User:PeterStJohn/RFC

[Note: this was moved Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Ronz to User:PeterStJohn/RFC: userfying deleted RFC that failed to get certified. The Wikiquette is probably this William M. Connolley (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)]

I created this Wikiquette Alert regarding the conduct of Ronz. The response from Avb included that the topic is too complex for Wikiquette and Seicer tagged the item as moved-or-to-be-moved elsewhere, writing:


 * I will agree with Avb that this case has become far too complex to be handled properly at WQA. I would try going through the dispute resolution process fully. A third comment may not be too useful in this instance, but a request for comments may (if not done already). A request for mediation may assist further.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC was not my intent but I'll defer, thus this.

Regarding the requirement "At least two editors..."; ScienceApologist and Anthon01 have posted to my Talk regarding the matter, although neither is an outsider (Anthon01 shared my complaint with a similar study in a subsection of my Wikiquette item which he created, here). An outside editor Krator addressed the brief edit war over notification of the wikiquette at the discussion page for Quackwatch (the main source of these hostilities and apparently a recurring source of much contention) by endorsing my notification (although Avb later replaced it, which can give the impression that there was something objectionable in the wording I had used). So there is evidence for outside editor involvement, but I'm not sure we meet the specific criteria described by that section of the RfC/User policy at RfC-users. However, I think we stubstantially fulfill the spirit of the requirement and again, I defer to Seicer.

I will notify Ronz (disputant), Anthon01 (who joined me) and Seicer (who advocated this route). Thanks. Pete St.John (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And that notifications is done. A third party has added to the Wikiquette item (where the case is descibed in detail) and that has become the subject of editting/archiving (cf Cheeser1) but it seemed not to impact the cases I and Anthon01 had presented (I'm not familiar with the 3rd case, I'm not caught up). Pete St.John (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)