Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 79.131.173.171 (talk) at 15:38, 10 November 2008 (→Closures by Wizardman). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WT:RFC

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 Archive 7: Jan 2007–Jun 2007 Archive 8: July 2007–Dec 2007 Archive 9: Jan 2008-May 2008

Archives of WP:RFC

The most recent archive with a link at the top of this page is number 7. It only goes to mid 2007. Where are the more recent archives?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed (finally). No one is apparently doing this task anymore. I've done archives 8 and started 9. Personally, I think this page would benefit from letting the archives be handled by a bot since no one is doing it. Thoughts? Objections? -- ] (] · ]) 02:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Srbosjek article

Srbosjek see talkpage

I've been waiting for a response on some issues for few months now.Anyone?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

China works for Germany since 1644

Chinese Paramilitary Police Exchange.

France, England & America are exchanging Chinese Paramilitary Police who are highly trained in martial arts to attack Free-Tibet protestors in Europe, England & America.

But Germany set up funds for Free-Tibet.

So Germany is earning money from the protests in Tibet, but the Bavarian Illuminati is stolen from Buddhism.

German Aristocracy is the Corrupt World Government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phalanxpursos (talk • contribs) 15:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How?

I requests for comment, at Talk:Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II The Sith Lords, but wasn't being anything. May I fault something. --Beyond silence 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Limits of Template Procedure

I have two redundant categories; I don't give a WP:FUCK either way, but I expect strong resistance if I would try to CFD either one of them. Since there is no Misplaced Pages:Categories for making up you mind I thought an RFC seems to be the right place to talk matters through with all interested parties. However, the RFC procedure asks me to pick one place to insert the template.

Is there a way to get an RFC started without taking sides? Yes, it's a small thing, but I would not like to give up my neutrality on technical issues.

Is there a better place to have the discussion? --Yooden ☮

Forgot something: A simple WP:Merge (which I'm not even sure would work on categories) is not an option because, depending on the interpretation picked, there is a third option to make one a subcat of the other. --Yooden ☮

Manual RFC list addition option when bot goes AWOL?

Seems the bot is unreliable in the extreme, judging by the accounts here. I've tried to entice it to notice an RFC tag here for a couple of days now; no joy. How about a manual option? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, was apparently implemented already. Sorry for wasting everybody's valuable time. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What manual option do you refer to? II | (t - c) 17:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging in editor review

I have proposed merging editor review with RfC. Comments and opinions are welcome. Vassyana (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"RFC error" template inserted; not clear why

Why did the RFC bot make this change from "{{RFCsci |section= RfC: Effectiveness of chiropractic care !! Is ]'s discussion of effectiveness biased? If so, what should it be replaced with? !! time=08:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)}}" to "{{RFC error}}? I don't see anything wrong with that use of RFCsci. Eubulides (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Messedrocker for help with that bot. MBisanz 09:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Extremely shabby instructions

Is this template and this process supposed to be used at all? If yes, then improve the instructions. If no, please, remove it altogether, or put a defunct notice or something. This instruction advises to "Add {{RFCsoc| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }}", while this instruction advises to "Add {{templatename| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }}". Finally, this set of instruction is good enough to give anyone a headache. Make it lucid, make it user-friendly. Pleeeease. Misplaced Pages is not edited only by techno-savvy super-geeks who may know much about bots and codes and such stuff and very little on the article entries.Sorry for the rant. But, that's really how I feel about this infernal set of instructions. Pfui. Aditya 04:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot hasn't added rfc to the list of articles yet

I added a rfc to the homeschooling and List of homeschoolees pages, but the bot hasn't added them to the list yet. Is there usually a delay, or did I do it incorrectly? Amillion (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bumble Bee ,descriptions of nest,etc.

Hello

Looking up data of Bumblebee's I was disapointed in the description of nest ,etc. It took me 20 minutes and another Instructor at Rio Hondo College (Whittier,Ca.) to give W. this new information that ought to be added!I have a nest in the backyard a few feet from where I sit. The Bumble bee's create holes in the trunks for,"nest" and they can make a clean perfect hole to enter/exit. I was quite suprized that a tree trunk was not in the W. Dictionairy listing such. It is not confirmed if it is a red pepper tree or not yet it is suprizing how the bumbee's capitolize the nest.The amount of wood chips(sawdust) from there excavating are used as ,"wings" above and below the entry/exit whole,I can only surmise there are for cooling. Bumblebees are amazing creatures and it feels good to keep the nest going. I had one (black) bumble bee hover in front of me less than a foot away in what seemd like it was checking me out when I began to sit near the nest. I did not move yet I looked at the Bee and felt,"I would be quite displeased if I was stung! I agree with the social part of the definetion. I hope you can add tree trunks for nest. Thank you & have a good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.58.100 (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:RFC bot is down?

The contribution list shows many days between runs. The last run was 01:28 UTC on 7 May. Perhaps someone who knows about the bot might give be kind enough to give it a look? EdJohnston (talk)

Please someone fix this

Talk:Eight Belles. The bot did something and I have no idea how to fix the template. Thanks. JohnClarknew (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is now resolved, so ignore this, and thanks. JohnClarknew (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

possible RFC template problem

I've been attempting an RFC from Talk:Satellite High School. The template creates information nicely, but several attempts by the bot to process the request have failed. It would be nice if there were more of a positive connection between the request and the bot - that is, if the template appears to work, the bot has no trouble with the info. I realize this is simpler than it sounds!  :) Student7 (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not showing up on list

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anti-Americanism#RFC:_Degeneracy_Thesis Life.temp (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is till not working. Can somebody fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Life.temp (talk • contribs) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a few minor things to try and fix. Bot should pick it up on the next run. If it revisits and throws an error again, come update here. -- ] (] · ]) 02:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Life.temp (talk • contribs) 03:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC bot messed up Chiropractic entry in RFCsci list

This change to Talk:Chiropractic induced this bogus change to Template:RFCsci list. The latter change is bogus because it has:

It is my opinion that [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title

where it should have had:

It is my opinion that was for the better. Please give your opinion on the matter.

Evidently the bot mishandles "=" in the reason. I repaired the bug in the template by hand but expect that the bot bug will undo the repair. Can this bot bug be fixed, please? (I'll leave a note on User talk:Messedrocker.) Eubulides (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

{{RFC tagging instructions}}, transcluded onto all the lists, states that ! and = cannot be used outside the context of tag structure. MessedRocker (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Link Error, Active RfCs by topic area

in the Active RfCs by topic area box in the Instructions area, the watch links point to the template page rather than the actual RFC page. I'll fix this myself if no one else does; I'm just hesitating (and commenting) because there may be some arcane wiki thing going on here that I don't know about, and don't want to mess up.  :-) --Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WTH

The RFCBot keeps rejecting this:

== Trivia and unnecessary repetition ==
{{RFCbio | section=Trivia and unnecessary repetition !! Repetition in recent edits !! time=18:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC) }}

Can someone tell me what the heck is wrong with it? Or if the problem is with the bot, how do I get it to go 'way and lee' me alone? RedSpruce (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

the only things I can see that vary from the template are (a) you have a space after 'RFCbio' (wiki's can be picky) (b) you don't have 'reason=' before 'Repetition in recent edits'. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems

I'm trying to start a RFC at Talk:Miss Universe 2008. I can't figure out whether the template just isn't working properly, or whether its supposed to render how it has (I've never used this process before). Can someone help me out by checking it? Cheers. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Appeal - please help

It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to any admin or Arbcom member with a sense of justice to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter. Many thanks

DO NOT REVERT.

Please go to WP:APB for instructions on appealing your block to the arbitration committee or the community. --Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account 23:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Template problem at Talk:Alan_Hovhaness#Discrimination_against_Armenians_in_Somerville

I'm trying to get an RFC listed. I've used

{{RFCbio| section=Discrimination against Armenians in Somerville !! An editor says Hovhaness's neighbors told them that the family moved from Somerville to Arlington because they felt there was discrimination against Armenians in Somerville at that time. How can this interesting information be included in the article? !! time= ~~~~~}}

but I keep getting the template replaced with an error message from the RFC bot. I can't see what's wrong with the template and the error message offers no clues. Originally the section title was enclosed in quotation marks, and I thought that might be the problem and removed them, but still no joy. What am I missing? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Closing request

This RfC has been open for over a month with nothing of substance added after the first week. I therefore kindly ask for the procedure to be closed and archived. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably wrong place for this request if I understand the box at top of this page :-) Instead see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs - seems a RfC gets automatically closed one month after last activity by the RfC bot (whatever that is). David Ruben 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

However User:RFC bot gives no further details, so could someone familar with the bot help clarify the vague explanation as to RfC closure/archiving :-) David Ruben 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U and evidence - policy suggestions

This is a policy suggestion (apologies for its length). For sometime RfC/Us have tended towards referendums on the persons behind the accounts rather than being a case about proven on-wiki user conduct issues as evidenced by diffs. This has "divided the community" by hosting unprovabale personalized arguments. This not what wikipedia is for. It is also discrediting the RfC process.

Even if 2 editors (or 3 or 4) agree there is a problem with another user but don't provide evidence proving there is a substantive case to answer the RfC/U will look, to an uninvolved user, like it is made in bad faith.

For the sake of the RfC/U cases themselves and for the sake of this process's future we need to set hard parameters for all RfC/U comments and cases. The suggestions below are not (as far as I'm aware) novel ones. We already successfully implement stricter versions of these suggestions for Checkuser requests.

1. Evidence must clearly demonstrate policy violations without interpretation - evidence needing interpretation should be sent to ArbCom (especially in relation to misuse of sources).
2. Some method of measuring RfC/U evidence needs to be put in place before an RfC is accepted. RfC/Us are covered by WP:AGF and WP:NPA. When diffs are clearly mis-interpreted by those bringing a case the RfC looks like it is being filed in bad faith - even if a plurality of users endorse it WP:ILIKEIT already explains that that is not good enough. (However we do need to strike a balance here so that it does not create undue instruction creep.)
3. Some sanction for spurious (rather than inadequately evidenced) RfC/Us should be enforced. Spurious and pointy use of this process are disruptive and bad faith acts. I'd suggest an Immediate level 4 template for "disruptive use of the RfC process" cover by the policies of WP:AGF and WP:POINT.
4. As with my first suggestion we should have clear guidance whether off-wiki matters may be discussed here. As I understand previous ArbCom rulings they will look at things like this. However I would suggest due to copy-right issues around releasing emails; due to the complicated relationship of this project with sites about it; and considering ArbCom's explicit wish that evidence of off-site meat-puppetry be passed on to them directly, that RfC/U is not a venue for these issues.
5. Nemo contra factum suum venire ("No man can contradict his own deed"). Tendentious defense is tendentious editing. When a diff clearly and unambiguously shows an editor being incivil, flamebaiting, soapboxing, vandalizing, lying, etc, then they should not defend the indefensible. Admittedly it has become a rarity to see unambiguous diffs at RfC/U but when that is the case some measure should be taken to prevent ... trolling.

Basically I'd suggest that some sort of uninvolved clerk/admin roster should be set-up to patrol RfCs (to check evidence and enforce WP:CIVIL on them). Secondly, after two users have endorsed an RfC the evidence should be checked before it is fully opened and accepted - a checking period should be introduced. Thirdly sanctions (warnings issued only by the rostered RfC-admins and clerks) should be created and explained clearly on the RfC page.

We take matters of privacy seriously at RFCU - it already has a clearly defined set of parameters for when a check can take place. Since AGF is one of the 5 pillars of this project we should take it seriously too. Perhaps only time can heal the divide within the community but we can certainly reduce the level of pointy and personalized RfC/Us by setting parameters for what and how RfC/Us can take place. This would achieve two things: a) it should improve RfCs by making sure there is evidence for them; and b) it will reduce the poisonous atmosphere created by inappropriate (and inappropriate use of) RfC/Us. WP:RFC is part of dispute resolution not dispute escalation.

These suggestions are not prefect - I don't assume that I can solve all the community's problems or the processes problems with these ideas - so if anyone has any thoughts on these suggestions please comment--Cailil 13:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest an additional point. On the receiving end of an RfC/U, it has troubled me greatly that commenting users tend to make a lot of assumptions (good and bad faith alike) about the user's motivations and thoughts. It seems to me that this is not very helpful. The user is a human being, so why don't commenting users ask questions instead? Isn't a better understanding of each other key to getting along better? Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Request

I have been recommended to leave a note here, concerning my urgent request here: . Thank you in advance for the trouble. --BF 19:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Nationality in Biographies of Living Persons

A couple of comments on a biography of a living person have caused me concern. The editor in question thinks it is acceptable to add a nationality to an article, where the only information available is a place of birth. I fundamentally disagree and think this is a very sloppy practise. A place of birth does not define nationality, if that is all the source says that is all that should go into the article. In response to adding a {{fact}} tag, the same editor removed it as "when there is something at the top of the page saying the whole article is unreferenced" there is no need to add one. Is this acceptable practise? Looking through guidance I can find nothing to say that it is. I thought I would ask for comments informally before starting an RFC. Justin talk 11:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I would find no argument with the idea that it's not needed but it's good to add. It seems particularly unhelpful to remove such tags: That puts the burden of checking for the top-level tag on you, so that you may add the {{fact}} tag after the top-level one is removed, if it ever IS removed. Better to allow people like you to add those tags as they notice the need. Jmacwiki (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Need a cold fusion on RfCsci

There is a second cold fusion RfC that needs to be included on the RfCsci template. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Neuroplasticity and Irrelevant Links

I've been trying to add a topic to this list but it hasn't shown up. I see that others have this problem as well. I've never used the template before, but I believe that I have used it correctly. Please, if you will, check the bottom of the discussion on the Neuroplasticity page and add it to this list. I sincerely believe that one of the authors has added something irrelevant (The Tetris Effect), since it appears nowhere in the scientific literature on the subject. I believe that he has a theory about its relevance, unsupported by scientific study. Theories have their place, but not on this page. Thank you.23:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot malfunction? on RfC at Tucker Max#Criticism

The initial RfC tag was done improperly, and RfCBot made an edit on the page saying so. The tag was fixed, but RfCBot has not been back to the article to explain any further problems with the tag nor added it to the RfC Bio list. 03:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

for some reason, the bot is referring the RfC link to a previous RfC and not the current one. the current RfC is at the bottom of the page and involves whether an anonymous blog constitutes a valid source. can anyone offer some advice? Theserialcomma (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC not picked up

Hi. My rfc for Talk:Evolution_as_theory_and_fact does not seem to have been picked up by the bot. --Ezra Wax (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What to do about an unlisted user-conduct RfC?

I don't know the procedure, but I see that Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fowler&fowler‎ is not listed at WP:RfC/USER. Can somebody with experience in these matters please do what's necessary? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's just a matter of putting it under the candidate section. I did so just now. --C S (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Style RFC not getting listed

I added an RFC tag to Template talk:Nobel icon nearly 24 hours ago and it has not yet been listed at Template:RFCstyle list. Did I do something wrong? Thanks, --Clubjuggle /C 15:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See User:MessedRocker. MBisanz 12:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Am I looking for anything specific that's already on that page, or do you mean that's where I should look for an answer? Thanks, --Clubjuggle /C 15:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

He's the guy who runs the bot who lists the RFCs. MBisanz 15:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I've posted there as well but also posted here in case someone saw an obvious problem with my listing, or knew a way to get the issue listed in the meantime. Thanks, ----Clubjuggle /C 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My edits to RfC/U

A little while ago I made a couple edits to the RfC/U page that were reverted due to no discussion taking place. It seemed fair enough, so I'm posting here to explain the edits. The first thing was to put myself as an RfC/U Coordinator. I have basically been handling the cases for a few weeks now, and it seemed that users have started accepting me as the go-to guy for matters regarding these. As a result I thought I would make it official. Secondly, I tried merging the admin pages. This stems from the Elonka RfC, which had a little bit of administrative issues involved, but 95% of it was editorial. I figured maybe it would be easier to just combine the two, but that would certainly be something to discuss. Wizardman 02:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind having a contact person for this sort of thing, in other venues like wikiprojects it seems very useful, so thanks for volunteering. I do think there should be some difference between Admin and non-Admin RfCs, just because the type of behavior and the range of remedies requested, will vary greatly and predictably. MBisanz 02:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for an RfC/U "co-ordinator"; all actions, including deletion of uncertified RfC's and archiving of closed RfC's, should be done by consensus rather than an individual, and to suggest an appointed individual has decision-making power over these would be incorrect and lead to disruption. Furthermore, the merging of admins and users is not a good move, in my opinion, as they address distinct issues and proceed in very different manners. If there's overlap, it should be filed in the admins section, especially when a core issue is the administrative application of arbitration remedies. Daniel (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My major concern is you appointing yourself RFC/U coordinator. You can't just do that. One person shouldn't oversee RFC/U - it will mean that we only get one interpretation of a result of an RfC. I like the idea of a committee of users who close RfC's and judge the consensus of them, but that's for more than one person, and not decided by someone who edits the pages a lot. If I'm being honest, I'd like to see people who do more work deciphering the RfC's and stating clearly what the RfC shows on closure, rather than someone who simply closes the RfC and make things look tidy. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We have too many Coordinators already. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if Wizardman is "coordinator" or not. It doesn't give him any more or less ability or "power" than he (or anyone else) already has. Though I can see the benefit of having him list himself as someone to "goto" concerning this process. (Do we have any other volunteers?)

As for merging, the problem for me is that unless the concerns involve "the tools" or associated responsibilities, then admins should be listed under the editor sections (an admin being "just another editor"). If it does involve the above, then I think that that should indeed be listed separately. - jc37 07:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• As it is, multiple editors (including myself), as well as administrators assist in managing the page, and RFC/U in general (and each of those users have been contacted in the same way - it doesn't mean we make drastic moves to become RFC coordinators or have extra authority). Frequently enforcing already existing norms, whether it's formatting, archiving, guidelines etc. probably only gives rise to the mere title as "an RFC regular" - nothing more. On the other issue, there are reasons why admin and editor RFCs and bots are kept separate - those reasons still carry the same level of weight and have not been eliminated, so there should be no change to the current format of the RFC/U page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll drop the merge discussion, since after sleeping on it I realized it was a stupid idea. As for a coordinator or something, if not me then I at least think there should be some sort of body that handles it, else the Alastair Haines case may still be stuck in RfC instead of at RFAR. Wizardman 21:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite - the parties knew where to go next, when to consider going there etc., and the RFC should've concluded and been archived upon the RFAR being accepted, or upon a sanction being imposed by an admin or the community (on conduct that even remotely touches on the concerns at the RFC) because that's how it's been done to date. I've mostly agreed with your conclusion or closing/archiving to an extent - but always keep in mind that ample time should be given for outside input, even if it's a month since the last endorse in the RFC. That didn't quite happen in the Haines RFC, but in a clear case like that, it didn't need to wait so much either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A good point. I've noticed that about 95% of the comments tend to come within the first week or two, and after that there's only a little bit more that's generally added, hence why my closes probably appear to be quick. Wizardman 01:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with that percentage, but certainly I'd say 'a lot'. The desired level of outside input can arrive up to 2 months after the RFC has been opened to be sure about the consensus. Anyway, whenever there are objections, there'd be reverts and/or modifications I think, so as long as you note them for the future, there's no worries. :) (And of course, there've been none so far on that.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement

What I'd like to see is a group of admins who are familiar with the process volunteering to oversee things. People complain that RFC/U has no teeth - well, I'd like to see the group of volunteering admins judging the consensus about what the RfC actually says and state it clearly to the user who's conduct is questioned. They make it clear what the consensus is saying at the top of the page, and inform the user in question of the findings of the RfC. If the consensus is that the user in question has not done anything wrong, then they also say that. It'd be more like an AfD style RfC, with firm decisions made from them (obviously without the time frame however). It's important that the person closing the RfC states what the community find problematic about the behaviour, and what changes the community would like to see in the users editing - they obviously can't enforce this though, and if the user were to carry on the problematic behaviour, ArbCom or the community could deal with it using sanctions. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Conditional support - free-for-alls must not be made. Sceptre 16:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

They wouldn't - they'd be closed out propoerly and the true consensus gained. In the case of Elonka (which I sure is the reason why you're upset at the minute), this would probably closed out as a clear consensus that she did nothing wrong (although it would probably run a little longer). Ryan Postlethwaite 16:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not actually upset - you're assuming I am. The MFD nomination and the subsequent disputed tag was only partially influenced by Elonka's RFC. Seeing as no progress has been made to improve RFC/U since its last MFD nomination, I was contemplating another round soon. The spiral Elonka's RFC has gone down only accelerated the wait, and it's only poor timing it was nominated now. Sceptre 17:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said - I hope a new "system" like I suggested would put improve the whole process a lot, and the problems with the Elonka RfC would be fixed by that. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything that replaces this system would be better: possible harm beats definite harm any day. Sceptre 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Procedural note: The use of MfD in the past to rid the project of certain features, while at times effective, was not the best course of action. MfD is for deletion discussions regarding certain project-space pages. There is no need to delete RfC/U or RfC when there are other options available (deprecating them / marking them {{historical}}). All of which can be accomplished through talk page discussion, village pump discussion, or perhaps an RfC. But MfD is not an appropriate forum, despite its history. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Links to prior MfDs please

I expected to find them at the top of the page. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U disputed, again

Seeing as MFD is (to my surprise, given the amount of times process has been nominated there before) the incorrect forum for getting rid of a process:

I am renominating this process page for deletion/historicalisation because the instructions left by the closer of the MFD nine months ago have not been followed. Because the page details a process, and not a policy or guideline, it cannot qualify for the use of {{disputedtag}}, and as such MFD is used per precedent for processes such as the CSN and Esperanza.

El C, in closing, noted that RFC/U is problematic through its lack of enforcement, but also noted that the lack of RFC would cause ANI to become slightly busier. He also urged the community to reform the process and discount any superfluous RFCs - neither of which, have not happened: for the former, requests for remedies was proposed as a sanction-carrying alternative to RFC/U, and was rejected; for the latter, several recent RFCs (one including myself) were filed with lack of proper certification but was still kept.

Perhaps the most worrying thing about the process is that one of its creators, User:Jdforrester, admitted that it's gone downhill from his concept into a "hate-fest free-for-all" and hardly resolves disputes, and subsequently supported archival. An example of this is Elonka's current RFC, which I made a similar comment that it's "gone from what may have been a valid dispute into an ugly incivility-creating free-for-all focusing on anything Elonka may have done wrong ever".

Nine months down the line, nothing has been done to improve the process, despite repeated urgings by several admins. Thus, I support the disuse of the process as a really bad idea. Sceptre 16:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

See above section "#Suggestion for improvement" - I'm hoping this could help the process a lot. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U does have lack of enforcement and judgment, but that's exactly what's been trying to get fixed recently. If one's gonna pick a time to MfD or tag this, this isn't the time. Wizardman 20:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Template system disables listing RFCs in more than one subject area?

This seems to be a pretty serious flaw in this template system? Articles were always allowed to be listed in more than one subject area, and ought to be in order to attract discussants from relevant topics. For what reason should they not? —Centrx→talk • 05:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC not showing up

Hello, I did an {{RFCsci list}} at both Talk:Eurasian otter#RfC regarding common name & Talk:European Badger#RfC regarding common name, but Eurasian otter is not showing up on the RfC list. Would someone please fix whatever I did to screw it up. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Second request = Can someone please fix my screw up so Talk:Eurasian otter#RfC regarding common name shows up on the RfC page. I cannot see what I did wrong with the template. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC disappeared

I placed an RFC (for RFCpol) on the Talk:John Michell (writer) page. This can be read in this edit. It went through successfully and appeared on the RFCpol page, as evidenced here. Unfortunately, subsequent edits have caused the RFC to disappear altogether from the RFCpol page, and a notice to appear on the disputed Talk:John Michell (writer) page stating that "A user has requested comment on this page, but there is an error in the RFC template."

The edit in which I posted four points in an effort to establish verifiability have also disappeared. Please could someone intervene to reinstate the RFC, so that discussion can begin, outside of the context of an edit war - thanks. The text of the RFC is neutral, and states: "There is a dispute about whether or not to include a request on the Discussion page for full bibliographical details of the pamphlet The Hip-Pocket Hitler, authored by John Michell; and whether or how to mention his relationship with the fascist philosophy of author Julius Evola. An edit war has broken out, and comments are requested." If someone wishes to assert that Michell's relationship with Evola is as a non-fascist who simply wrote a non-supportive essay for publication in the first (deluxe and limited-run) English edition of Evola's work Men Among the Ruins, and who shares both a small-press publisher and a political label with Evola ('Radical Traditionalist'), and that nothing more is reasonably sayable about the relationship, even despite Michell's authorship of The Hip-Pocket Hitler, they are perfectly entitled to do so. However there is surely no good reason to remove the RFC, part of the purpose of which is precisely to elicit such comments (as well as from those who might then reasonably point out that Michell's introduction to Evola was very highly supportive), should anyone care to make them. A reasonable request for discussion should, if the system is to work properly, initiate a reasonable discussion. Let the process begin! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.204.125 (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User 'SageMab' keeps fiddling with the RFC posted on the said Talk page. Please could someone do something about this, e.g. issue a temporary block while the RFC receives comments - thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.204.125 (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please post this at WP:HD or WP:AN instead of here. MBisanz 16:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC not coming up

I set up last night an RfC for Mike Comrie at Talk:Mike Comrie#RfC: Neutrality of edits, but it's not showing up... can someone take a look at it and figure out what I've done wrong here? Tabercil (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Second request... can someone please take a look and set the RfC up right? Tabercil (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Also not coming up for ENom; originally added 22 Aug and re-added 23 Aug when first placement didn't "take". Thirdbeach (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

eNom now appears on the RfC list, but Mike Comrie does not (and nobody has gotten back to me to say they've intervened manually). Still looks to me like a problem with the bot code. Thirdbeach (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Failed RfC/U: What's next?

What happens if agreements can't be found in an RfC/U such as this one?

We have an agenda-driven editor (author of a self-published book on a novel medical idea). He is barred from editing articles on the subject of his book because of COI (it only took two or three COINs and a promised from an admin to block him for any further violation). The editor refuses to edit in semi-related or unrelated areas (possibly because his "improvements" get promptly reverted), and is making a pest of himself on his favorite article's talk page and his user talk page (currently featuring an essay on "The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics", which prompted this RfC/U). His latest schtick is that I'm clearly a biased editor because I refused his demands to demonstrate my editing standards in an article of his choosing. (I recently topped 20,000 edits (per preferences); I think I've got enough of a track record that anyone could figure out what my normal article standards are, but he insists that none of the hundreds of articles I've previously worked on will do.)

We are not going to reach a consensus here. I don't believe he's able to grasp the basics of collaborative efforts or will ever understand how disruptive he is. But I don't know what happens next, and there's no information on this page.

A successful RfC/U should end with a custom-tailored agreement that the subject understands and that everyone can live with. But what do you do at the end of a failed RfC/U? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Haven't looked at the RFC in question, but if the concerns are found to be legitimate by third party users, then it's likely you need to present the problem either to the community (WP:ANI or WP:AN) or to ArbCom WP:RFArb to take binding action. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite WP:RFC#Ending RfCs, an RfC/U has to be closed manually, correct? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, and it should be by an uninvolved party. MBisanz 19:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thus? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. MBisanz 20:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC listing procedure is troublesome

Lots of people fail to use the template correctly, it appears. I have no idea. I put a template RFCsci on Talk:Wilderness Diarrhea and it appears there correctly but not on the list. What am I doing wrong. Why is this such a common problem?Calamitybrook (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It did not work because you did not follow the instructions. Instead of typing |section=RFC Wilderness Diarrhea , you typed |Wilderness Diarrhea=full article. Let me suggest that you look closely at the example given on this page and try again.

Alternatively, you can post a note at a related WikiProject, such as WikiProject Medicine, Disaster management, or Backpacking. A questions at any of those projects might actually be more appropriate than an RfC on the whole article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The current listing procedure is pointless. We should be posting RfCs manually, and taking them down manually. That way they would show up on watchlists, and people would be forced to glance over the existing ones periodically. The bot doesn't add any value. II | (t - c) 23:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Start? That was the old method. I do think it worked better... GRBerry 00:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So you think it would work better if it involved multiple end-user steps, like setting up an AfD? (Paste this template into the article. Click here. Edit the page name manually if it's the second AfD. Write a description. Use this edit summary. Click someplace else. Paste a different template. Use this other edit summary...)

The existing RfC system works fine for me, and I don't think that a manual system is likely to improve matters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You've failed to engage any of my arguments, especially the most important one: when a RFC is put up manually, it shows up on the watchlist. The current RFC template is extremely confusing. You don't automatically know if you've done it right because the bot comes around later. I've done it a couple times, and each time I found it to be extremely irritating. Worse, I got no extra feedback. The RFCs that I did generated no extra comments, making them pointless. I have every RFC category watchlisted. I get no notifications on my watchlists.

We already use edit summaries and write descriptions with the current procedure. I don't know what you're talking about, really, so actually, I can't engage your comment. II | (t - c) 07:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have your watchlist set to ignore bot edits? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed it when you made that comment, thanks. All I'm seeing is the same thing I saw before I ignored bot edits: updated template pages which say there's such ans such number of discussions active. I want a notification each time a RFC gets listed. I have every single one of the pages active. Have you ever actually seen the WP:RFC/A page (or one of the subpages) actually on your watchlist when someone puts up a RFC? I would do a test RFCpolicy here, but I dread working with that template. A testament to how little attention people pay to the WP:RFC/A page is evident in that the WP:RFC/LANG section has a mistaken edit from the 21st of August. In fact, before a month ago or so, the RFC page didn't even link to WP:RFC/A or any of its important subpages anywhere. It linked to, bizarrely, WP:RFC/U at the top, a testament, again, to the obsessiveness with which Misplaced Pages revolves around politics, name-calling, backslapping, and other bullshit. I changed it. II | (t - c) 17:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Then you're getting what's available. You have to have both bot and minor edits shown. The bot doesn't always edit the page separately for each addition or removal. It makes several updates at once, like this. If you want to see what it did, you have to look at the diffs. Note that it never edits the page to do nothing (e.g., just to report the current number), so if it's in your watchlist, there's been a change.

You could suggest to the bot's owner that the edit summary be expanded. S/he might be willing to change Update, 12 current discussions to Update, 2 RfCs ended, 12 current discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Listing in more than one subject area

Since no one responded to this problem with the template system, and the old system was simple and worked well, I am going to revert to the old system without the templates. —Centrx→talk • 15:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 15:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The "watch" links at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Instructions still point to the templates you deleted. —Angr 16:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So I'm nobody today? This is a major change affecting dozens of pages. Your deletion has broken several pages and the instructions are now wrong. Please reverse your changes and make a proper proposal to the entire community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment ignores entirely and is irrelevant to the problem I raised a month ago and again last week. This is a change the affects Misplaced Pages:Request for comment and subpages, and the instructions are changed to reflect the template change. —Centrx→talk • 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment clearly states my opposition to removing the template-based system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of content by the request from the original writer

Hello! I am a wiki user from Hong Kong. I would like to know that could I require a deletion of content if I am the main writer of that content even there are some minor changes by other users in an particular article? For example, I am the main writer of an article about a bus company and I contribute many details like the history about it. However, there are some minor correction about spelling mistakes by other users and later on I don't want to have the details shown on that article. Do I have the right to delete that history content? --Ferrischan (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There do not appear to be any bus companies in your contribution history? —Centrx→talk • 15:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is just an example. The main point is that do I have the right to delete the content which is mainly contributed by me although there are some minor changes by other users? Thanks for your comment!--Ferrischan (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, the answer is no. Your contributions are associated with an irrevocable license and you have no right to delete your contributions.

Having said that, any editor may change any article, so long as the change "improves" the article. For this purpose, Misplaced Pages generally accepts any plausible definition of improvement. Making the article more concise or giving less attention given to a minor aspect is an improvement. Similarly, removing unsourced/unverifiable information is also an improvement.

Of course, any other editor could change it back to the previous version if they think the previous version was better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are the primary author (other changes are all minor) and the article is something that meets the criteria for deletion or speedy_deletion, you can certainly put in a deletion request and see what happens. --Ludwigs2 02:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC changes

I see that a lot of the RfC templates were suddenly deleted, so there's redlinks all over the wiki at the moment. Was there a discussion about this, and if so, could someone please point me at it? Thanks, Elonka 16:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw the same thing and it doesn't make sense. Maybe the deleting admin didn't realize they were infrequently used. I've queried Messedrocker since his bot is the one who would read those templates. MBisanz 16:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Centrx's comments on the talkpage above, it appears he may have just decided to take things into his own hands and change the system by himself. --Elonka 17:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That was pretty premature. II | (t - c) 17:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I waited more than four weeks. This is simply a revert to the old system, not an invention. —Centrx→talk • 18:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no discussion. There was a complaint from an editor that misunderstood the directions for using the RFC template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no misunderstanding. These templates do not support listing RfCs in multiple categories. I raised this issue on August 8, with no response. I then stated my intentions to correct this problem on August 29. —Centrx→talk • 18:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Centrx, it's one thing to be bold, and it's another to make a major change to a widely-used system on Misplaced Pages, without consensus. Please reconsider your actions here, especially as you used administrator access to do this, and no one is agreeing with your change. --Elonka 19:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This system is confined to RfC and the change reverts to a functional system that was used for years. No one has presented any solution to the faults of the automated template system, which others evidently object to, or why it should continue to be used. I can revert these changes, which are numerous only in terms of the number of edits necessary because of the rigmarole that is RfC with the templates, but it would be a waste to do so for no reason, and when no one had any issue with the change for a month. Also, administrator access was not used to make this change; the adjunct pages I deleted for housekeeping can be restored separately, but they would be useless. —Centrx→talk • 19:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, looks like Centrx didn't even bother to ask the bot owner to implement the feature he wanted. Or even to point out that he was making the bot unnecessary. Not exactly a stellar effort to get any consensus, is this? Centrx, can you identify any editor that supports your change? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I advertised on the relevant talk page. If there was any objection to this change, someone would have made it on this talk page once in that month. The last time I made a major change to RFC, I advertised in all the places you might think, and received no response except a litany of "me-too". Can you identify any reason why this change is not right? —Centrx→talk • 20:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Because plenty of people are perfectly happy with the existing system, which is being used in dozens of articles without major problems. To make an analogy here, it's sort of like you posted at the talkpage of WP:V and said, "I think this is a bad policy", then when no one replied a month later, you went ahead and deleted the entire thing. There are some cases where it's okay to be bold, and there are other massive parts of Misplaced Pages where a simple case of "no one replied to my comment" is not sufficient to say that there's consensus. Administrators are expected to have the judgment to be able to tell the difference. If someone genuinely wants to change the RfC system, post at the Village Pump, bring it up at WP:AN, make it clear that if no one objects, you are going to proceed. But don't just assume that silence implies consent, when dealing with something that's used in so many different parts of the project. Now, as for the actual proposed change, I have to say that I like the current template system since it makes it relatively easy to file an RfC. Easier even than an AfD, which requires chasing through multiple different pages. I do think the template system could be even easier to use though. For one, there's very little feedback if the template is used incorrectly. For another, it's difficult to tell in a watchlist, when there's a new request posted. Even if I have the actual include template on my watchlist, all I see is "template updated". Better would be if there were an edit summary that went into detail about the latest changes. --Elonka 00:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A comment at WP:V would have received a response, because it is a "massive part of Misplaced Pages", but RFC is not and did not receive a response for that reason. The analogous situation at WP:V would be a mere change in the policy, not a deletion. Changing WP:RFC is not a big change and it works perfectly fine without the bot. —Centrx→talk • 16:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Listing pages in multiple categories can be done with the use of additional templates. For example, a matter that covers both the arts and science can use the RFCmedia tag and the RFCsci tag. This is a practice I've seen used many times. I do admit, though, that the syntax can be very confusing to someone not accustomed to the workings of wiki syntax, and so I will see what I can do to make it easier while maintaining backwards compatibility. --harej 00:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The template displayed on the talk pages is already massive and ugly. It may work if the templates are reduced to a single, simple one-line sentence without images. —Centrx→talk • 16:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to maintaining backwards compatibility. Just create new templates the old ones will fade away when the RfCs that use them end. editors who wish to publish an RfC will not care how complicated the internal syntax is so long as the parameters that they need to enter when calling the template are kept clean and simple (few in number with clear names). I would have thought an outer skin named after the listing for the RFC, with one or two parameters the first the text the second (if needed and can not be auto-generated by the bot that does the listing, the date tilders). Then make it clear in the instructions on this project page that multiple listings means multiple templates. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Use the template system (not the list system). I think the template system is a vast improvement over the old list system and that the template system should be reinstated immediately. Arguments such as "complicated syntax" and "massive and ugly" are valid arguments, but listing was simpler with a one stop template (less steps to follow and get wrong). I say fix the template if there is a problem don't go back to the old complicated system. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW. I came here to ask where the list of templates mentioned in had gone inMisplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment#Instructions, and to comment that the new/old instruction "In the relevant topic area, listed below, link to that section on the Talk page." is confusing as the list is to the right not below. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection?

Why is Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature and media protected? -- Ned Scott 03:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The relevant edit says "(Protected Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature and media: Not a DR forum )". I don't know what DR means, but perhaps you could ask the admin that protected it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems it was just overlooked when the templates were merged back with the main page listings. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot listing?

I don't know anything about the use-non-use of the bot, but can someone who knows how it works get it to list Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions/Civility restriction RFC on the policy RFC page? If the solution is something easy or something I did wrong, please let me know so I can avoid messing that up in the future. Protonk (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems the bot only works on talk pages now, which is odd because it used to work on any page. Several RfCs are in the project namespace, instead of the project talk namespace. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember such a feature being added. --harej 19:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Date bug

It semms that on the topical subpages (arts, politics, bios, etc), the dates are a month in the future. This is a bug somehere, I would think. What's up? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bug. It's the date that the RFC will be closed by the bot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)

An editor tried to add an RFC template to Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) but it errors. I tried to fix it, twice and still can't figure out what is wrong. Could someone please help. Thanks Colin° 14:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I twiddled with it a bit - let's see if that fixes it. really, I didn't see anything off except (maybe) some spacing issues. --Ludwigs2 22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RfCTemplate error

Add me to the list of those who got an error for no apparent reason on the template, as used on Talk:Unfinished Music No.1: Two Virgins. An error message with no explanation is not good (or I could have said, very Microsoft-ish of you). :) Unless the person running the bot can fix it, I give up. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't run the bot, but I'll try give it a shot - it might also be where you placed the tag. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it appeared to work when you moved it to the section. I had put it at the top of the page. Since part of the tag points to the section, it seemed redundant to put it in the section itself. The instructions just say to put the tag on the page; it doesn't say where. I'm going to let the bot know about this. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's an artifact of Centrx's attempt to delete the bot recently. I've restored the correct instructions. Please let me know if the instructions about the template could be improved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It would help if you would show a better example so we'd know what to put inside section - ie I put in Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers#Criticism_of_Hoff_Sommers_Ok.2C_Just_needs_to_be_WP:NOR_and_WP:RS but just got an error message. (It seems to me i used another page as an example but can only find this one now.) Carol Moore 12:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I think you might have been better off reading the #Instructions instead of the example. I think I've fixed the problem at your page (if not, you might try removing the underscores (_) from between the words in the section name. I've added some tips to the example; you're not the first person to have this problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Some feedback, in case it's helpful: At Talk:Clarence Thomas it took the editors there 3 tries to get the bot to work. The syntax was almost right, but they just kept getting "error" back: The problem seemed to be with getting the "time" field properly formatted. Do we really need that? Seems to me that the bot could probably fill it in automatically. Or perhaps, give immediate feedback when the template is used? For example, if I try to {{prod}} an article and I forget the subst, I get a big red message right in the preview screen. Maybe the RfC templates could be tweaked accordingly, that they'd give immediate feedback as to whether they were right or not when someone hits "preview", rather than them having to wait an hour for the next bot pulse? --Elonka 17:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the bot is smart enough to provide useful feedback. In the named case, it was a failure to follow instructions: "Sign with five tildes, to present a timestamp but no signature." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC Policy

I'm trying to find, and have been unable to, the policy on changing an RFC once discussion about it has begun. In particular, see WP:RFC/Kainaw. If you look at the first version, you will see what the complaint and desired resolution were. Discussion about those continued on the page. Then, when it appeared that the RFC wasn't going the way some users liked, the complaint and desired resolution were changed to make the discussion appear to have a different meaning. It is, to me, the equivalent of having a survey which asks "Do you like oysters?" Then, if someone answers "No. I hate them," I change the question to "Do you like minority people?" It gives the discussion of the question a completely different meaning. So, I think there must be some policy. I just can't find it. -- kainaw™ 00:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The link is here. User RfCs, as it states plainly on this page, are unpredictable beasts: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." There is no requirement that the "close scrutiny" be limited to the original dispute, the original article, the original editor, or anything else.

Your task is to write a thoughtful and carefully reasoned response; it belongs in the "response" section. Note that -- according to the directions on the page -- you should not be editing any other section or arguing with people about their views. If you have comments or questions about something that someone else has written, then you should take it up on the talk page, instead of under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion section states "Do not post anything here". It appears to me that the RFC is specifically designed to ensure that the user in question is not allowed to participate. Honestly, who is going to take the time to go to the talk page? It appears that the RFC process is a bigger joke than the Philcha's complaint. -- kainaw™ 12:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time on RFC talk pages; in many instances, I spend more time on the talk pages than on the main page.

You are not required to respect the RFC process. No RFC/U can impose any form of sanctions on any unwilling editor. (It might happen to get the attention of an independent admin that finds a user's behavior blockable, but that's technically a different process.)

Failure to participate constructively may result in editors getting disgusted with you, or bored with the process and leaving you alone. On the other hand, it may also result in further escalation through the WP:Dispute resolution process. The only thing I think we can guarantee is this: If you end up at ArbCom, and you have not demonstrated a good faith effort to find a workable compromise, then your attitude will be counted against you -- even if the complaints against you are ultimately dismissed.

In the end, how you respond is entirely up to you: you're the one that will have to live with the consequences of your choices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I read through the RFC page repeatedly and did not find anywhere where it said "This is where you respond if the RFC is about you". I was left with the impression that I was not supposed to respond in any way on the RFC. Imagine a process in which a person is accused, but not allowed to respond or defend himself. That was my impression of the RFC. I have finally seen that I was supposed to respond in the Response section - which I have done. It is actually good that I took so long to respond as I was able to explain in the response that the discussion on the RFC is about the original statement, not about the amended one designed to make the responses appear to have a completely different meaning. -- kainaw™ 01:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As you seem to have discovered, your response belongs in the section that starts "This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed". Perhaps we should update Template:ConductDiscussion to include that instruction as well.

Are there any outside views on adding a sentence like "Your comments are welcome on the RFC page in the section labeled Response."? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

error in instructions

i asked at the Help Desk but they've directed me here with my anxiety: i'm trying to post an RfC on Talk:Pop music: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pop_music#RfC:_What_is_the_intended_subject_of_this_article.3F but it looks too weird to be right! i've read the instructions six times and can't see where i went wrong, so if someone can help with it i'd be very grateful, thanks Sssoul (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

update: okay, i figured it out: the instructions on the RfC page say the "codename" to use in the template for art/music/etc-related articles is "RFCart", but that leads to some very bizarre and confusing results. the "codename" to use is "RFCmedia". i've fixed my own RfC post on the pop-music talk page, but i hope someone can correct the instructions - thanks Sssoul (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

it's been fixed now - thanks Sssoul (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

should "no original research" preclude ab directo prima facie observation?

Ok, so I'm listening to this guy complimenting me and I think "I don't want this guy to think I want compliments but I don't want to be rude" so I say something that suddenly people the world over say - circa 2003 - and I think to myself "Why the heck does everyone want to say _that_?" so I observe for myself the structure of what I said. I observe and I come to the conclusion that all idioms are structured in the same way. I think of examples. Sure enough, the explanation is the same... always the same.

Only I'm not at university. I don't want to go back. I don't have time for this trivial piece of information... except, there's this database on the internet that everyone refers to that has a whole entire page of examination of exactly this subject and NONE of it is right, because if you test for yourself, like any scientist, sceptic or truth-seeker should, what the explanation is WITH WHAT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, you will find that the explanation I have is correct. So I enter the explanation.

Then someone deletes it... after admitting that it is an amusing observation (naturally cited with immediately observable proofs).

Now, I know what you're thinking "Is this guy who thinks he knows something crackpot or is he telling the truth and just laughing at Misplaced Pages now?" Well actually, I'm only laughing a little bit. That's because I'm giving you a chance: there is such a thing that does not need government funded research to be true and yes, some people call it interesting knowledge. In fact, there is truth, the knowledge of which can be built upon! But will wikipedia recognize it, even as it puts up pages on pop-culture trivia that has nothing to do with intellectual pursuit whatsoever?

Have you forgotten that it is intellectual pursuit that was the basis of universities around the world, not government funded research programs? Or did you suppose that now that your mind is hidden in your skull, you can go about research a hero because you have not actually used it and still done something that passes for intelligence? I do not mean to insult you, but merely challenge you.

What I "discovered", if you can call something so "banal" a discovery, is something I could explain to a five year old and you will remember that that was Einstein's test of real knowledge!

The way I see it, there are two ways you can cope. Both are equally good. One, you can overturn this "must be paid for observation" rule - I will pay to put this on wikipedia for crying out loud (don't question my motives) - two, you can develop a system whereby knowledge is verified (the latter is the more complex of the two options).

All it takes to verify what I have observed is the following, ask yourself this: does "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink?" sound at all like you can make it drink? The honest answer is "yes, it sounds like you are saying it can be made to drink because 'o' in "horse" becomes 'o' in "to" like a horse being led to drink, 'a' 'e' in water making a "satisfied" sound (a painful vowel followed by pleasurable one)". All idioms in english follow the same statement vs intonation contradiction (I believe Chinese idioms may be similar: intonation vs reference contradictions).

Do you think you need to go to University to know that?

Misplaced Pages attempts to collect information that is verifiable, not true. This page isn't the correct place to contest these rules anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ingenius as your reply appears to be, there are things that are verifiably true. One does not need a logarithm to verify that 1 + 1 = 2. If I discovered 1 + 1 = 2 and believed it to be noteworthy for colleagues who would observe it the same, would I not contribute it? But as with all things, there is a time and a place, as the next poster so helpfully points out.

You can post original research at Wikinfo. Peter jackson (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou so much for your contribution. I have made a brief entry at Wikinfo. Hopefully, that will be the seed enough for future thought on the subject.

Kabbalah article RfC

User Bob (QaBob) (QaBob) has requested an RfC without going through any normal process of discussion , which would normally require giving interested editors time to discuss his suggestion to move the article. In fact, after his initial suggestion yesterday, and request then for comment, he actually moved the article, and changed the links in about 100 articles other article to the new name he created. I really do not consider any of this acceptable. In any case, I do not think discussion has reached the point that justifies an RfC. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The point of an RfC is to gather a broader consensus of editors. Reading though Talk:Kabbalah, it was clear that the article had been dominated for some time by those with a more or less limited view of the subject. Thus I felt the need for more eyes on the issue. Bob (QaBob) 14:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact is that you suggested the move yesterday, and requested the RfC the same day. How do you know that discussion with interested editors would not resolve the issue? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Because of your repeated removal of the {{unbalanced}} tag. You seem to have a vested interest in not attracting more eyes. If you had not repeatedly removed it, I would have been happy to wait for the responses of other editors. You shot yourself in your own foot by edit warring over the tag. Bob (QaBob) 14:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You had placed no explanation, on the article talk page, to justify the reason for the tag. When you explained, I stopped removing the tag. I do not think asking for an explanation is an excessive demand. An explanation is considered normal. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had. Twice. One section entitled "Proposed move" and a subsection entitled "Unbalanced". However I will assume good faith and assume that there was a datebase lag so that you somehow did not see updates to the Talk page on your watchlist even though you clearly saw the updates to the article itself. Why don't you do the same, stop forum shopping, and we can just go forward with the formal move process? Okay? Bob (QaBob) 15:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no justification for the RfC without first taking the time to discuss the issues with interested editors. Just what is the big rush? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not asking your permission for anything, Malcolm. I have offered my explanation because your understanding is (in my view) incorrect, but if you get it, or not, is just not my concern. In any case, now that the process is started, I don't feel there is any rush. Do you? Bob (QaBob) 15:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What reason is there for not removing the RfC tag?Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that the RfC is still ongoing. What reason is there for removing it? It's certainly not hurting anything. Bob (QaBob) 17:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bob, this RFC sounds premature. Vexatious use of the dispute resolution process wastes Misplaced Pages's resources and irritates people. You have the right to start an RFC at any point, but standing on your rights is not always the wisest course of action. It's generally best to follow the advice about RFCs: "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the article talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved." Starting an RFC with no discussion is an indication that you are not only failing to assume good faith, but probably also pushing your POV.

At any rate, this 'tis/'tisn't sort of conversation doesn't belong here and doesn't serve the encyclopedia. Malcolm, I suggest that you invest your energy in locating the best possible reliable sources to argue against Bob (assuming that you disagree with his suggestion). RFCs of this sort very frequently backfire. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, I started a discussion. At the time, Malcolm declined to respond on the talk page, instead repeatedly removing a template from the article. Then I started the RfC. I may very well be in the wrong, but I think the discussion deserves input from generalist in the area of religion as well as specialist in the topic of Kabbalah. Bob (QaBob) 19:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bob's account of the placing of this RfC seems to be correct. He restored the unbalanced tag @ 1256 & the RfC @ 1257. His placing of the RfC can reasonably be regarded as a response to the deletion of the tag. I'd be inclined to react similarly, tho' I'm not an expert on WP procedure. It seems to me he's doing what he should have done before, instead of moving the article unilaterally. Peter jackson (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Paladin

I tried to start an RfC at Paladin, but something's not working and I can't tell what. It may just be beyond my limited capabilities. Help?--Cúchullain /c 22:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Cuchullain, if you have a look at this it might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment&curid=449893&diff=242842550&oldid=242561957#error_in_instructions

it looks to me like you used "RFCart" in your template just like i did in mine before discovering that it should be "RFCmedia".

in your case, though, isn't the history section more appropriate than the media/art/etc section? for history-related topics the code to use in the template is "RFChist" - if the instructions are correct, that is! Sssoul (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'll have a go with that.--Cúchullain /c 22:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding an RfC manually

Is this still allowed, and if it is, can anyone advise how to do it? SlimVirgin 16:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What sort of RFC? User conduct RFCs are 100% manual; process and article RFC work in conjunction with a bot and are not listed manually. MBisanz 16:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

An article RfC. I've used the template this time, but I'd like to do it manually in future. There's a sentence where the template method is described that to do it manually you click on a link that says "add discussion" (writing from memory), but then when you look, there is no such link, or if there is, it's not clear where it is. SlimVirgin 16:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that was phased out in favor of having a bot do all the listings for article RFC, basically its now "fill out a template on the article talk page and a bot will list/categorize it" MBisanz 17:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's right. I'm not sure why there'd be a want to do it manually, but apparently if you try to do it manually, you'll be reverted by the bot. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It can be done; there's one at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the replies, everyone. NCMV, I just prefer to do these things manually, because working out how to use the templates always seems to take longer, for me anyway. :-) SlimVirgin 19:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's okay. :) A lot of people were having trouble with the templates in the past few months too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Fireproof (film)

May I please get some comment on this discussion for Fireproof (film)? I did what it says, and no one was paid any attention. These people keep added the content back, and I don't want to get into a 3RR over this. Please help me. God bless, American Eagle (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

sorry

i am sorry for editing on those pages i didnt mean anythhing out of it i didnt know it was bad.im sorry it will not happen again.thankyou

circular RfC entry

could someone please have a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/All#Economy_and_trade? someone appears to have listed the RfC list itself as a subject of an RfC, which is weird enough as it is; to make it weirder, if you click the "add a discussion" thing, the text you see in "edit" mode has no apparent relation to what you see in "read" mode. it seems appropriate to notify whoever was trying to list those RfCs that they need to try again, but i can't figure out who the editors were. Sssoul (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess the root of the problem is the template

{{RFCecon| section=VistaPrint !! reason= I tagged the page as I perceived NPOV issues, extraneous material and unwarranted minimising/omission of well-known ongoing consumer complaints issues. Editors of page are self-admitted PR workers for VistaPrint. As I have limited experience, please help adjudge/convert this page to WKP norms !! time= 23:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC) }}

placed in the page Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Economy,_trade,_and_companies/manual by user User:Centrepull. I have no clue how to fix it though. MaNiAδIs-τάλκ-GuεστBooκ 22:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks for taking an interest - it's getting curiouser and curiouser, though! where did the "candidate for speedy deletion" tag come from?! that wasn't there before! and why isn't the tag visible in "edit mode"??

thanks for verifying that Centrepull posted the RfC - i did leave a message about it for him/her a few days ago, but never heard back from him/her, and today i couldn't figure out how i'd worked out that he/she was the probable poster of it. i was going to remove the RfC template myself, but i can't see it in "edit mode" - can you?? in "edit mode" (clicking the "add a discussion" thing) all i see is a totally different RfC-type text ... it's like The Twilight Zone! 8) Sssoul (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

edit: okay, the speedy deletion tag has vanished now ... but it really was there a few minutes ago! Sssoul (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the speedy tag was from me, but I decided to remove it, until the request for comment is moved to the proper page...MaNiAδIs-τάλκ-GuεστBooκ 22:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a subpage named manual inside the main page, this is why I put the speedy, but then I removed it until the comment is moved to wherever it should be, this is what I do not know, is it the talk page for Vistaprint?

ah so ... thank you for clarifying. meanwhile, i located that subpage and removed the misplaced RfC template from there - on the "be bold" principle, and since i've already notified Centrepull about the error - but it doesn't seem to have affected the listing on the RFC/A page. maybe it takes a bit of time to process? anyway, i'll leave another note for Centrepull about it ... thanks for your help and for taking an interest. Sssoul (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This last part was work of the RFCbot, which automatically includes pages with the rfc template in the page Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Economy,_trade,_and_companies, I removed it now...MaNiAδIs-τάλκ-GuεστBooκ 22:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) yeah, i understand that the bot puts pages on the list, but it's also supposed to take them off the list when the template's removed - oh well, maybe it was just a bit slow this time. meanwhile ... clicking on the "add a discussion" thing in each section on the RFC/A page, it turns out they all have the same text in them, which is different from what you see in "read" mode - that doesn't seem right! especially since the text is a bit weird: it starts off about a bio but ends up being about some linguistic issue. the subpage it's on seems to be WP:Requests for comment/All/manual - is that the way it's supposed to be?? Sssoul (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No this is a misuse of the template, this is why I already started another section below, for somebody to fix it. MaNiAδIs-τάλκ-GuεστBooκ 00:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bug in the Template:RFC list footer template

When the template is transcluded in any of the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/<whatever> pages it creates a link Manually-added entries: which opens an edit in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/<watever>/manual page. But when this pages are transcluded in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/All page, this link redirects to the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/All/manual page instead of the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/watever/manual as it should. I think somebody who knows about how templates work, should fix this. MaNiAδIs-τάλκ-GuεστBooκ 00:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

As a temporary solution I try to substitute the template and the page name and it worked for a while, until the RFCbot revert my changes and replaced the original template. Out of ideas... MaNiAδIs-τάλκ-GuεστBooκ 00:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, I add {{{1}}} in the template, but I had to revert all the redirections to make it work without touching the code of the RCFbot. MaNiAδIs-τάλκ-GuεστBooκ 03:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A Muppalla

MUPPALLA is a reputed village in Ipur mandal,Guntur District,Andhra Pradesh.And also called as Arepalli Muppalla, since there are some other places with the same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veeravs (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

How do I close an RFC/u?

I assume its some sort of template? Garycompugeek (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

An RFC/U will be delisted after about 30 days of inactivity, or when a request for arbitration on the matter is accepted - alternatively, it may be closed upon the dispute being resolved amongst the parties (whether this is by explicit agreement in the RFC/U, or if a party is sanctioned). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC's on user are not closed by bots but by inivolved third parties (in this case me). How is this done? Garycompugeek (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, this may just be a typo, but RfC/U's are closed by UNinvolved people.

As for what to do, the most important thing to remember is that an RfC/U cannot, under any circumstance, actually impose a solution on unwilling partners. So the closer actually has very little power beyond the bully pulpit. This is part of WP:Dispute resolution, not "crime and punishment".

As for how to do it, User:Wizardman closes a lot of them; I'd look at one or two of the recently closed ones, and perhaps his contributions log, and use those as patterns. (Actually, I would probably just ask him to do it when he had a few minutes free... but if I were trying to reduce his workload, then I'd copy his pattern.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Uninvolved of course. Was going to close one I read on RFC/a that seems to need closing. Garycompugeek (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Closures by Wizardman

On the occasion of a recent closure by Wizardman, I'll put on record that I strongly object to that new-fangled practice, apparently invented by him recently, that a self-appointed "closer" finishes the RFC with a "concluding statement", which purports to be an authoritative summary of its results, like a final judgment. There is no need for any such, and nothing that would authorise an editor to provide one.

Closing an RfC means simply archiving it, and, at most, adding a factual notice about concrete outcomes such as bans or referrals to Arbcom that have actually resulted. But a final assessment of the weight or merit of opinions expressed in it is not something any individual is entitled to have a final say about. If anybody wants to provide such an assessment summary, as their personal opinion, they are welcome to do so, but in the form everybody else does it, as an "outside view". To add such a comment and then immediately close the process, making it by necessity the "final word", means assuming a position of self-appointed authority and giving your personal opinion an appearance of weight above that of others, in a way that is simply not legitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page, it was not appropriate for you to refactor another uninvolved editor's comment for an RFC you're the subject of (or clearly and unambiguously involved in). That said, your concern is noted.

Wizardman and myself have been closing RFCs regularly for sometime (Wizardman since July, and myself since somewhere in April), but our styles vary - basically, on the point you've raised. Generally, if I've added a summary, it is per our norms since 2006: for either concrete outcomes, if an editor has stopped editing Misplaced Pages, or on the rare occasion where only one outside view has been made and endorsed unambiguously. Otherwise, it's been a straight delist and archive, and I'm happy to have had no issues so far.

Wizardman has usually taken delisting/archiving one step further by attempting to summarise the outside views made and warn concerned users where it appears there is a conduct problem. On a couple of occasions, off memory, I've objected to some of the closes and made modifications (if I was made aware of this close earlier, this would've been another one). But I didn't think it was an issue, given that there was some support for his style by some of the community, and no vocal objections, particularly by ArbCom (given that they've done a case proceeding an RFC closed by Wizardman: Alastair Haines). I think more community input on this issue will be worthwhile. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The RFC is about your user conduct, it is clearly improper for you to be editing the closing admin's comments, per the RFC instructions and the general arbcom admonition for uninvolved administrators to close discussions that have reached their natural end. MBisanz 13:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You are just as involed as I am, so why are you edit-warring over it? As for your argumentation, it is clearly invald: closing judgments are only appropriate in decision-making processes that end in concrete administrative action, such as a naming dispute ending in a page move, or an AfD ending in deletion. RfCs simply aren't decision-making processes in that sense. There is no factual need for a closing statement of any sort. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman simply determined what the consensus of the RfC was - he wasn't making judgement on anyone. In this case, I think he got it spot on. Of course, what he says isn't binding but it would be good to strongly consider the points he made or this could move onto greater levels of dispute resolution in the future. It's entirely up to you Fut. Now, I've just archived it now and left Wizardman's comment as an outside view simply to put it to bed. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not about what he said (in fact, I'm not in the least interested in what he said; I hardly read it except for a very superficial skimming); it's about how he said it. And yes, from the fragments I did read it looked like he was laying down the law and, on his own authority, "cautioning" this and that. If he wants do do so, privately, no problem, but from an assumed position of authority? No, just no. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said, it's your choice entirely how you take his comment. I would personally be pleased that someone neutral came along to determine what the RfC is saying and try hard to follow their advice. It's non-binding, but arbcom wouldn't look favourable if problems persisted and the advice wasn't taken. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not like he was saying anything new, was he? There was a short moment some time two months ago when there was some actual talk going on it that RfC, and everything that needed to be said was said back then. Since then it has merely lingered on as a playground of trolls and clowns (just look at some of the last few outside views); it's lost every last shred of legitimacy as far as I'm concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Clowns? FutPerf, I think it's time to watch your language. As I can see some admins seem to understand how uncivil you are, perharps, for your own sake, need to start behaving like an admin and not like a child that someone stole his candy. 79.131.173.171 (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)