Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:37, 3 June 2007

WP:RFC is a part of WP:DR

Requests for comment (RfC) are the open part of the dispute resolution process, by which editors can seek broad input regarding disputes over article content, user conduct, and Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines.

Getting feedback on one's editing isn't supposed to be a dispute, like I said on the page WP:ER is the better option. Anynobody 02:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe everything here in this RfC directly relates to editing. Much of it involves non-editing actions. CLA 03:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you might consider reposting on one of these: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Policies --or-- Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Style issues. Seriously, WP:RFC/U is about user conduct disputes. Anynobody 03:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll consider it. Thank you for the suggestion. CLA 03:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I noticed that you put the RfC in the approved section, that's definitely not supposed to be the way a WP:RFC/U is approved. (An admin is supposed to approve it, which is why there is a pending area.) Anynobody 03:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up, a reviewing admin will probably delete this and cite this wikilink: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Request comment on users. Anynobody 03:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please point to the appropriate page, policy, guideline, etc. that says that only ad admin can approve RFCs? I can't seem to find it. Thanks! --ElKevbo 05:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind ElKevbo, but I moved your comment to keep this page chronologically organized. To address your question, it actually doesn't say it anywhere (and it should) because WP:RFC/Us have to abide by a fairly strict set of rules the first one being (emphasis mine):

Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.

Only admins can delete pages, so when it talks about possibly being deleted in 48 hours if two editors don't attempt to make peace with the subject of the WP:RFC/U it means if the reviewing admin thinks the RFC is not warranted he/she will delete the proposal. Since a regular editor can't take the appropriate step of deleting an non-compliant RFC it's implied they should not be deciding what is/isn't compliant. Anynobody 06:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do mind you moving my comments; please don't do so again. Further, I don't see anything in there that states that an admin must approve an RFC. I refuse to abrogate responsibilities to admins when it's unnecessary. Surely we can find one to delete an unapproved RFC but that's just cleanup work. --ElKevbo 06:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember, an RfC done on yourself doesn't require two involved editors. CLA 06:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't mention a self RFC under the WP:RFC/U requirements. If you don't believe me, you can ask on the talk page for the whole WP:RFC/U board: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment. Anynobody 06:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

PS I just noticed this question there: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment#RfC on myself? Anynobody 06:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

ElKevbo sorry to offend you, it was unintentional. As I said if you don't believe me ask an admin or two by posting on the main talk page or WP:ANI. Anynobody 06:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. I was under attack by another editor elsewhere so I was a bit too eager to snap at someone else. Please accept my apologies for being ill-tempered! --ElKevbo 07:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, we all have bad days. Anynobody 09:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I have moved this RfC to the approved section. There are clear precedents for editors starting RfC about themselves to resolve dispute or perceived criticism of their conduct. For example: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 3. The certification requirement is a safeguard against vexatious RfCs which I think the subject is free to waive. The fact that there has already been a significant level of participation in this RfC demonstrates that it is playing a valid role. It should not be deleted. WjBscribe 07:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the nature of the situation,

That Cla68 inappropriately nominated a biography of a living person (BLP) for deletion, linked to an attack site during the deletion debate and a subsequent request for adminship (RfA), posted comments on Misplaced Pages Review, re-added deleted material, supported the actions of banned user WordBomb, and lives in the same state as WordBomb.

Could you please explain why this should not be moved to WP:ER? If Cla68 was just asking about the propriety of nominated a biography of a living person (BLP) for deletion I could see where it would be applicable to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Policies. The editor is asking about their editing behavior, (WP:BLP, WP:EL, WP:3RR, etc.) There are reasons why WP:ER exists and this is one of them, Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment#RfC on myself?. The idea of both pages is the same, providing feedback on editor behavior... WP:RFC/U is for those who aren't open to it as part of dispute resolution and editor review is for those who do want feedback. Later when Cla68 refers to their WP:RFC/U editors who know better are going to assume a negative connotation. Think of it as the difference between college and prison (college being the er and prison being the rfc).

• "During my recent prison term I learned about my weaknesses..."

-- compared to --

• "During my last few semesters at college I learned about my weaknesses..."

It's up to you (you being anyone interested) to correct this if you want. Misplaced Pages will go on either way, it's just that it sounds like a comedy of errors in the making and I wanted to see if I could prevent it. (P.S. Just look at the other active WP:RFC/Us and WP:ERs to get an idea what I mean.) Anynobody 10:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I'm not sure why you think WP:ER would be a better venue. Cla68 does not want his skills as an editor reviewed. As I understand it, he wishes to address the opinions of his conduct that lead to the failure of his RfA. I think you mischaracterise the difference between the 2 forums and in any event I believe it is appropriate for Cla68 to choose the one his thinks fits. Given the response to this RfC so far, it appears that it is felt to be an appropriate venue. WjBscribe 12:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside question

I have now gained some overview as to what has happened. I still don't know why. Reading the articles on Gary Weiss and Patrick M. Byrne didn't really help, either, since the background of the controversy isn't really explained. Could anyone let me in on the details of that? I believe it's important - for myself at least - to be able to judge the whole situation accurately. —AldeBaer 10:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

At least some of the alleged "facts" in the situation can only be found on the banned "Attack Sites", and anybody who even tries to bring them up around here is likely to get banned too... kind of squelches any attempt to get to the bottom of the whole thing. I still haven't got a clue what's really going on, but there does seem to be a big, tight bundle of personages, on and off wiki, that are enmeshed in a tangled web of connections of some sort. Personally, I don't have any desire to "out" anybody's real-life identity, or facilitate real-world harrassment, or anything like that... but any attempt to determine if conflicts of interest exist is bound to step on somebody's toes and be perceived as "trolling" or "stalking" or some such thing. It's a mess. A few users seem to have set themselves up as "untouchables" on Misplaced Pages. *Dan T.* 15:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Procedure

In case there's still doubt about this, administrator approval is not required in any fashion for a self-RfC; by convention a self-RfC meets the two-person threshold automatically and can be listed. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving threaded response from the project page

Response to SlimVirgin summary

Response by Cla68

• I appreciate your response, SlimVirgin, since you appeared to have the most concerns raised in my RfA about my conduct in this dispute. I'll respond to the points you made below:
  • Restored WordBomb's warning to Matanmoreland's talk page: At that time, I thought the policy was that users couldn't delete warnings from their talk page and I also didn't know the warning was from a banned user. Once I knew better I didn't restore it again.
  • AfD of Weiss article: I've already explained why I did that above and explained that I realize now that I should have taken a different approach to dealing with what I believed to be COI with the article.
  • Lack of references in Weiss article: Perhaps I don't understand the policy, but, I've always been under the impression that uncited text in any article is subject to deletion, because it's unverifiable, especially in BLP. If I'm wrong on that point, then I'm wrong, and I stand corrected.
  • Repeating WordBomb's "High Administrator" comment: I'll repeat it again, I was being facetious with that comment.
  • Restored WordBomb's "outing" comments: I truly didn't know that you couldn't restore those types of comments. Although I had been editing on Misplaced Pages for about 10 months, I had concentrated on writing articles and nominating them for Featured Article (FA) (I think I had successfully nominated about nine articles for FA at that point) and hadn't been involved much in policy or administrative issues. As I've pointed out myself, I made some mistakes in the Weiss affair and have learned some lessons the very hard way. Restoring "outing" comments is something that I haven't done since then.
  • Restored Morkai's comment: I didn't know that Morkadi's comments were from a banned user. I also didn't know why they were deleted. After I restored them then I was told why they were deleted and I didn't restore them again.
  • Linked to attack site during my RfA: Yes, I linked to that site during the RfA. I thought that we needed to debate as to whether it was an attack site or not, and the only way to do that is to look at it. I understand that there appears to be some custom in the community to avoid linking to certain websites, but it also appears that there isn't a firm policy on the issue. Hopefully, one will be forthcoming soon.
  • Responses to this RfC have been solicited on a website that WordBomb frequents soliciting input to this RfC: I haven't solicited anyone off Misplaced Pages to participate in this discussion and I don't know what SlimVirgin is talking about. I would like SlimVirgin to email the link to me, even though she only offered to email it to admins.

Again, I appreciate SlimVirgin's response to this RfC and I hope that full discussion of the dispute will lead to putting it behind all of us so we can move forward. CLA 23:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)