location in the history. HighInBC 20:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

True. I hadn' thought og that. Good idea. Acalamari 21:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• This continues a discussion a little up the page; as there, I support archiving. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Ok then, I will write an archive retrieval bot, any edit that removes a whole section will be name after that section and linked to on a special archive page. HighInBC 15:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Once the archive exits, it may be worth the time going through it to find a list of precedents on what is acceptable or not under various headings: e.g. political, religious, illness, insults etc. I'm thinking of something similar to the precedents page at Redirects for Discussion. It might help to ensure discussions stay focused and consistent? WJBscribe 17:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is me manually pasting my programs output. I had to install a diff engine, it will detect any closing where a section heading is removed, and nothing is added: User:HBC archive builderbot/sandbox <- Check it out. HighInBC 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Next thing for me to do is make it detect when multiple names are closed at once, and make the link to the last revision before it was removed. HighInBC 19:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think archiving them is a great idea.Proabivouac 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This place is dead

Some RFCs don't even have a third party; all discussion is via the two parties. --Howard the Duck 15:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

On the article side, I just randomly clicked on RfCs. Of nine that did not lead off into oblivion (i.e. the poster did not follow instructions, making it both more difficult for others to have commented and for me to even find the thing), six had comments from users not previously involved on the talk page. Of the other three, one or perhaps two had reached an amicable conclusion regardless (i.e. anyone coming to comment would find there is no need, and the RfC was probably premature). On the user side, I clicked on seven RfCs older than four days, all but one had outside comment. —Centrx→talk • 19:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What in particular are you thinking of? The username board is pretty much always hopping, though I admit that I haven't checked out many of the other RfC boards... EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I created an archive for WP:RFCN

I created an archive for WP:RFCN at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_names/Archive. I am currently manually pasting the output of my bot there, but once it is approved it will be automatically updated. Every time an edit takes place which removes a heading, that edit will be added to the archive with a list of headers effected. You can remove multiple reports at once, though they will all share the same edit summary. No change in human behavior is needed for this bot to work. HighInBC 23:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC/NAME "Consensus=Allow" notification template

As a followup to Asterion's {{UsernameDiscussion}}, please see {{UsernameAllowed}}, so a user who missed the discussion of his name can be told of its favorable outcome. (The block and block notice would notify him of an unfavorable outcome.) Ben 06:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Architecture RFC subject area

We currently have no specifically defined area to post architecture RFC's. I suggest renaming Media, art and literature to Art, Architecture, Literature and Media and moving Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature and media --Joopercoopers 10:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

biting

Is anybody else tired of stuff like this where an new editor is promlty jumped on to change there username? I see this as biting and am getting very frustrated by it? While some usernames are obvious and blatnat, it seems like there are many editors out there whos sole job it is is to find a problem with usernames? I find this counter-productive personally. Do any other editors who work on this page want to weigh in? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not jumping on someone, that is telling them of a discussion about their name. It does not even say the name is unacceptable, it just says a discussion has begun. HighInBC 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, i provided the wrong diff. That notification is important. it is this diff that concerned me. To to a new editor, that might be enough to scare them off. I guess I try to look at things back when I first started and that might have been enough to make me say screw it. I dont really know what would be better but, I feel that it is a bit harsh to jump on somebody like that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I see, it does bother me when someone tells a person their username is not allowed, when it is not a clear cut case and the WP:RFCN has not finished or even started. The template that politely explains that a discussion is going on is rather new, and will most likely be used more often. I hope so at least. HighInBC 18:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to drop Ryanpostlethwaite (talk · contribs) a friendly reminder about it? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Its ok I get the message RyanPostlethwaite 18:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay! HighInBC 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's also take into account that in one respect Ryan did exactly the right thing, by trying to discuss the issue directly with the user on the user's talk page first, rather than skipping that step to go straight to RFC/NAME. Kudos to Ryan for following WP:U's and WP:RFC/NAME's recommendations in that respect. Now the trick becomes how to phrase that approach in a gentle, friendly, and diplomatic way. We've been depending on each person to accomplish that trick in their own words. Perhaps a semi-boilerplate template, with a space to fill in for the specific concern, would help some of us. But here using the template {{UsernameDiscussion}} isn't appropriate, since that's specifically to notify the user of an RFC/NAME already opened and underway. Let me see what I can do with yet another template, {{UsernameConcern}} -- when that link turns blue, please check it out, and please-please-please suggest any improvements that come to mind. Thanks! Ben 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking. HighInBC 21:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

{{UsernameConcern}} is working. Try it out! So much of the phrasing is a matter of personal style that I encourage people to paraphrase it their own way if they prefer, or even write their own text as if this didn't exist -- but for those of us too harried and/or tired to type long notes or find diplomatic words, it may be helpful. Ben 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, did you type that on a silver keyboard? Very non-confrontational. I like it. HighInBC 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the template, and to be honest it would be exactly the template I would want to use if I ever talked to another user about their user name. Although it may not have been apparent in previous comments regarding usernames, it is definately better not to bite new users RyanPostlethwaite 00:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeating a note added several topics up, it's best to "subst:" the username templates:

{{subst:UsernameConcern|reason for objection}}

{{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}

{{subst:UsernameAllowed}}

Subst'ing lets the auto-signature feature work right, and makes the message text (rather than just the template tag) visible in edit mode so the user can reply point by point.

Filling in the "reason for objection" lets you specify just what the problem is, for instance "I think this name too closely resembles the obscene word 'xxxx' in the 'yyyy' language." Ben 22:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Need family of notification templates?

It seems that the RfC process draws many comments on highly controversial and politically sensitive issues, but doesn't function as well on specialized topics that only concern a small number of editors. There are too few comments to arrive at anything like closure. It is understandable that many editors would prefer not to get involved, but it also seems that some editors don't get the word about an RfC concerning an article or incident of interest.

Would it be wise to put together a family of notification templates that can be placed on article or user talk pages? I have in mind something like the new template about user name controversies. Let me know if there already are such templates, and I'll put links to them at the bottom of the main RfC pages.

This might help the concern expressed at various places on this talk page that many RfCs don't come to closure. --SteveMcCluskey 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I may not have seen all the types of RFC there are or have been, but I think that two major types remaining are article content and user conduct. I can work on templates for these that parallel the three username-topic templates mentioned above.... Ben 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ben, I look forward to seeing what you work up. I know that for user conduct it might be appropriate to have a template for the affected article talk pages as well as for the affected user(s) talk pages. I haven't considered article content RfC's much, but I imagine similar considerations apply. --SteveMcCluskey 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC/Article entries link to the article talk pages (and ideally the specific sections) where the discussions actually take place.

Since the RFC/USER itself should give diffs or section links as evidence, and more may be added during the discussion, I think it would be more practical to just advise the user of the RFC, with links to the WP:RFC/USER entries list and the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/USERNAME discussion. The evidence itself shouldn't have to be repeated in this notification. Let's make the bad news clear and polite, but succinct.

That said, please check out the new templates as their links turn blue:

{{subst:ArticleConcern|article name|nature of concern}}

{{subst:ArticleDiscussion|article name}}

{{subst:ArticleResult|article name|outcome of RFC}}

{{subst:ConductConcern|nature of concern}}

{{subst:ConductDiscussion}}

{{subst:ConductResult|outcome of RFC}}

Please consider the original versions to be "first drafts", since I might not have thought to provide all the information needed, or optional parameters to include other info that may only sometimes be required. I expect these will need revision, and I would cheerfully welcome suggestions or helpful edits. Thanks! Ben 04:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

They're all up now, and fully functional, as far as my poor tired brain can determine. Please check them out and give me feedback, or make whatever fixes or tweaks seem appropriate. But do please remember to "subst:" them and include any required parameters (like article names), or they can't work right. Thanks! Ben 08:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Should a predicted conflict be listed here?

I'd like to have some community input for at Talk:Temple (Latter Day Saints)#Legality issues, but since there's not an active conflict at the moment, I'm not sure if RfC is the best place to list my request. Since the issue described there is almost certain to come up at some point, I thought it may be wise to have some sort of precedent set. Should it go here or elsewhere? Tijuana Brass 01:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nationalist

As this user has been editting for awhile, I'm not certain that a username RfC is appropriate, but I forward his contributions as an example of one principle I've been advocating: partisan usernames nearly invariably signify partisan intent. By allowing them to register, we mislead them into believing that it is acceptable to view Misplaced Pages as a battleground.Proabivouac 01:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

But, unless a nation is specified, how is this partisan? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Slippery slope. "Nationalist" isn't exactly a charged term. Flakeloaf 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You could bring it up at WP:RFCN, but I am almost sure it would be allowed, I don't see how it can be partisan if it does not mention a nation. HighInBC 18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that non-neutral usernames usually wind up disallowed, at the end of the discussion -- the question, then, would be whether a particular name displays an inherent bias. Example, "sucker" might be allowed, but "Foo is a sucker," probably not. (well, "sucker" might not be allowed anyway, I dunno, but it's the first example coming to mind... throw poor Luna a bone?)– Luna Santin (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions

I've moved that section where more applicable (WT:U#Countries et al) NikoSilver 22:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)