Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tom Reedy




 * 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 discussion was  Deleted by  with the reason "Lack of prior attempts at good faith dispute resolution (the diffs don't verify)". RL0919 (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Tom Reedy
This UserRfC does not have any evidence of the certifying users actually trying to resolve the dispute but rather the evidence presented shows them aggravating the dispute. As such, this is an inappropriate use for the UserRfC and needs to be deleted. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional diffs of BenJonson attempting to resolve disuptes: Additional diffs of Schoenbaum attempting to resolve disputes:
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * [] Smatprt (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * None of these appear to be legitimate attempts at resolving the dispute. They seem to be simply continuations of arguments. What we would like to see is evidence of getting, for example, third opinions, mediation, or help with interpersonal relations. Including diffs that are simply examples of the dispute itself are not evidence of attempting to resolve the dispute. In other words, this UserRfC is being filed way too early. Most of the dispute resolution steps have not yet been followed. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think these diffs show how the editors have tried to work with Tom in an honest attempt to meet his objections using reasonable information. As far as other steps, a wikiquette report was filed here []. Did you miss that? Third opinion, unfortunately, was not an option as more than 2 editors are involved. You can see for yourself that the WQA responses did no good, as you can see by Tom's response there and the fact that NPA violations actually escalated after the report. As a result of all these efforts, several admins suggested this belonged here. You can also see both Schoenbaum and I engaging with Tom and Nishidani at admin EdJohnstone here: [].  Other steps recommended by Ed [] was a peer review, which I did request []. Ed also said here [] that another step would be the RFC/u. I tried the peer review first, with no luck, as Tom failed to take what limited input we got. Tom was also warned by Ed about possible blocking for NPA here []. As you can see - many steps have been taken, and the situation has only gotten worse. Smatprt (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The old adage about less heat and more light may be appropriate here. I see a lot of complaining from you about Tom's behavior, but not a lot of effort going towards actually moving this dispute forward constructively. The poor quality of this User:RfC is indicative of this. If EdJohnston had been one of the endorsers, we would not be having this discussion. I guess my point is, when you get all your friends and supporters together to gang-up like this, it ends up just looking pretty bad. The evidence is haphazard at best and while there may be enough to justify a User:RfC, this was filed way too soon and without enough independent support. It's just serving to exacerbate the conflict because of the way it is presented to the community. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't normally do this sort of deletion here. Aren't there rules and clerks and RFC closers who look after this sort of thing?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't think so. The process is pretty ad hoc, I believe. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There is at least one article relevant to this currently up at AfD -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays. I think the problem is still ongoing.    DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I've no opinion on the merits of the conduct issues raised; however, I think that this RfC should be kept for procedural reasons. First of all, it's been open for six days and has already generated an outside view and some talk page discussion. The process, which is voluntary and no-binding (not to mention rather ad hoc, as noted above), is at work. Secondly, it seems that the MfD precedent is to keep these sorts of RfCs. In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Evrik, an editor proposed the deletion of a RfC because, according to him, it "should never have been certified." Consensus rejected the argument. In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3, an in-progress RfC was nominated for deletion on the grounds that its certifiers had shown insufficient proof of trying to resolve the dispute. Consensus rejected this argument as well, primarily noting that using procedural grounds to try and stop a discussion was a bad practice. One editor noted that RfCs "are part of a voluntary dispute resolution process whose findings are not compulsory." Indeed, it is generally a good idea to keep RfCs as a record, even if community consensus finds them to be ill-advised, per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Bambenek. There's no compelling reason to get rid of this paper trail either, at least in my eyes. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * SA, I sort of wish you hadn't started this page. The RFC is not properly certified.  The diffs of prior attempts at dispute resolution don't verify. (First, the links are broken, but then, when I dig up the relevant conversations, I see no attempt at dispute resolution.  Insulting or chastising an editor does not constitute a good faith attempt at dispute resolution.)  It is my prerogative as an administrator to delete the RFC without further process. Per policy, we do get rid of the paper trail when a bogus RFC is filed. Jehochman Talk 08:00, 23 March 2010 (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.