Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/ID RFCs


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Kept for now. &mdash; Werdna talk 12:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

ID RFCs
Duelling RFCs never solved anything - the fact that the groups involved are not coming together on a single RFC to resolve their differences seems to indicate that an RFC will not solve the problem and this issue will inevitably fall to Arbcom to deal with. --Random832 (contribs) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Requests for comment/Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, B
 * User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC
 * Withdrawn on further reflection, but the discussion should run its course since at least one person has 'voted' delete. --Random832 (contribs) 17:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Noting that withdrawing it after the RFC on one's friends has been blanked yet the others on their opponents remain is highly irregular and suspicious. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So is violating the rules on User Conduct RfC's (remember, one user per RfC?) but let's not be throwing mud here, FM. SirFozzie (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd ask you to point me to that policy but I already know it doesn't exist. What you're invoking is simply an informal guideline; one which I helped write. Remember that the arbcom called for single RFC, not multiple ones, despite their being multiple parties. My point made eariler remains. FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete to remind ArbCom that all tough decisions shouldn't be punted back to the community. -- Relata refero (disp.) 17:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * SupOppose Delete both and with the goal of the creation of a new RFC that focuses on bridging the gap between good faith editors on both sides. I will happily author. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * not yet - while I agree that any real resolution of the personalities and problems here will have to come from the Arbcom, the clarification of issues, thoughts, and areas of conflict that even these dueling rfc's provide is a first step to having a arb hearing that can actually resolve some of the conflict. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete the RFC, Neutral on Gnixon's userspace RfC Clearly a smokescreen to try to obscure the behaviour of some (note: not all) of the editors named in the C68 etc. RfAR. Black Kite 17:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Very strong keep There might be too many issues to be covered in only two RfCs, but deleting one or both when perhaps there should be ten is not the answer. The answer, as FeloniousMonk has proposed, is for everyone to disengage, or for us all to continue, and to unearth the material at the core of this festering intertwined series of disputes and bad feelings, as was repeatedly suggested at the RfAr. I find it highly offensive that only one group is allowed to present grievances. Either this entire dispute is shelved, or both sides can present their grievances in full detail, as was suggested on May 30, 2008 by User:Thatcher. Remember that User:Thatcher warned on May 30, 2008: "And remember that your conduct in bringing the case will be looked at just as closely as the conduct of those you name in the case, so using the RFC as an opportunity for flamewars and personal attacks is going to be self-defeating". It seems like a lot of fun to attack others, but all of a sudden realizing that your own conduct is going to be under scrutiny and you will have to defend your own actions, this avenue does not seem so attractive, right?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 17:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Under scrutiny or under attack? Orderinchaos 02:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge both, failing that, delete the one in Wikipedia namespace for violating RFC/U policy and being a massive AGF failure, and keep Gnixon's space as it was there first and at least looks at both parties. Sceptre (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please explain your reasoning and your allegation. Gratias tibi ago.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 18:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Violated RFC/U policy for being multiple disputes with multiple users. Massive AGF failure because Odd nature's theory about several established users, admins, and even a steward and a checkuser being part of an anti-Wikipedia conspiracy would give David Icke a run for his money. Sceptre (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Illegitimate attempt to derail a legitimate dispute resolution, the named parties are all friends of the nominator for deletion, Random832. Odd nature (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of you characterizing anyone who disagrees with you in any way as "friends" of one another. And if anyone tried to derail legitimate dispute resolution, it was whoever created the later of these two RFCs. --Random832 (contribs) 18:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'm tired of you supporting your friends by undermining anyone who points out their problematic behavior. Did you actually think that you derailing an earnest attempt to get them to disengage from those editors who are feeling harassed would pass the sniff test? Your MFD is making my case for me and will look splendid at the next stop, RFAR. Odd nature (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) We are? That's news to me. Aside from the current C68-SV-FM arbitration, I can't think of a time when I have noticed Random832.  A glance at his edit counter list of articles he has most frequently edited shows nothing whatsoever that interests me.  If I am friends with him (or any other named party here) that's news to me.  --B (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I created this page in response to the "Intelligent design editors" RfAr, where some on ArbCom seemed to want the issue to go through an RfC first. Given the complexity of the case, I thought there should be some discussion about how to present it.  Please keep these pages or provide another workspace.  Gnixon (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)  Note, "these pages" was intended to refer to the ones in my userspace.  Gnixon (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Archive - worth keeping to show that multiple party request for comments are problematic. PhilKnight (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 *  Keep . At least one for a few more days at least. User:PouponOnToast seems to have been able to provide some moderate and unbiased commentary giving some hope that this could be a useful process. Merzul (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I didn't read his post above, I support it. Delete both and construct a new one. Still, I think this MfD will end in "no consensus" so I hope PouponOnToast will hijack one of the current RfCs, and show the way :) Merzul (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I sympathize with Relata refero's remarks. The User RfC is not a User RfC.  It names 4 editors - RfC/Us are about individual users' editing behaviour.  It references off-site behaviour which is not something that RfC can deal with it.  I have no comment on the User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC but close or archive Requests for comment/Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, B - ArbCom need to deal with this, the RfC/U process cannot cope with it.  If they wont then I think PouponOnToast's attempt to use RfC to resolve rather than escalate the dispute is excellent-- Cailil   talk 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep I'm not a wikilawyer, and in fact, I think it's not fair for everyone to play one around here.  Isn't there a process to deal with RfC's?  If it's endorsed, can it not stay.  There is constant message that an RfC should be for one person.  Fine, so we delete, and how long will it be before three different ones come up.  The RfAR on this related topic clearly stated that the Sceptre should go through the RfC process first against the supposed cabal.  One way or another, this issue is going to be either several different RfC's, or one big one.  So in terms of reducing writing about this RfC over several different ones, why not keep it.  Let's not Wikilawyer.  Let's just get this done, so we can go back to editing articles--I hate this RfC process, because I'd rather edit articles, but if it has to be done, let's keep it simple.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and create a new one - split-consensus never works in resolving anything and usually just leads to personal attacks against the non-majority side in each one. Orderinchaos 19:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the new status-quo, to keep the remaining one is probably the best situation. If the new one PouponOnToast takes off, I'd suggest moving activity there, as it appears from my view to have the best chance of resolving the dispute rather than simply expressing grievances. Orderinchaos 02:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * These two RfC's should be merged, ideally voluntarily with the consent of all involved. They deal with the same editors and same general issues, and splitting it into two "dueling" RfC's is going to fragment the process and completely destroy whatever slim chance it has to be useful. Just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 19:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then instead of two monster RfCs, we can have one supermonster RfC. There is no way for this process, which is essentially new (and followed on directly from the essentially new form of RfAr that gave birth to it) to be orderly. There is no precedent for this.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 19:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. If it has been certified properly, there's no reason to delete it. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How can anyone certify that it is "the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users"? That seems rather impossible.  In reality, it's multiple disputes with multiple people. --B (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It hasn't - neither of the involved users have even used my talk page (and given I'm a party in the RFC...). Sceptre (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Well it is quite interesting that the talk page discussion, where some important issues were being hammered out, and all the effort that went into writing that RfC were flushed down the toilet. I wonder why that would be, with an almost even split between Keep and Delete votes. We are only allowed to have an RfC where one group is attacking another? But all discussion of all the issues from all perspectives are not allowed? Interesting...--Filll (talk | wpc ) 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - The RfC draft in user space is by no means an attack. It's an attempt, following the advices of some arbitrates in, that a RFC would be the best choice. More important to narrow the issue for ArbCom. That draft is that attempt, to find the core issue, make it into a RfC and proceed. Samuel Sol (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm neutral on whether the page deleted should remain, but as one of the parties, I guess I should probably comment. I think those certifying it would be wiser to leave it deleted, but if that's what they want, I won't be one to stand in the way. As for the one in Gnixon's user space, Keep for now, as it is an attempt to create a draft in user space, which has been generally considered acceptable in the past. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment If one is bad, the other is surely just as bad for essentially the same reasons, and maybe even worse since it will be trying to encapsulate many more problems and subdisputes in a group of 15 or 20 editors. So if you delete one for being impossible to certify against a group, you have to do the same with the other. As I have said other places, perhaps a good 10 RfCs are needed to capture all of data. But trying to go with fewer than 2 is just dumb.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 22:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and Restore the deleted one; if we're going to do anything about this, we need raw material. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there was very little raw material (and an awful lot of invective towards one "side" in the dispute) in the now-deleted RfC. Orderinchaos 02:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's also raw material. It's a lot easier to provide ArbCom with diffs from a non-deleted page... (and not all the invective is unfounded, unfortunately). Its present courtesy blanking seems a definite improvement to to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Bad Cucumber Error - Delete and redo from start. Shot info (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: close (keep) RFC/Intelligent design, neutral regarding the two above-nominated RFCs, back off from the conduct disputes, and (formally) mediate any content disputes. Bwrs (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Requests for comment/Intelligent Design is open PouponOnToast (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.