Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:04, 15 June 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–Dec 2006

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)

If you would read the rules, and RfC that stands for two days with no certification is to be deleted. Just procedure. I'll also warn you one last time not to make personal attacks. --InShaneee 07:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are the personal attacks? I'll ask you one more time to simply say why you applied the block under question, and how that related to WP:BP. If you refuse to justify your actions, you're a terrible administrator. Worldtraveller 11:22, 17 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)

Khukri of the user-warnings project had suggested:"Just my tuppence worth but maybe trying to group them with the prefix rfc, and all the templates titles should be in lowerecase."   Okay. The long forms now also have lowercased shortcuts. Since the longstanding {{UsernameBlocked}} already had shortcut {{unb}}, I gave the others similar shortcuts (as close as I could get, since {{ucr}} and {{unc}} were already taken), and then also rfc-prefix forms with just three letters after the dash:

(edit view)

RFC-related templates and shortcuts:

All these templates (except {{UsernameBlocked}}) will automatically add your signature, unless you add the optional parameter sig=n.

This template should always be substituted (i.e., use {{subst:Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment}}).

That should save a bit of typing time. -- Ben 08:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got no problem with using these for the simple "this rfc has closed notifications" (but they're only a sentence anyway so why have a template). Theres a worrying parallel here with civility templates and other such things - when used with established users, this impersonal lazy approach causes more problems than it solves - I think the same is true here. We've got people involved in content disputes or concerns over their conduct - often these people will be established users and the issues will be complex a require some diplomacy - is dropping these templates on there talk pages going to help matters? A more carefully crafted and pesonalised message that refers perhaps to the specific issues is what we owe wikipedians like this - it takes longer but its a better approach in my opinion. --Joopercoopers 12:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I've said over and over that using these templates is optional, not mandatory, and that people are encouraged to write their own original text, though welcome to paraphrase from these templates if that helps. Note in #biting above, the problem has been that some people have trouble finding the diplomatic words to make what is essentially a complaint come across in a friendly, non-confrontational, and soothing manner -- especially to newcomers, who don't know how things work around here and who therefore need extra explanation and a very gentle approach. Between old-timers, and especially between long-time colleagues, a short and even terse personal note may suffice... so they don't need any template at all, and are not the "target audience" for these. -- Ben 03:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the effort Ben, but most of the templates miss my central concern. I was asking about a possible family of templates that could be used to notify interested parties who weren't personally involved in a controversy about an RfC concerning activities by a third party or on a page that they habitually edited. Those are the kind of people who could contribute to making the RfC process more effective.

The only template in your group that addresses interested observers is articlediscussion; the similarly named conductdiscussion is aimed at the person whose conduct is being discussed, not at observers who might be able to comment on the effects of his activity. --SteveMcCluskey 22:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but people who are not the subject of a conduct discussion probably don't need either the diplomatic language or the explanation of dispute-resolution options, mentorship, advocacy, etc. A brief note ("There's an RFC on ] at ], if you want to participate. -- ~~~~") will neither hurt their feelings nor deny them information they need to save their accounts, since they're not the ones at risk. I can do a template for that if you like, I just never thought of templating something that short. Is there anything else you'd like it to say? Or any other sort of message you want templated? Please let me know. Thanks! -- Ben 03:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve, here's {{subst:ucn|username}} for you. Enjoy! -- Ben 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Having done some tinkering, I'm actually feeling rather proud of {{ucn}} / {{ConductNotice}}, after all. I built in a bit of functionality that makes it a little more than just a short text-printing macro. When someone's already been the subject of one or more previous RFCs, the new RFC is supposed to have a number appended to the name. RFC#1 may be "John Doe", but after that come "John Doe 2", "John Doe 3", and so forth, which would put the burden on you to look up the current RFC's number and add that to the notice. Originally I made this an optional parameter: {{subst:ucn|John Doe|2}}, etc. But now, as long as the numbering is standard format (not in parentheses or Roman numerals or anything odd like that), and all the RFCs are still around to be counted, this template will look up the number for you and provide the correct link -- so all you have to provide is the username.   <wipes sweat from brow>   -- Ben 04:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Another new template: {{subst:un|username}} is to mention an RFC/NAME discussion to someone other than the named user, for instance to invite the blocking admin to discuss an existing username block. -- Ben 23:11, 25 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)

Archive not working

The automatic archive function seems not to be working since February 21. Is he back? 00:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah theres a bug in it, HighInBC's aware and trying to sort it RyanPostlethwaite 00:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Usernames as companies

We have had a fairly large number of users signing up with companies as their usernames. I just logged out and looked at the sign up page, and from what i saw, i dont see anything prohibitng such names there. I know that there is stuff in WP:UN, but i dont expect a new user to know that. Would it be possible to update the signup screen to let new people know that usernames that are the name of companies may be blocked? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This has become an increasing issue as more and more people realize that they can attempt to use wikipedia for advertising. Probably 50% of the username blocks I do are for companies try to advertise. I think adding that might be a good idea. pschemp | talk 22:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What do we have to do to go about doing that? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This was added: . It might do to make it more explicit at the signup that Misplaced Pages is not a promotional service. —Centrx→talk • 16:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed category: Organizations and businesses

There's a separate category for biographies, and sometimes organizations don't fit very neatly under one of the existing guidelines. I've seen several cases now in which a category like this would be useful. Seraphimblade 01:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's mostly what "Economy and trade" is used for. It might be best to just rename it to "Economy, trade, and business" or something. —Centrx→talk • 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Done: "Economy, trade, and companies". —Centrx→talk • 16:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User name subpage

Our username policy states that on seeing a dubious username that could be misinterpreted or is borderline acceptable, the first stage is to contact the user and ask them if they will change their name. I have spotted a recent spate of usernames being immediately added to WP:RFCN without any attempt to contact the user. Does anyone object if I start removing any submissions to RFCN where no attempt to contact the user has been made? Proto ► 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as it is not blatantly obvious block. I think this is a situation where good judgement is required. But, i dont have a problem with it. it is just like removing aiv reports without proper warnings. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think thats a good idea, if the username isn't a blatant failure of WP:U and hence not blocked on sight, an active effort should be made to contact the user to ask about their username, or at least notifying them of the RFCN RyanPostlethwaite 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There are 3 kinds of user names:

1. Username is perfectly acceptable. Action to take based on name: None.
2. Username is completely and clearly unacceptable (ie, contains trolling, foul language, hate speech, obvious impersonation). Action to take: Block.
3. Username is unacceptable for less serious reasons (ie, resembles another user's name, too long, a company has the word Misplaced Pages or bot). Action to take: Ask the user to change their name. If no response: Then (and only then) submit to WP:RFC/N.

If you don't bother to contact the user whose future editing under that name is in the balance, you're exhibiting a rank ignorance of assume good faith. Proto ► 16:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I've been removing quite a few names from AIV that seemed borderline (and some of them I couldn't even figure why they were unacceptable at all). The only ones I've been blocking are obvious harassment (XEditorIsAMoron), profanity/racial slurs in the name, etc. A lot of editors probably pick "WikipediaEditor321" or something in perfectly good faith, so those should be dealt with quite a bit more gently. Seraphimblade 01:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted a loooong story and misfiled science RfC

Just FYI: there was a six-paragraph story about how two users weren't getting along, misfiled under "Science" so that "Creationism" became subject 5.1 and all other subjects a subset about this. I pared it down to core: two people are arguing about falsifiability; I also put it in the right category (biology). --MattShepherd 18:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is any username with "hate" in it supposed to go to AIV?

Ihatehighschoolmusical (talk · contribs) for example. Is using the word hate worthy of going straight to AIV? I want to know for future reference. Leebo 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would only say usernames with the word hate in should go to AIV if they offend anyone, for instance User:IhateJews would be a clear infringement, the one you quoted up there isn't going to offend anyone, so shouldn't be reported. Not all usernames with hate in will be disallowed, it depends on the context RyanPostlethwaite 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The user name policy says that names implying hate are inappropriate, but it doesn't specify what the hate has to be directed towards. I suppose if this user started trolling the High School Musical page, it would be different. Leebo 21:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh. Someone reported it to AIV and it has been indefinitely blocked. Leebo 03:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidents.

This warning appeared on my talk page:

Hi Acalmari. Please read WP:U. In future, any entires made to WP:RFCN reporting user names where the guidelines are not followed will be removed. You made no attempt to ask the user to change his name, instead going straight to RFC. This is not fair to the user, please don't do it again. Neil (not Proto ►) 16:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded with I did tell the user. I was told to use the tags. What guideline am I not following now?

Why is it you only commented on Wwe raw smackdown fans and not any of the others? Also, why does everyone go on about me for not following policy, when Betacommand, who is an administrator, blocked a load of users the other week for having inflammmatory names, when in fact their names were fine. Why was nothing done about Betacommand? He didn't even inform the users: he just blocked them. I'm taking this to the RFC/U talk page.

Anyway, I did give Wwe raw smackdown fans the required tags. I have no idea why Neil is saying that I didn't. I have made sure that I've given the necessary tags to users (though I have accidentally missed one, I will admit). Also, I thought the point of RFC/U was to comment on a users name, not to block it outright.

You see, I thought it was necessary to go to RFC/U first if you're unsure about a username. What's the point in asking a user to change their name if their name might be okay? I thought that RFC/U was to clear issues like that up; so users at least got a chance to explain their names, and get to keep them. Acalamari 16:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• This has been resolved: there is no reason to respond to this message. Acalamari 19:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

user:Maaparty

Maaparty (talk · contribs) uses the signature --God and religion are distinct. I've asked him to change it (and I'm about to block him for an unrelated offence), but if he refuses to change, can he be blocked under the User-name policy, or is there some other route? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Complaints against User:Vintagekits

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Kittybrewster/VK_rfc

Technical Problems surrounding another language

On an article I'm watching, I am sure there was a content dispute, and the dispute is seemingly one that stem from the Japanese Misplaced Pages, and most of the participants, me excluded, were disputing in Japanese, a language that I don't know. I want to start a RfC, and I know their general opinion, but I doubt I can do the statement of editors part in the sample RfC, since they are disputing with Japanese... What should I do? --Samuel Curtis-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 12:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

RfCs should not be conducted in Japanese, for that very reason. If you must start an RfC, get someone to translate or something. -Amarkov moo! 14:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Logging RfCs in article talk - template suggestion

Hi. I was thinking that it might be nice to log past article content RfCs on the article talk page, perhaps with a nice template. That would act as a reminder that a specific issue had already been taken to the community and of any consensus that was reached. This is not to forestall further discussion or a change of consensus, simply to alert the lone editor looking to repeat something that has already been discussed and to gently dissuade that editor from doing so without reopening a discussion and to make it easier for editors that undo such a non-consensus and repeated change to alert the lone editor that s/he needs to hold off and reopen discussion before making, and perhaps edit-warring over, the change. Comments, please. --Justanother 14:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. It wouldn't be hard to create a template based the other ones. Though, it would probably be good to do this for any content issue, the problem is it is so difficult to keep track of every issue discussed on a talk page and topic-indexed archives are extremely time-consuming to create and maintain. Though, RfCs would be the more contentious issues that shouldn't be repeatedly hashed out and they would be a subset, of those issues that someone thought was major enough to bring in outside opinions. —Centrx→talk • 16:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

BDORT

The guidance at the top of the page says "do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page", so I moved the discussion below from the project page to this talk page. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• BDORT. This article was recently Arbitrated and I was banned, after I initiated the arbitration, after many months of battling to get a NPOV article and get the defamatory misleading and POV/OR statements removed, after I called two rounds of Mediation. I am officially representing the subject, Dr Omura, that is, I have his permission and support to do so. The sole editor that remains, Crum375, who is recently made an Admin, spent many months defending a version that contained blatant BLP defamatory statements about the subject that had to be Admin deleted at my request after his refusal to cooperate . Before this happened real world harm was done to the subject by these statements that the subject had to defend in real life and state to be false. He was so disturbed by them that he made a public statement. Some further background is here. A previous mediator Che, expressed strong concerns over Crum375's good faith in this matter and described Crum375 as "continually resistant to mediation". Crum375 has written the article now in what I think is easily seen as a subtle but very POV/OR way which I will describe and list main points succinctly if anyone will contact me re this on my talk page. It needs some truly neutral editors. Please note: the fact that I am considered a 'single issue editor' has been used in an attempt to, but does not change the facts, as I relate them here one bit. Thank you.Richardmalter 11:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• User:Richardmalter has taken this case to ArbCom, with essentially the same arguments, and lost. ArbCom unanimously ruled that he, along with his sock/meatpuppets, are to be indef-banned from all BDORT related pages. His bringing a closed case that was ruled upon just last month by ArbCom to this forum is inappropriate, IMO. Crum375 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Admin, SlimVirgin, noted the point that Arbcom ruled on 'behaviour', not content. Many professional people related to this entry attempted to stop the defamation - until it was finally remedied after much pressure - this is the 'behavior' the ArbCom ruled about. The content issues I mention above are not addressed at all. These content issues need to be addressed urgently. (As I have also noted repeatedly, despite what the approximate IP lookups found - I never used sockpuppets).Richardmalter 01:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• ArbCom ruled that you and your sock/meatpuppets edited BDORT "disruptively" and in an "aggressive, biased manner". They also noted that you are a single purpose account, practicing BDORT on patients. They therefore banned all of you from the BDORT related pages. As of now, the BDORT entry is well sourced, neutrally presented, and has even been modified to focus on the BDORT procedure, not its inventor, so as to eliminate WP:BLP-related issues. Any neutral editor is more than welcome to help improve it, of course, but you and your puppets may not participate on those pages, per the ArbCom ruling. Crum375 02:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Arbcom did rule this. However, that is not the whole story: they did not mention the fact that the version/article that was as they interpreted "aggressively" edited as well as many previous versions contained blatant BLP breaches and fictions (that is also a fact that you repeatedly pro-actively supported) that caused real world harm to a living person - that was Admin deleted as such at my request, and as such was determinedly edited by people trying to stop misrepresentation and harm in the real world. No one in WP has apologized which is of course the decent thing to do. This is indicative as well. As I have noted, you are being uncivil by suggesting I am lying when saying I never used sockpuppetry when I say I never did. Please be civil. IP searches can often give statistical, approximate information, not exact information. In this case it missed. Your beliefs don't change these facts and are merely wishful guesses.Richardmalter 04:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Your claims for NPOV and neutrality for the current version were also made by you to many previous versions - that had to have changes in them forced by Admins/mediators despite your and another editor's resistance to them, in order to remove uncited, inaccurate, OR, and BLP serious problems. This is currently a repeat situation - there are serious content issues. The history shows that you were greatly mistaken in the past re the OKness of the article. Real world harm was done as a result. Richardmalter 05:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have also contacted the WP Foundation directly in all this regard in detail. However, immediate intervention in the current version is necesaary.Richardmalter 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• ArbCom reviewed the entire case, including all your above complaints, and their only findings regarding any policy violation were related to disruptive, aggressive and biased editing by you and your sock/meatpuppets. After their unanimous decision banning you all from all related entries, we decided to further improve the BDORT entry by refocusing it on BDORT the procedure and not its inventor, to eliminate any possible BLP concern. As I noted above, although the entry is already in very good shape, any neutral editor is more than welcome to try to improve it even further. Crum375 11:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Richard, at this point it would be best to directly e-mail the Foundation. The volunteers who handle these complaints are generally very conscientious. Not only is your argument with Crum here counterproductive, but any users who made edits at your behest would run the risk of being banned from the article as well, for acting as the proxy of a banned user. I don't think any conclusion can be drawn one way or another from ArbCom's failure to act on the content of the article because ArbCom almost never rules on content. Thatcher131 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Procedural question

I am currently involved in an RFC on including a website as an external link (see Talk:Newton_Falls,_Ohio#Request_for_Comment). The comments (five editors so far) have all agreed the website is not valid for inclusion, but the editor who disputes this remains adamant that the link is valid for inclusion. Looking at the instructions, #4 says "After all parties agree the issue has been resolved, strike it from the listing.". My question is what happens if the parties still don't agree? It does not appear all parties will ever agree on this question, so if the issue is unresolved I am not sure what to do next. Any direction or advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This instruction is just so people don't remove active, unresolved disputes (e.g. if someone involved in the dispute is cleverly happy about the way the discussion is going and wants to close off all outside comment that might help the minority). Discouraging that is more important than worrying about striking an item where it is usually obvious to someone responding if it is a closed resolved issue anyway. This particular dispute looks pretty closed and clear-cut at that, so you can strike it if you want. —Centrx→talk • 03:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much - the RFC was archived by another user today, so I will strike. Ruhrfisch 04:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Confused now

We're thinking about starting an RFC process on Wikibooks, and I was hoping to point to this page as an example of "how to do it well", but it's really too much on the eyes now, and there doesn't seem to be a good template for user conduct RFCs any more. I guess the last time I was involved with Wikipedian RFCs was 6 months+ ago (I had at one point made a commitment to try to render an opinion on as many as I could), but got involved in other things, so haven't really looked around for a while.

It's all become very bureaucratic and scary now... not the best way to encourage people to comment (and this is supposed to be a request for comments, right?), and I wish you guys could go back to the simple. It wasn't broke, and in fixing it, you've ruined it. I don't know what else to say... I will not be watching this page, so if I need to clarify something, please say so on my talk. --SB_Johnny||_books 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Community enforceable mediation

People who are interested in user conduct WP:RFC may wish to consider a new alternative in dispute resolution that can provide arbitration-like remedies without going through full arbitration. This is an experimental program. Durova 15:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference Desk

I think I would like people to comment on the Reference Desk Talk Page, but I don't see how can I ask for this, since the Reference Desk is neither a userpage nor an article (and what it is is the very thing we don't seem to know). A.Z. 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been 6 days now and I still do not know how to request comments on the Reference Desk. A.Z. 16:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A.Z., what exactly about that talk page do you want people to comment on? --Justanother 16:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Alerting users to an RFC?

Is there a proper method to alert involved users to a user-conduct RFC? Is it okay to post a notice on the talk page(s) where the dispute(s) has taken place, or should one instead post on user talkpages? It'd be nice to have official advice on this here. Simões (/_contribs) 01:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:CANVAS. Posting on public venues, i.e. article or project talk pages is best. Posting on user talk pages should be done minimally and preferably neutrally to both sides of any dispute. Tyrenius 02:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

However, if there is a user RfC where a specific user is commented on, either as the subject or as someone involved, that's probably one of the cases where you should notify on user talk, since people have a right to know if they're being commented on. -Amarkov moo! 03:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to give RFCs teeth

This would apply mostly to user conduct RFCs, I guess, but could be adapted to other versions, such as article.

One perennial complaint against the current RFC format/procedure is that it lacks teeth. There can be overwhelming consensus that Person X has done something wrong, a thousand users all sign a thousand outside views to that effect - and yet nothing gets done until things get significantly worse and/or the whole mess gets sent up to the ArbCom. Essentially, there is no resolution to RFCs: hence they tend to drag on forever, never get closed, clog up the RFC user conduct page, and nothing gets done. The whole thing can be a bit of a waste of words.

Given the current expansion in community bans and community sanctions of all sorts - recently, the community has topic-banned an editor from one set of articles, a decision later endorsed and affirmed by ArbCom, and just now banned another editor from a project he was disrupting, I think that a blend of these community sanctions with RfCs might work.

It would surely be possible to amend the RfC format so as to include a closing discussion for all concerned relating to possible compromises in hard-to-call cases, and what those bringing the RFC would consider an acceptable outcome that would kill off the problems raised with Person X's conduct. Once that is done, and some ideas thrashed out - such as limited topic/page bans, revert paroles, article probation, personal attack/civility paroles, etc - that discussion switches over to the community sanctions noticeboard. If the community endorses the suggested remedies, all well and good: if not, and there is no consensus, there remains the option of kicking it all upstairs for the Arbitrators to think about.

Doubtless there are some problems with this, but I think that the basic idea - of giving RFCs teeth by bringing potential community sanctions into play - is a good one. Thoughts? Moreschi 14:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea to me, I definitely support it (for what it's worth). RJASE1 14:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Would we rename it to "Requests for decisions"? _InBC 14:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to. The main point of RFCs would still be the comments: this extra addition would not be required. It doesn't have to be used unless people actually want to. Quite apart from anything else, several RFCs - Essjay's springs to mind here - were essentially requests for decisions anyway. Moreschi 14:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Concern: The current structure is set up around requesting comment. "I would like the community to express an opinion on the following events" is the form the conversation takes. I'm concerned that the suggested change, while useful sounding at first glance, might result in a chilling effect on RfCs (which suddenly become much more serious) and might, in effect, reduce the effectiveness of the process in gathering consensus. If people asplode or do objectionable things, it's rare that an RfC is required to club them into submission. Usually, it's the sanity check that gets the person to realize that the person asking them to knock something off isn't crazy, and it's only when the 'target' digs their feet in against the community that anything like arbcom ever happens. Usually misdeeds are clearly actionable already. With that in mind, I'm also concerned that this change would alter our current situation to one where ten wolves and a sheep vote on what to eat for dinner. To summarize:

1. If RfCs start to have "action items", then people may be less likely to use them.
2. It may make it easier for a mob to take someone apart, because "clearly, consensus has been reached that UserX is the devil", or a similar situation.

Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Response: I'm not entirely sure concern 1 is altogether justified. Usually when RfCs are filed Editor X is heartily sick of Editor Y after 6 months of disruption and wants something to be done, and is usually quite disappointed when they twig that nothing is. All their elaborate typing and presentation of evidence quite often just gets repeated at RFAR.

Re concern 2: while I know from my failed RFA that having the wolves vote on The Lamb of Misplaced Pages is not an altogether pleasant experience, that is why I have built in this safeguard of consensus at WP:CN, which is usually fairly rational and will throw out anything especially grotesque. Nothing can be enforced without broad community consent, which is why a "10 wolves + one sheep situation" shouldn't occur. Not to be reductive, but if broad community consensus is that User X is the devil, then usually User X is. That's the whole philosophy behind community bans, after all. Hopefully, though, this should not be about branding devils: this is about getting enforced/able sanctions into place with community consent that will end problems raised at RFCs. Moreschi 15:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sure this sort of thing has been discussed many times before. Don't like the idea much myself since the real idea here is to get people to get a range of input from the community for the benefit all parties concerned, enabling self improvement possibly from all sides, either through someone toning down/altering some behaviour and/or the other side being a little less sensitive/understanding of the general community view. The ability to resolve disputes with broad community input and without the threat is important. Starting such a discussion with an explicitly (or implicit) proposed remedy will tend to force the discussion to if that remedy is appropriate or not, rather than drawing out the bigger picture of all those involved. I can't see how the current format would support a sanctions based approach, who interprets the debate and determines if there is a sanction to be given out. If the proposed sanction appears to harsh do we then go around the same route again proposing something less harsh or could the closer determine something less than.
  
• The community can also be very reactive, issues are huge one second and forgotten the next. Witch hunts could be a result of such a basis. Realistically if someone's behaviour is so poor you could get a good consensus here for some sort of sanctions, a WP:RFAR should be a no-brainer anyway. I have to question if this wouldn't be used by those who know that arbcom are unlikely to act or may also scrutinise their own behaviour as a way of harassing other editors. --pgk 15:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see how this could have been discussed much before: the whole area of community sanctions is very new turf and is still expanding and developing. I suppose the real issue with RFAR - why people who have nothing to hide avoid it - is that it's so darn slow. Months of water torture is not a pleasant experience: I know, I've been there.
  • The major safeguard with this is that anything proposed or agreed upon by the majority at the RFC would have to be endorsed by the entire community at WP:CN. I suppose if two editors agreed a mutual civility parole or something like that that wouldn't need ratification as it's just between them, but that doesn't happen that often. The decisions of the community are usually fairly rational and, for that matter, consensus of the community is the bedrock on which everything at Misplaced Pages is built. If we can't trust community consensus to be applied to RFC...well, we've rather lost our reason for being. To the question: "who interprets the debate and determines if there is a sanction to be given out" the answer is "The usual. Everyone. Us." If there is a problem with the conduct of one of those bringing the RFC, there's nothing to stop the whole process being reversed, or someone uninvolved looking at it. Moreschi 15:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It certainly has been discussed before, I'll try and find some references. As to the speed of arbcom, for critical issues arbcom can deal with things quite quickly, but generally I'd rather see slow but measured responses than swift and misguided action.
    • Maybe my point wasn't entirely clear. If you go in assuming a consequence the focus and outcome of the debate are jarred by that. In the current setup with multiple outside views, some with considerable overlap not necessarily all positive or all negative to one or more of the participants. The who decides question is far more complex. Reading consensus into such a situation where one person may have endorsed multiple overlapping (even slightly contradictory) statements is more involved. If you really want to go down this route It would seem better to keep RFC exactly as it is, then after a reasonable time those involved (all "sides") haven't modified there own behaviour, then instigate a further discussion at WP:CN. Even that I'm still not convinced that this won't have it's problems of witch hunts, aggresive sanctions on "social aspects" rather than building the encyclopedia etc. Consider the case of someone like Carnildo with OrphanBot there are a lot of the community who would happily give out sanctions for that (image copyright issues = drama, for reason). --pgk 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• It's not a bad idea in principle, but we need to implement it in some way that prevents abuse by axe-grinders and moral panic - and I'm not at all sure that's possible. If we don't, it won't be long before people turn this into WP:RFDA. >Radiant< 15:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a sec, there's some good points here. Just writing up replies. Thanks to all for the feedback. Cheers, Moreschi 15:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully community consensus at WP:CN would be sufficient to prevent axe-grinders: that would be needed if any suggested sanction is to be ratified. As regards moral panics...appeals to the ArbCom are always possible, ditto Jimbo. Incidentally, compromised accounts apart no one - as far as I know - has ever been desysopped per community consensus, and that should not change now. Moreschi 15:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better if an RFC refers a case to WP:CN, instead of duplicating the process of CN. It is a request for comments, not a place to make sanctions. _InBC 15:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is what I was proposing. Discuss potential sanctions - what form, etc - at RFC maybe, but they must be discussed by the community at CN for them to be ratified. Moreschi 15:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always figured RfCs can be a useful way to gauge a general consensus regarding a controversial issue of the sort where threaded discussion hasn't necessarily been successful. It also enables you to go "on the record" about a particular problem or issue, and see what a number of people think about it. Being able to go to CN and say "We tried an RfC, and generally agreed Foo has been disruptive and needs to calm down, but Foo has completely ignored this and hasn't changed at all" might save some trouble. I frequently hear people complain that RfCs don't accomplish anything -- maybe I'm missing the point, and they're not entirely supposed to, but if they are, this seems like it. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Given the increasing flexibility of community sanctions options at WP:CN and the general swiftness of decisions there, along with the alternative WP:CEM option, it would be redundant to incorporate sanctions directly into WP:RFC. The problem with that idea has always been its decentralization: only the people who already know about a problem are likely to respond to user conduct complaints so that becomes highly gameable for wikilawyering attempts to railroad an unpopular editor. The site has a central location now where uninvolved people take a look after RFC closes. So I don't see how this proposal fills any gap and the existing remedy venues are better. Durova 19:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Chairboy hit the nail on the head. A user that is the subject of an RFC can either listen to the comments or ignore them. A user violating policies can be blocked, period. The relation between the two is that if a user has been through an RFC in which problematic behavior was agreed to, they probably deserve less slack if they continue the same policy-violating problematic behavior in the future. As it stands RFC is a successful method of dispute resolution: adding sanctions that will be officially ruled on will turn RFC into a form of mob justice. Mangojuice 17:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the assertion that "RFC is a succesful method". RFCs tend to either turn into a back-and-forth flamefest between the two (or more) parties into the dispute, or tend to be pretty much ignored by their subject who remains convinced he isn't doing anything wrong, or tend to become polarized by friends or fans of the subject who know WP is better off with him so therefore he may not be sanctioned or censured in any way whatsoever. >Radiant< 09:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• As a prime example of what Radiant is talking about, we have the current RfC on QuackGuru, which has been open for over ten days. The editor is clearly ignoring the RfC, having received notice of it and requests to comment-- which he subsequently deleted, continuing to make edits in the same problematic fashion. There's the sticky bit: effectively, if tendentious individuals simply ignore Wikipedians' opinions or consensus, on matters of behaviour or policy, they can game the system for quite a while, until (and if) the issue goes to ArbCom; and even after that, they can always recreate a persona, and start all over again. RfC only "works" if all parties actually care about Misplaced Pages, or their participation as part of it. It's not going to work for someone who arrives with a particular agenda outside improving the encyclopaedia. --Leflyman 06:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This honestly sounds like most discussions at WP:AN/I. Or really, like a community version of WP:RfAr. And how is taking something to the WP:CN going to do anything but essentially start a new RfC at that page? : ) - jc37 15:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about deletion

Was Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/NE2 supposed to be deleted a while ago? Until a few hours ago, it only had one certifier. --NE2 07:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC on myself?

I want to be commented on so I can see what changes to my editing style and conduct, if any, I should make. Is RfC the proper method for that?

RogueNinja_talk 15:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor review may be better. Moreschi 15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No it's probably not, an RfC is generally only if other editors believe you've behaved in a poor manor, it's a form of dispute resolution. Might I suggest Misplaced Pages:Editor Review? Ryan Postlethwaite 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I knew I saw what I wanted somewhere before, but I could not remember the name. Thanks! RogueNinja_talk 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Misplaced Pages talk:Problem users should be histmerged into these archives, in my opinion. Misplaced Pages:Problem users was redirected to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment a while back. YechielMan 01:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The proper place to merge is the page where it was moved to, Misplaced Pages talk:Conflicts between users. RFC was a new page and is not associated with that talk archive. —Centrx→talk • 16:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 16:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Move from candidate to approved?

I notice the MONGO RfC remains a "candidate". Is this an oversight? Who moves a page from candidate status to approved status once the two-person threshold has been reached? --Thomas Basboll 12:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how User:Tyrenius did anything to resolve the dispute between myself and you...Tyrenius and myself had a prior disagreement...you knew this and went to him directly when you and I had a dispute, Tyrenius did not have a dispute regarding the same subject matter with me as you do and had not once made an atempt to resolve this dispute with me because we had no dispute in relation to the one you and I had.--MONGO 18:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not know (nor did Tyrenius, apparently, or he wouldn't have accepted my request). It is of course a technical question, and I am waiting for an adminstrator to decide. That said, I am aware that one possible outcome of this RfC is that I am completely alone (at least in terms of an available dispute resolution process). That, again, will let me know where I stand in relation to WP. So it's all good.--Thomas Basboll 07:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Notification question

When you create one of these what is the standard etiquette for notification? I'd like to notify people who have had the same specific trouble with the user but I don't want to seem like I'm stacking the table. The users in question have had the same exact problem with the user as I have had. Quadzilla99 00:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Certification of RfCs

Following the drama at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4, and the deletion of the RfC for not being certified, is there a case for suggesting that uncertified RfCs that generate large amounts of community input should be moved to an appropriate location to preserve the discussion? I think the uncertified RfC bit was only meant to prevent obviously one-sided RfCs from hanging around, but cases like this are a bit different. Carcharoth 14:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• There might be a case; if they are I would suggest that they are indefinitely protected. --Iamunknown 01:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• One good reason for deleting them is the assumption that an uncertified dispute may contain statements which are simply not true. Untrue, unsubstantiated claims against a living person (a Wikipedian) are flatly in violation of core policy; the fact that they are in community space and not article space in no way reduces the obligation of Misplaced Pages not to publish defamation. Simply put, deleting uncertified RfCs is protection against using RfC as a vehicle for harassment. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes, I realise that. But you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. On other pages where there are libellous claims, you could ask an oversighter to remove those claims. Or just remove them so they only exist in the page history. Carcharoth 09:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is better to err on the side of caution. I see no need to retain uncertified RfCs. I simply fail to find any compelling reason to do so. Dispute resolution, RfA and other venues which increase scrutiny end up raking a lot of muck at times. This makes me believe there is a compelling reason to delete uncertified RfCs, which if left around could be mined for mud to fling in such cases. In essence, keeping invalid RfCs around only serve to feed the trolls. Just my opinion. You're more than welcome to some grains of salt with it. Vassyana 17:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalization of RFC/ECON page

Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs) twice removed a RFC which I sent concerning the use of the expression "New Orthodox Marxists" in the TSSI article. He also removed two other RFCs I wrote -- 1 concerned Pluralism in economics and the other was also about the TSSI article but concerned a different issue. Watchdog07 13:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Lord Hume of Berwick

Please see my summarised page format as at 12.56 p.m. today. It is laid out in correct form with proper and direct references. It has been thrice reverted by User:Christina Kaye who is pushing a false and vague claim on this page and has been disrupting it and other connected pages for some time now with a clearly non-neutral argument which is totally unsupported by any of the great scholars on this subject, right back to William Dugdale. We either have correct articles or we have articles packed with personal opinions and claims. Which is it to be? David Lauder 13:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Where do I list three-letter acronym, disambiguation pages?

I would like to list Talk:ALF (disambiguation), but I can't figure out where. I'm guessing WP:RFC/LANG. Is this correct? —Viriditas | Talk 08:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is about a characterization of one of the articles, such as the television character, list it under the appropriate subject, such as the Society page. If the issue is about the style of disambiguation pages, list it on the Style page, and also mention it on the talk page of the Disambiguation style guide or similar. You can list it at a couple of places if the issue is ambiguous. —Centrx→talk • 02:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What to do when RFC results are disputed?

I opened an RFC for comments regarding the citing of my own material, and material from my magazine, on Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) here . I summarized the RFC comments here , however User:David Lyons objects, and I feel he is misrepresenting the summary. I have some questions regarding policy:

• Isn't the purpose of an RFC to resolve disputes between involved parties? Isn't it misrepresenting the results of an RFC to include the comments of involved parties as results?

Mindful of potential COI issues, I have tried to resolve this issue through proper RFC channels and feel that David Lyons is disrupting the process. I don't think I should be in the absurd situation of having to ask for an RFC on the results of an RFC! I appreciate your comments. Sparkzilla 01:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Compromise Regina Neighbourhoods

I have posted a compromise to the issues in the Talk:Regina Neighbourhoods. It is my hope that this will lead to a solution over the disputed figures and edits. I also hope that this will eliminate future accusations as to my identity and/or relation to other banned users. I would appreciate that you read over the compromise and comment on it. I just want to find a solution, that will satisfy all parties.--207.81.56.49 07:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

This page has been created to serve as RfC for issues of reliability of specific sources.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Where does education fit here?

In which RfC category would you recommend a RfC for an article about education go? The article is Waldorf education, by the way; we'd like some independent comment about what needs to be done to make it fully balanced according to NPOV guidelines (or whether it is already so). Hgilbert 17:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would put it in History or Society or both. —Centrx→talk • 23:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorsement guidelines

Are there instructions anywhere on endorsement etiquette? Forgive me for asking, but this is the first time I've filed a User Confuct RfC, so I'm not entirely clear on procedure, and I've been getting conflicting advice. For example, if I'm one of the editors who has filed and certified an RfC, am I also allowed to endorse the various views that come in? Or should I stay out of it? Ditto with the individual who is being discussed in the RfC... Should they be endorsing views? Or just listening? Thanks, Elonka 17:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As a follow-up on this question, what are people's feelings about whether or not the subject of a User Conduct RfC, should or should not add their own endorsements to the RfC? --Elonka 15:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly false summary

This RfC was closed by mutual agreement, and it was also agreed that it would be archived. The RfC was then de-listed without being archived, so I archived it. KillerChihuahua then edited my summary of this dispute. It previously read:

"No conclusion. Closed per agreement. No agreement reached about harassment charge."

KillerChihuahua changed it to read:

"Unanimous rejection of assertions made, with solitary exception of person bringing Rfc."

KillerChihuahua’s edit summary says:

"Correction. This is ridiculous - about 30 ppl have told you your Rfc is basically nonsense, and you continue the "fight" in archives? Get another hobby, Ferrylodge."

KC's summary is blatantly false, and misleading as well. Neither of the parties who brought this RfC have rejected the assertions initially made. And they are not the only ones who have agreed that at least some of Bishonen's diffs purportedly showing harassment do not actually show harassment. Therefore, I edited KC’s summary merely to say “This summary is disputed.” She then reverted without explanation.

I am tempted to withdraw my consent to close this RfC, and begin arbitration, except that this has already wasted too much of my time. This RfC is archived, so people will always be able to see for themselves what the facts are and whether they have been fairly considered, and that's enough for me. However, I object to KillerChihuahua unilaterally insisting on a blatantly false summary that does not even allow me to register dissent with that blatantly false summary.Ferrylodge 17:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Unjustified deletion

I object to this deletion of material in the previous section. There was nothing uncivil about the deleted material.Ferrylodge 01:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)