Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 2

For talk on why this page was created see: Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 1.

Also see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.

Just wanted to say this page is an excellent idea. :)


 * Thanks! :) --mav

-

Timescales?
I think it would be useful to add some info on the expected timescales of each stage of the dispute resolution process. Having recently listed the dispute over Zviad Gamsakhurdia on the RfC page, I have absolutely no idea how long to leave it on there... -- ChrisO 00:07, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * No set time. List on RfC until it seems that it is no longer helping or there has been little to no response. Then either move to the next step of our dispute resolution process or drop the issue. --mav 03:25, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous npov?
An npov tag has been added to totalitarian democracy by a user with no userpage, and who left no comment on the article's talk page. I'm still fairly new here, and am not sure what to do with this. Comments gratefully read. Thanks. Denni 03:16, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)


 * Remove it. If the person does not give a good reason then the tag should be removed. --mav

Clarification needed
The policy says "If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be removed."
 * What exactly is "removed". Should the pages created be deleted? I've redirected the pages on RickK to Requests for comment for now as there were less than two users agreeing with the listing after 48 hours. It isn't clear whether removing them actually meant deleting. Angela. 20:33, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Removed has meant, in practice, only that the listing is removed from RfC. In adding the certification requirement, we did not discuss the question of deleting uncertified pages one way or the other. We probably should have, but I've been the one doing most of the housecleaning to remove uncertified pages, and I don't have the ability to delete pages, so somebody else would have to do the job.


 * As a matter of policy, deletion makes sense to me. If the dispute can't make the threshold, no need to keep a record of it, in my opinion. --Michael Snow 05:13, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with that statement. --mav 20:07, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Should the old ones at Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive be deleted too? I see no benefit in keeping them and it prevents forgive and forget. Angela. 21:48, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * I would prefer at least not to delete those that went on to arbitration, because in that case the RfC page serves as background for another process. Unless arbitration decides to delete its old cases. If we do delete the others, check the links first, because in moving stuff over from the old Conflicts between users I believe I created a lot of redirects. --Michael Snow 23:21, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I object to my listing
I object to being listed as a "sock puppet". I am accused of this with absolutely no proof. VeryVerily keeps making accusations about me, and then pointing to someone else's page. I refuse to accept this.

If you want to create a page where you give proof of me having a "sock puppet" or being a "sock puppet" then do so. In other words, if you have a problem with me, I do not object to a page being made about that, referring to ME. But I will not allow myself to be listed on SOMEONE ELSE's page with absolutely no substantiation, and have that continually referred to (by VeryVerily) as "proof" of something. Hanpuk 16:34, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Heteronormativity
Since this was added, there have been no new comments on the talk page regarding PoV issues. Indeed, the one person who was commenting has actually stopped commenting on the matter. Seeing as no one is taking other steps either, such as a VfD listing or a request for mediation, I think this can go now, can't it? Snowspinner 06:15, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I am still requesting comment, which is what this page is for. I don't want the page deleted, and mediation is innapropriate. Sam Spade 06:18, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The NPOV issue was voted on on the talk page - there were no objections to removing the POV tag, and, following its removal, no further objection was noted, nor has its presence on RfC netted any objection. I think the matter has reached consensus now. If, as you have said, the talk page is beyond repair and no useful dialogue can occur there, then the situation is a textbook example of what mediation is for. Otherwise, as you are not presenting your case on the talk page, nor did you present it in the explicit call for comments on whether to delete the POV tag, I have trouble counting your objection for much. Snowspinner 06:22, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Nothing was solved on the talk page. I witnesses that tragic high-fiving lovefest to celebrate my rejection of further conversation with those unwilling to respect Verifiability and wikiquette. The very fact you feel concensus has occured is a not so gentle reminder of the need for comment. Why you think your approval is necessary for me to refuse to waste my time with the abuse of reason and audacity within that talk page, or for me to request comment on the editorial disservice that article provides is beyond me. Find someone else to lord it over, I have no interest in your empty authority. Sam Spade 06:27, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Since you feel so the talk page is not helping, and yet you still feel so strongly on the matter, I have submitted a request for mediation. Snowspinner 06:28, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You have? That's weird, it certainly doesn't look like you did... What exactly to you expect from that? Were already communicating, and mediation is not for article content. Check out Btw. Sam Spade 06:32, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The request just went up. And mediation is indeed for article content. See Dispute resolutionSnowspinner 06:36, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re the West Papua entry, it was described here as an "edit war over question of legitimacy of Indonesian annexation of the region". This is not correct. I don't think anyone on either side is suggesting that the original annexation was legitimate, nor (to the best of my knowledge) is anyone arguing that the annexation is not an accomplished fact. So yes, there is an edit war, but no, it is not as described in the original entry. There are unresolved questions to be dealt with as regards the description of the status of West Papua, but these are not the subject of an edit war in any conventional sense. The "edit war" such as it is, consists of Wik mindlessly reverting the entire article to a much older and less informative version, and a number of people restoring from the damage. There is ongoing discussion on the talk page, which is on the whole civilised and productive. (I except Wik's occassional monosylabic contributions, and some of Daeron's more emotive words - note that the remainder of the discussion continues and that the article continues to improve.) Tannin 09:30, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Promoting comments to two-person approval
As the person who initially created the Andrew Zito comment, can I now move it lower? Chris 73 has now joined in as another sponsor. RickK 03:32, 1 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you can, but it doesn't matter now as I've done it. I think you need to make the page look a bit more like the standard template though. Angela. 08:17, May 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, please use the template. This hasn't always been strictly enforced, but if we can't tell for sure that something is certified, you run the risk of having a legitimate complaint deleted. --Michael Snow 21:00, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Possible return of admin conduct disputes
On Wikipedia talk:Requests for review of admin actions it has been proposed to have all disputes alleging misuse of admin privileges be part of Requests for comment. This would be subject to the two-person certification requirement. Comments are welcome as to whether this is a good idea, and if so, whether disputes over the use of admin privileges should be a separate category, or simply part of the user conduct disputes category. --Michael Snow 21:00, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

This has now been done. The discussion, including comments about the new template for admin conduct disputes, can be found on the talk page linked above. --Michael Snow 20:04, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Limitations to user conduct system currently in place
It seems to me that this page is essentially useless for complaining about a certain class of irritating users. I give you User:PolishPoliticians aka User:Szczecin aka User:Gdansk aka User:Caius2ga and possibly some others besides. This user goes on to cities related to Polish topics, where extremely tenuous compromise arrangements as to nomenclature have been worked out with exceedingly difficulty, changes to his preferred version (generally one in which the German name of a place is not mentioned at all), then goes on and adds mind-numbing amounts of tedious detail about sporting figures from the city, or whatever, so he can complain when he gets reverted (well, among other things). He'll edit war for a while, and then go on talk pages and accuse everyone who disagrees with him of being a Nazi (see Talk:Szczecin, for instance). Then he goes away for a few weeks, only to emerge again with a new user name. So, what on earth is one supposed to do about this? I don't even have any idea how I am supposed to attempt to "resolve the difficulty" before bringing it here, and, in any event, each user name is gone so quickly that by the time two people have tried to "resolve the difficulty", he's gone again. Beyond that, the problem is not so much an individual difficulty, as the user's entire modus operandi on Wikipedia. Forgive me for going on at length, but this is massively frustrating. john k 08:05, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * So, what on earth is one supposed to do about this?? Think twice before you revert. That's very simple, if you leave the important pieces of information and restore only the part you find unacceptable, noone will call you a vandal. Otherwise, it's hard to argue that one of you is right and the other is wrong since both of you use the same blind revert policy. Halibutt 14:49, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

I don't accuse people of being Nazis when they disagree with me. I also make useful contributions in articles throughout the Wikipedia, while this use seems to almost exclusively make troublesome edits on Polish city articles. And I don't constantly create new sock puppets. At any rate, as I've said before, practically all of the non-controversial additions made by this user are entirely trivial, and clutter up articles with largely uninteresting information. I'd note that on Szczecin I was not blindly reverting - the first time I merely changed the first paragraph back, and then changed references in the history section to say Stettin rather than Szczecin. After that, I did revert, but you can't possibly expect me to go through by hand every time because he might have (well, scratch that, probably did, in order to make me look bad) added the name of another footballer from Szczecin? Sigh. john k 15:22, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Relax .Ogg Only Policy
There has been some discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Sound_and_Wikipedia to relax the Ogg Vorbis Only sound format policy.

The intended policy change is to encourage multiple formats, being: AND
 * .wav and/or .mp3
 * .ogg

Current Wikipedia policy is to allow only .ogg sound files.

Reason for change is that .ogg, while public domain, is not widely used or supported.

Please add any comments to existing Wikipedia_talk:Sound_and_Wikipedia discussion page. --Zarni02 04:48, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As there was no dissent for this change, I have now implemented the policy change. The new policy is found on Sound. This replaces the previous Sound help and Sound and Wikipedia pages. The unique content for these pages has been moved to Ogg Vorbis help and Vorbis

Please put any discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Sound.

--Zarni02 10:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The discussion is now at Wikipedia talk:Sound


 * Actually, the discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Sound. Did I mention that it is at Wikipedia talk:Sound? &#9786; Jeff Q 03:15, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Good idea - we shouldn't ban the world's audio format, though we should certainly encourage formats US and Japanese laws haven't allowed to become patent-encumbered. Jamesday 00:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Although this is probably a discussion so old no-one will notice, I just want to point out that even more current discussion is at Multimedia. - IMSoP 19:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How long should I wait?
I believe information - even unpretty information - is needed in an article. I'm willing to wait a week to see if we have more people comment on other's heavy handed approach to suppression of that information. Please tell me if I'm being unreasonable. - Sparky 02:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) I don't think we're entirely beyond an impasse but I think we can move on. Thanks for your help. - Sparky 02:04, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Better directions
While this page is very comprehensive in explaining how to list a topic for comments, it fails to address the issue of how those comments should be formatted and what purpose and effect they have. Is there another page that lists this information? If not, could someone add it to the page?

Acegikmo1 19:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What you see is what there is. The comments themselves should be directed to the talk page in question - that's why we list the talk page, not the article itself. There is no particular format for the comment process on articles, it's just a request for people to join the discussion on a debated topic. If you're asking about the format of a listing, we try to address that in the instructions. If you think improvements could be made, I would welcome any suggestions. --Michael Snow 03:33, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Usage of Request for Comment
WP:RFC is a rather useful page, but I'm not sure how to make use of the subpages for disputes regarding users' conduct. Can someone give me a quick runthrough, as another sysop has asked me the same thing and I was only able to give an "I think..." answer? From what I gather, if somebody has been directly involved in discussion with the user in question, and attempted to resolve the conflict, they are permitted to add their own summary of events and various proofs to the "Statement of dispute" section. Is this true? Also, WP:RFC is rather vague on what sort of action will be taken after a user has passed the two negotiator threshold, which brings me to my next question: How can one achieve this threshold? Is it by adding one's summary of events to the "Statement of dispute" section as I discussed above, or is it possible too to count somewhat unrelated experiences in "Outside view" to what is mentioned in the "Statement of dispute" section, but related to violations of the policies the user is alleged to have broken? Thanks for any and all help &mdash; and if this is any indication, I think the page should be overhauled, because I had enough trouble trying to figure out the formatting for subpages (thank goodness there's an example). Johnleemk | Talk 12:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse
Yesterday I went to Berlin's meeting of wikipedians and spoke with the head of the German wikipedia organization, Kurt Jansson. He said that the problems with the articles related to pedophilia and abuse were well known for quite some time and probably started with a posting in a forum for pedophiles about wikipedia as a great opportunity to spread the message that sex with adults is helpful for children. He already mentioned it in an interview with a newspaper in order to increase awareness of the problem. In the German pages the most notorious abuser is de:Benutzer:Mondlichtschatten, his english version - or at least one of them - is user:Moon_light_shadow. Here user:Zanthalon seems to play the main role. Checking their contribution lists tells easily which articles need a complete rewrite: List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles, Childlove movement, pedophilia, Child sexuality, Child pornography, Child sexual abuse, Capturing the Friedmans, Rind et al.. I put the german articles on the list of articles that lack neutrality and need more care - the latter was immediately reverted by guess who. Please help taking care of the trouble. Get-back-world-respect 12:34, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Convention for Lists of Office-Holders
I would like to get some consensus on the format of lists of incumbents.

I have been working on standardised format for Heads of State and Heads of Government. However my work is regularly being reverted to a previous, more cluttered, less detailed and inaccurate version.

A case in point is List of Presidents of Benin where clearly very few of the listed incumbents were actually 'president'.

My version, which is now located at User:JohnArmagh/Heads of State of Benin clarifies the office of the imcumbent and details the political party of the incumbent whilst uncluttering the format.

It appears though, that I am not allowed to use it. The reason behind this is that it is duplication (or, as it has been called, quote:stupid duplication) of the List of Presidents of Benin. However whilst the names of the incumbents are essentially the same, the latter includes a description that is specific to the post of President, whilst including non-presidential incumbents in the list.

So it currently appears that lists of Heads of State which include at least one President must be titled Presidents of Xxxx, which can only serve to render the information held in the Wikipedia as amateurish.

If this is an enshrined policy of Wikipedia then the phrase You are encouraged to create, expand, and improve upon articles on the edit page should be removed as it is clearly untrue.

--JohnArmagh 16:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

/Tran Van Ba
Where do we go from here? I think we have a fairly good case against this chap, and he's not beggering off like I hoped he would. We need to delete the imagevios and send the rest to strong bleach cleanup. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 22:18, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ebonics vs African American vernacular English
Any useful contributions to this discuaion will be appreciated, at talk:Ebonics.

Unlisting
How long is an RFC to be listed before it can be removed? Gzornenplatz 19:36, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * They are generally listed until the dispute is resolved, the discussion goes inactive for a while, or in the case of article disputes, moves on to other subjects. Listings may also be removed if superseded by another venue such as mediation or arbitration. --Michael Snow 18:28, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Existing subpages
A question of form: how do I "comment about individual users" regarding new disputes if they already have a subpage under their name discussing an old dispute? Should a format such at /username/2 be used? -- Itai 14:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * There's no need for two levels of subpages I think; use /Username2 or /Username 2. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 14:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe it helps to have all disputes related to a single user under the same subpage. I have considered /username/archive (archive2, archive3, etc.), but this breaks precedental links. Hhmph. (In case you wondered, this currently applies to Requests for comment/Netoholic, but I'm sure there were cases in the past where this happened as well.) -- Itai 16:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Responding to a response
Is one allowed to respond to the response of a user against which one has complained, or is this prohibited for fear that the debate will degenerate into a free-for-all? -- Itai 01:17, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * There's no rule against it, and whether it would be advised or not depends on the situation. It's something you wuld have to judge for yourself and decide whether responding is going to have any benefit. Angela.

strange database/other problems
I just removed a single entry from the RfC list. Unfortunately something went wrong during the save and it saved the page once in proper form and then immediately saved it again, this time with most of the content of the page missing.

I tried immediately to revert it only to find that the database is having that charming problem again where you attempt to go back to the last good version of the page and it tells you it can't find that version.

As soon as I can get a good version of the page saved, I will. I apologize for the inconvenience. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The page is fixed now. Thank you, Bkonrad!  -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion for main RFC page
I made my 1st encounter with WP:RFC a couple of days ago, and the RFC on Pursuit of Nazi collaborators caught my eye. The porblem was, that there was no clear description in the RFC or talk page detailing specifically and exactly the NPOV issue that they wanted comment on. Its the same for most WP:RFC entries. By the time a dispute gets to RFC, theres many pages of long debate, often vandalism or POV or personal attack too, and this makes it unnecessarily hard for potential help to comment in any meaningful way.

I have two suggestions for edits to help WP:RFC do its job better.

What I did on post to the article's Talk page, "I'm looking at this article and thinking that Wiki NPOV is most useful here. It's possible to be neutral on a controversial topic, and thats whats needed here. Can someone summarise what exactly the key problem is seen as?" I got a 3 line reply which summarised the issue, and allowed me to comment and edit in a useful manner. I didnt need to read the entire archive - I knew what exactly to look for in the article itself to offer comments. If there'd been a 2nd POV I would have had both of them, 3 lines each, characterising the dispute from both sides.

This was really helpful. People often don't have time to read many pages of heated debate and lack familiarity with the core issues, they will be more able to help faster and better with a summary of the issue at hand. What I'd suggest is a very clear paragraph on WP:RFC to the effect of:


 * "If you ask for comments on WP:RFC, please also add to the talk page for that article a clear note stating "RFC REQUESTED" with a short (2-10 line) summary of the key RFC issue for anyone commenting to quickly understand whats gone on. Other people can also add short (2-10 line) notes under it to help characterise the key issue in the article as they see it."

2nd point is, the 1/2 page of instructions on WP:RFC is too long, and many users wont read it all. Shorter and crisper maybe? FT2 18:27, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * I am deleting this as instruction creep: "*Next, create a section in the Talk page of the article, summarising that a RFC has been made, and a neutral statement of the background and issues so that anyone who visits, can understand quickly. *	Anyone involved may add one factual statement each to that section (which can be edited later to take account of others' points if needed), this section is not a debate but a summary of how each person sees the issues."


 * I just looked at about half a dozen pages listed on RFC. Only one made any attempt at an RFC summary. Maurreen 04:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * NMaybe if they were actually told it would help others commenting, they would? You cant expect people to visit a page to comment, only to be thrown into a pile of mixed heated debating and old archives. It's not instruction creep, it's simply far far better to allow everyone with a viewpoint to summarise it once, so RGFC'ers can know whats really important and what to look for. FT2 20:49, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with the need for a summary, just not with the need for detailed instructions. Maurreen 04:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Summaries, etc.
I agree in general with the suggestion for summaries above.

After I listed something earlier on RfC, I thought it only fair that I should try to help in a few of the other pages listed. But many of the discussions were too long or otherwise discouraged me from reading the whole thing. But I'm not sure about specifying a form for any summary.

Also, maybe users listing pages on RfC should indicate the date.

Certifying disputes
What is the situation of an RfC where the complainant has been unwilling to certify the basis of the dispute? (I refer to Requests for comment/Slrubenstein) Do these get to stay for 48 hours? Because this seems like an abuse of process to me. Essentially, CheeseDreams seems to have created this page knowing full well that it has not been and will not be certified, and has made no effort to follow the usual form for an RfC page. It seems to me it should be immediately deleted, but I'm not really sure how this works. john k 19:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It looks like we're now preserving CheeseDreams's most recent forays onto this page as potential evidence for arbitration. --Michael Snow 23:01, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If an RFC is not certified, is the page deleted? Maurreen 06:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, I don't think RfC brough anyone to our dispute. It is now resolved, but I wonder how other people have fared. Maurreen 04:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I added the following sentence to the second paragraph of the RfC page: "On the article's talk page, please summarize the dispute." Maurreen 05:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleting uncertified RFCs
I think the policy for handling uncertified RFCs should be changed. These RFCs come in handy &mdash; for example, they can be used in arbitration cases. They are also good for looking at a person's edit history, i.e. Requests for comment/Drbalaji md was submitted by me as a record of one of my past disputes when such a record was requested as part of the current arbcom elections. I think deleting them doesn't make much sense. They should be unlisted and archived. A lot of people seem to agree. I think if no serious opposition is found, we should amend the policy handling uncertified RFCs. Johnleemk | Talk 11:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this. However, the current policy (and it's written on this very project page) is to delete uncertified RfCs and this should be honored, otherwise there is no point in having a policy on anything. This existing policy should be implemented as soon as possible for all uncertified RfCs, as a matter of fairness. When the new policy is in place, we will all know where we stand and there will be no suspicion (which I suggest is a very real one in at least one recent case) that policy is being ignored in a vindictive manner. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:13, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clearly the existing policy of deleting RfCs that were not certified by 2 people within 48 hours should be honoured. To do otherwise would quite simply be unfair. I would hope those which should have been deleted, but which haven't, are speedily deleted in line with this promise.

However, I strongly oppose the proposal to amend current policy. I think it is useful to have a temporary forum where people can raise queries about other users, safe in the knowledge that it will not be held against them. This allows minor disputes that do not meet the certification requirement to be quickly forgotten. How long should we hold a dispute with one person over someone? And what's with this rush to mention Arbitration? Anyone raising a RfC in good faith should be doing so in the expectation that Arbitration will not be necessary. The current deletion policy seems reasonable to me: let's not make mountains out of molehills. Let old disputes die away. jguk 11:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the policy should change. I think that it is useful to keep a record of spurious and vindicative RfCs in order to properly evaluate the behaviour of individuals who abuse these processes. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 22:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also agree with the proposed change in policy. Abuse of any WP page, even RfC, should be readily accessible to arbitrators. Uncertified RfCs shoould still be removed from the main RfC page after the set time, but not deleted. Voted on VfD seem to support this change in policy, (not all VfD users know what or where RfC is, but the thinking in general seem to be learning toward this kind of change in general). -Sean Curtin 00:35, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that policy needs to be changed. Deletion helps the people who put forth the RfC when in case of vindictive listings they should be kept as Arbitration evidence. There's no harm in keeping them. They are a historical record. We're not deleting uncertified VfD's either. They serve as a proof of previous discussion on the matter. Maybe a boilerplate on uncertified listings to clear the user against who the Comment was requested? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:50, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I tend to also agree that RfC's should not be deleted. Other pages of discussion don't get deleted; why should these? Wikipedia has a "full history" approach which in all other cases allows us to review the, well, full history of some issue, which may spread across RfC pages. Very Verily 16:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If this is the consensus, I'm not going to stand in the way of it, but I want to note that the reason for having a certification requirement in the first place is to discourage abuse of the RfC system by listing frivolous matters. Looking at it from this end, I think that the possibility of having the page deleted, not just delisted, is much more effective at discouraging frivolous complaints because the consequence is more "final". --Michael Snow 19:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a workable compromise would be to move the failed RfC into some sort of /Rejected/ namespace, perhaps even deleting the consequent redirect. Very Verily 21:05, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds more like you mean a subpage rather than a namespace, but yes, moving the page and deleting the redirect sounds like a reasonable solution. As long as RfCs that don't make certification have some differentiation from the legitimate (but no longer active) listings that are currently archived. --Michael Snow 21:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well I'm using namespace in the more general sense (lack of collision) rather than what is probably the MediaWiki sense (Namespace:), a usage I was aware at the time was troubling. Also, I would not say legitimate/illegitmate but rather certified/uncertified; it's not hard to get two people to sign an "illegitimate" RfC (e.g., two Hanpuk sockpuppets "certified" one against me), nor is it inconceivable that no one will sign on to a real complaint.  Okay, so all I'm offering here are nitpicks.... Very Verily  19:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I nitpick, you nitpick ... is it any wonder why we gravitate to Wikipedia? --Michael Snow 18:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think we should keep all RfCs. Keeping them serves to DissuadeReputation of both vindictive complainants and malicious defendants. Vacuum c 19:19, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * We need no change in the practice of deleting them. Uncertified RfCs, if kept too long, only serve as a platform for airing problems which have not been addressed in some very basic ways. Think about it, really.  Is it so hard, before creating an RfC, for the submitter to find just one other person that will/has talked to the user, agrees that their effort has failed, and is available to provide evidence and sign the page?  Doesn't that seem like a reasonable first step to ensure that your perceptions of the user's actions agree with at least some of the community?  Without the promise that frivolous RfCs will be deleted, this page will become the first thing someone does.  Why even bother try to work it out with the user when a permanent record will be kept, anyway ?  Remember, this is a formal dispute resolution step.  If you cannot meet the requirements, then take it to user talk: pages, or create a subpage in your own user space where you can gather comments or hold a discussion. -- Netoholic @ 22:03, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

My grave concerns about these proposals
I am still concerned about this. There are only 2 places on Wikipedia where users may make personal attacks that are not meant to be removed. Requests for Arbitration (where there is a definite decision on whether to take the matter forward), and Requests for Comment (where there is not). Anyone can raise a Request for Comment on anyone else. This could be very damaging for a defendant, in particular as many Wikipedians use their real names. Any employer or potential employer can see it (and we live in a world where many potential employers do google tests on potential employees). If Requests for Comment remain on Wikipedia, it would be perfectly possible for me (or any other user) to make abusive comments, say accusations of racism, about another user, that are without foundation, but which could cause real harm for the accusee.

I can see other users are concerned about what they see to be the present problem: a user abusing the RfC process. So may I propose a way round this - one which bears in mind that the only legitimate complainant that the RfC process has been abused is someone who has had a RfC raised improperly against them and that recognises that the defendant has a legitimate reason to remove spurious and unsupported complaints. And one which bears in mind that any complainant has chosen a public forum to air their dispute jguk 21:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem is, who is to judge illegitimate complaints? In the first place, our RFC certifications are only required to ensure that someone other than the complainant has discussed the dispute with the complainee. The complaint can be entirely accurate even if the complainant was the only one to discuss the dispute with the complainee. I prefer VeryVerily's proposal to place them in a /Rejected subpage instead. I would also prefer it if a template were added to the top and bottom of both pages (like is done with VfD subpages) clarifying their status. I don't think we should give users carte blanche to remove complaints against them, though, regardless of their grounds. The evidence should speak for itself. Johnleemk | Talk 03:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Illegitimate complaints are judged as ones which do not receive certification. If it doesn't, and conflict continues, someone else will notice, and perhaps a second RfC would go through. But if it's not certified, it doesn't deserve to remain as a black mark against a user's name. I understand that some may be sore when their RfC doesn't go through, but that's just the way it is. If it's not certified, it's not certified, and there's no need for the RfC to remain. - Vague | Rant 10:35, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

My proposal
Proposed: To amend the rules so that if the RfC complaint against a user has not been certified by two users after 48 hours, the defendant (and no-one else) may, at any time and at their sole discretion, require the page to be speedily deleted. (Once speedily deleted, a page may not be undeleted.) jguk 21:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Subsidiary proposal
I also find it appallingly unfair that some users appear to wish to not apply the clearly stated promise to delete pages after 48 hours if there the RfC is not certified by two users within 48 hours. To require anything other than their summary deletion seems dishonest to me.

Proposed: to apply the current policy in all cases until such a time as it changes. When it changes, any new policy should apply only to new RfCs against users. jguk 21:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Difference?
Jguk, what the difference between your proposals and current policy? And how do you define "personal attacks"? Maurreen 05:25, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The subsidiary proposal should be non-controversial: it is to honour the promise in the current policy, which is that all RfCs into users that do not meet the 2 person certification requirement within 48 hours are deleted. My main proposal is to change this going forward so that the defendant has the absolute right to demand deletion if the certification requirement is not met. This means a defendant retains the protection offered by current policy. However, if the defendant does not exercise that right, then the page will remain. By way of example, if my proposal applied to the recent CheeseDreams controversy, where some defendants wish to keep the page so they can use it to file a complaint against the complainant, then the failed RfCs would be kept. In particular, the promise to the complainant that the page would be removed if the certification requirement is not met, would be removed. jguk 08:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * jguk, the issue is what happens if the situation is reversed; what if, say, someone wishing to cover up their past when running for an arbitration post, or simply being involved in arbitration, requests speedy deletion? Worse still, what if they did it a long time before this? I don't think it makes sense giving people carte blanche to cleanse their slate, even if it's just a little bit. Instead, it can and should be made clear on the subpage that the dispute was removed form the main RfC page because it failed to meet certification standards.
 * In your earlier example of racist allegations, if there is no proof, clearly the RfC is groundless. If there is, then it must have some basis in reality; therefore, the prospective employer can decide for himself/herself based on the evidence presented. The notice at the top and bottom of the now archived RfC page would also make it clear whether the RfC met certification standards. Johnleemk | Talk 13:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Why should a failed RfC against a user be held against them? I can't think of any possible reason. Would you hold an acquittal of a criminal charge against someone too? jguk 20:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * So that people who saw the RfC filed know that it failed; that there was not sufficient support of the accusation. For the sake of the accused's reputation (and also that of the accuser's).
 * So that the accused is not "tried twice for the same crime." Kevin Baas | talk 20:18, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)


 * My point is to give the defendant in a failed RfC the choice as to whether it's kept or not. If (s)he prefers to keep it, it would be kept. Addressing your points specifically:
 * The absence of an RfC is itself evidence that it's failed. Also, I am proposing giving the defendant absolute discretion on whether (s)he asks for deletion - so it's not really an issue here.
 * Not convinced. RfC is not a trial - more a note to a user to change their behaviour to comply with Wikipedia norms. Also, as noted above, under my proposal, any defendant concerned about this point would just not request deletion. jguk 20:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That gives the defendant an unfair advantage. An uncertified RFC is not necessarily a frivolous one.
 * Kevin's explanation isn't very relevant, IMO &mdash; here, I agree with jguk.
 * RFC is indeed a trial. It's a request for comment &mdash; a request for others to have a look over the situation and examine the evidence. It's like arbitration except that everyone is an arbitrator and that the process stops at the findings of fact; no remedies or enforcement can be made. Deleting the RFC removes the collation of evidence and the findings of fact by the community; nobody will know who agreed with who, who was in the wrong, etc. Johnleemk | Talk 04:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * A failed RFC does not mean no crimes were committed. For example, Requests for comment/Drbalaji md was an RFC where the defendant had clearly violated the no personal attacks policy. However, it failed to meet certification standards (chocolateboy originally certified it, but later backed out without giving a clear reason why). Deleting it would give him an unfair advantage if the case had gone to arbitration (since I and other users would have to collate evidence again; testimonies would also have been lost) or if Drbalaji, say, applied for adminship (once the thing was wiped, if I wanted to object, again, I'd have to dig for evidence).
 * Removing evidence in the real world is an obstruction of justice. While an RFC is not intended to be evidence but a collation of evidence, in some cases, it can become evidence in itself. In some cases, there has just been so much evidence that deleting the RFC would be severely detrimental if the evidence were to be required.
 * Keeping the RFC would not be holding anything against the user &mdash; it's an archive. It should be understandable that that was then, and this is now. Johnleemk | Talk 04:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Moreover, I would note that these kind of attacks can be made anywhere on Wikipedia: talk pages, meta pages, user pages, etc., so it's not like we're providing much protection by deleting in this one case. In fact, we even provide more here, as failed ones will be firmly marked as rejected, which is more than can be said for attacks on, say, user pages. Very Verily  20:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The No personal attacks policy allows you to remove personal attacks from any other pages (admittedly, you have to find them first - but if you can't find them - who else will?). And as Johnleemk indicates, they are not failed - some people will take them as blots on your copybook, even though they should not have been brought against you in the first place. jguk 20:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, the No personal attacks policy is just not enforced. Furthermore, certain types of accusations which might be damaging need not be "personal attacks".  In fact, I don't believe RfC's qualify as personal attacks either; they are accusations of policy violation. Very Verily  22:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I repeat: An uncertified RFC is not necessarily frivolous. If I make personal attacks against one user, and nobody discusses the situation with me, and then the user I flame files an RFC, the RFC will fail, even though I am clearly in the wrong. I can then request deletion, even if the user has gone through a lot of trouble to compile evidence against me from numerous talk pages. Does that sound fair to you? Johnleemk | Talk 04:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If an RFC about user conduct doesn't collect the two signatures to certify it, that doesn't mean anything more than the fact that two people didn't sign it to say they tried to fix the problem. It doesn't indicate anything about validity or lack of validity. So I think we should stick with neutral language, such as "expired."

I also think the term "defendant" is overstating the case. Maurreen 04:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other options
Also blank?

Here's a goofball proposal to throw in to the mix: How about if failed RfC are not just moved to a /Rejected/ location but also blanked? Then it's in the page history but won't be picked up by search engines. Maybe this is just too weird.... Very Verily 19:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds too weird to me. I don't think that'd be a very good idea; the costs outweigh the benefits. Johnleemk | Talk 04:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't feel strongly either way, but here's another possible compromise. Expired RFCs could just be listed. The list might just include who filed an RFC against whom on what date. If a conflict does go to mediation or arbitration, they want to know what other steps have been tried to resolve the dispute. It's possible that the parties involved might answer differently. Maurreen 04:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * There are a number of points I would like to address as they relate to my proposal outlined above. After this I will stay silent and let the debate develop without me, though if you have a question you'd like to ask me, please place it on my talk page.


 * 1. I would prefer to see RfC on users and sysops remain a dispute resolution process, and I would hope that RfCs are placed in the hope (if not always the expectation) that they will result in resolution. After resolution, disputants should move on - and not keep threats of raising former disputes up their sleeves for a rainy day.


 * 2. There is a difference between placing a RfC on someone who knows it will fail (as it cannot honestly be certified by 2 people) and be deleted, and placing one on someone who knows it will be a permanent black mark. In the former case, the defendant will see it as a temporary annoyance (and probably a message to both parties that they ought to cool down). In the latter case, there may well be tit-for-tat RfCs and an escalation of a dispute.


 * 3. Keeping failed RfCs as an effective black mark on the defendant (which is how many users do unfortunately view the process) is as bad as it is unfair: it is impossible for a defendant to be acquitted. Less so under suggestions that an RfC has just "expired". The defendant has absolutely no rights whatsoever. Allowing a defendant to remove a failed RfC rather than have it as a black mark against him is only reasonable.


 * 4. I am also conscious that many RfCs are raised by what could be said to be the more troublesome or aggressive members of the Wikipedia community. Keeping a permanent record of their disputes as a black mark against those who have run into them is not a good idea.


 * 5. If a failed RfC is raised against a user who continues to be troublesome and continues to go against Wikipedia norms, admittedly a defeated RfC will no longer be there for evidence. But the diffs cited in evidence will still be there. Indeed, all evidence will still be there in the history pages. The only thing missing will be the opinions - and opinions shouldn't count in an ArbCom case - only evidence.


 * 6. Finally, I am conscious that some defendants may wish a record to be kept of the RfC for various reasons. Allowing the defendant to make the choice as to whether a failed RfC against them is kept means that in such cases, the RfC will remain. jguk 21:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think they need to be kept, as they greatly simplify preparation of evidence pages and looking up edits should the dispute go to arbitration. Fred Bauder 13:26, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I know that if a spurious and unsupported RfC were made against me, I would prefer it deleted rather than it hanging around giving the impression to those not in the know that the complaints were valid. I see your point about arbitration Fred, but that can be achieved with copies kept off-line by anyone who really sees a need for them.  Or, if for example the history becomes important to an arbitration case, they could be undeleted for that purpose.  In general, I think they should be deleted (and copies shouldn't be kept elsewhere either) -- sannse (talk) 22:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sannse. Deletion of uncertified RfCs reduces frivolous complaints, removes unsupported allegations and sends the message that RfC is a step in dispute resolution, not a club to beat your opponent with.  Undeletion by an Arbcom member should be the only reason an uncertified RfC can be made available for review.  SWAdair | Talk  21:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * May I ask how one would then gather evidence of a history of frivolous RfCs? Especially if one is working strictly from Wikipedia records... Documents which have been deleteted are not, afaik, retained forever but are eventually purged from the database. - Amgine 22:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Which is why I propose we make it absolutely 100% clear that the listing did not meet RfC standards and is kept as a historical document which may be used as a double-edged sword. Johnleemk | Talk 14:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The history of Requests for comment will show the user adding the listing, and its removal. The Deletion log will show the sub-page being deleted. -- Netoholic @ 22:48, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

A Question of Procedure
What's the procedure for opening up an RfC on someone who already has a RfC on them for an unrelated topic? --Carnildo 09:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If it's truly a different matter, I think you could just open a separate rfc, just tack a number at the end of the page name. I suspect you'll find the user in question's RfC has already been closed and is no longer on the listing page though. The tacking a number on the end would still be the correct way of creating a new page I think. --fvw *  18:20, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

Handling deletion of uncertified RFCs
From reading this page, it appears we are very close to a consensus for change regarding the deletion of un-certified user conduct disputes in some cases – specifically where the subject of the RFC wishes to use it as evidence. This wording will be placed onto the main RFC page, and the example templates (grammar changes as needed). I also propose that this standard be applied for all current disputes, if necessary. Please suggest changes to the wording, if you feel them necessary. If after a couple days with no objection or significant changes, the proposed text can be copied over. -- Netoholic @ 21:39, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Proposed wording
Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by discussing it with the subject on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. This must involve the same dispute or have observed the same disputed activity, not different ones.

Once the request for comment is open, these two people must document their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed, and sign the comment page. Requests for comment which do not meet these minimum requirements after 48 hours from creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed. The subject RFC page (and any other copies of it) will also be deleted, unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained.


 * Last modified by: Netoholic @ 00:31, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Comments

 * This is not at all what I understood from the previous discussion. If anything, this is precisely the opposite of the growing consensus, a restriction of the current policy. - Amgine 02:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This is not at all what I understood from the previous discussion. If anything, this is precisely the opposite of the growing consensus, a restriction of the current policy. - Amgine 02:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed revision
A Request for Comment needs to be certified by at least two users who have attempted to resolve the same issue by verifiable means. The users must document their efforts, and provide evidence those efforts have failed.

A Request for Comment which fails to be certified 48 hours after its creation is considered "uncertified", and will be de-listed from the RfC page. The subject RfC page will be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rejected/, and retained as a resource.


 * last modified by - Amgine 02:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments

 * This appears more reflective of the above comments. - Amgine 02:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Terminology
I think the word "expired" is clearest for RFCs that are not certified within 48 hours. The word "uncertified" can also apply to RFCs that haven't been signed within the initial 48 hours. Other terms are overstatements. Maurreen 10:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Policy decision on VfD
Current policy regarding user space is being clarified at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC. The issue is whether or not it is appropriate for someone to keep a copy of an uncertified RfC in their user space when policy calls for the RfC to be deleted. Is this similar to copying a deleted article to BJAODN or is it circumventing Wikipedia policy? Your input is welcome. SWAdair | Talk 03:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The VFD is deciding a case, not a policy. But since the issues are general and not specific, it would be better to decide a policy, and this talk page would be a better place to do so. Maurreen 07:03, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The policy is clearly written today - uncertified RFCs are deleted because retaining them is harmful. Amgine (and others) doing an end-run around that is not supported by policy. -- Netoholic @ 07:43, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)


 * But the pages are supported by consensus. The vote is currently 12 to 6 Keep. Vacuum c 23:59, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Majority is not consensus. The VfD failed to achieve consensus to delete.  That does not equate to any consensus that they should exist. -- Netoholic @ 19:45, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)


 * According to deletion policy, a numerical estimate of rough consensus is 66%. The vote was more than 63% keep, so close enough. Vacuum c 14:44, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty clear to me that current policy is that uncertified RfC's should be deleted as RfC's and from the RfC page. Not a whisper beyond that.  There have been multiple necessary copies of expired RfC's.  E.g. all that business about Anthony went round and round and round.  Keeping old RfC's as copies allowed the repeated nature of the complaints to be presented quickly.  A copy is a copy.  No one can act on it.  However, the expired RfC can save the work of having to unearth a bunch of diffs all over again, etc.  In terms of the RfC talk page, the issue isn't really active:  RfC's are deleted from RfC.  That's all RfC knows and all it needs to know, seems to me.  Geogre 14:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Copies might be fine if, when people made them, the RFC header and any other formatting (maybe even other people's signed comments?) were removed. Unfortunately, these copies are often made in an attempt to continue the discussion past its expiration here, using the identical formatting of the previously open RFC. -- Netoholic @ 15:43, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

"Please" or "must"
I don't feel strongly about this, but I think it's worth discussing.

This: "For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, please wait until at least two people have contacted the user" was changed to this: "For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people must have contacted the user."

Somewhere earlier, someone raised the question of what to do if the problem is only between two people, and was advised to still list it as an RFC.

A problem that is between just two people has a lot of potential for a stalemate and little opportunity for community input or consensus. Consider pages that draw little traffic, and what are the options? Maurreen 17:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm, in most cases should probably just ask a WikiFriend (of yours, or of theirs) to have a word with them. New users won't have made any Wikifriends yet though. Perhaps we should have a list of wikipedians willing to help out new editors in disputes? Or perhaps the mediators, though I'm not sure it's appropriate for them to certify disputes. --fvw *  17:30, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)


 * I was the one who reworded that rule. "Please wait" implies that the one to request comment must take no further action.  I will restore the original text if this becomes a problem.  Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 19:01, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * How about this wording: "For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user." Maurreen 18:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with that wording. Peter O. (Talk) 19:41, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll change it. Maurreen 19:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Requests_for_comment/Antifinnugor
This RfC is getting increasingly unreadable. We need outsiders to comment; many editors are discussing already, but most of them are involved themselves. Please help out! &mdash; mark &#9998; 12:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copies
Relatively recently, the project page was changed to add the material in parentheses below.

"The subject RFC page (and any other copies of it) will also be deleted, unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained."

This addition has no consensus. It is at least against the majority view on related questions. Please see discussions above. Maurreen 17:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The discussion (way) above is about whether RfCs should be deleted at all. There is still no consensus for that, so the long-held standard is to delete failed RfCs.  The text you quote above captures that long-held standard, which says that failed RfCs are harmful, and are to be deleted. I proposed it above at . -- Netoholic @ 17:58, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)


 * There is nothing standard about deleting copies of RFCs, this has never been done previously. --fvw *  18:07, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)


 * And the only response Netoholic received to was an objection. Maurreen 18:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * A bit biased, wouldn't you think, considering Amgine had a copy of an RfC up for deletion at the same time? -- Netoholic @ 22:58, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)


 * Netoholic, I don't see any reason to suspect Amgine of any more bias than you, considering you are the person who put up the VFD, etc. Maurreen 06:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And yet recreated pages of previously deleted pages fall within the speedy deletion criteria.....

Not to say that, as the emphasis of the dispute resolution process should be on the resolution rather than the dispute, I can't think of any good reason why anyone should want a copy of a deleted RfC, jguk 22:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I can; it may be quite useful if a further Request for Arbitration is required. And I don't think items kept in a Userspace typically fall under the Speedy deletion criteria. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  22:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * So they should be kept in case someone wants to use an old dispute to escalate a later one? So much for resolution. So much for assuming good faith. jguk 22:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * One can always request undeletion should the case arise, or one can maintain a copy of the RfC off-line, so as to diffuse the dispute. -- Netoholic @ 22:58, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Misstatement of the debate
Please excuse the current reversions underway. I am not trying to disturb this page, but the misstatement here of the issue under discussion is significant, and a disservice to those seeking to understand the growing debate. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Notification
We now require notification of users who have an RFC against them. I'd like to add a suggestion for notification on any RFCs, such as for article content and convention questions. Does anyone have any objections? Maurreen 05:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Any article that is listed under Requests for Comments should have a notice put on its talk page explaining that it has been listed at WP:RFC. It would probably be best if the notice was standardized, so a template should be created for that purpose. Also: Although it doesn't have to be a requirement, there should be a strong suggestion that notification should also be given to any of the appropriate Wikipedia interest groups, such as WikiProjects, Regional notice boards, Weekly Wikipedia collaborations, etc. BlankVerse 06:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adding dates
Although the instructions say not to sign the Requests for Comments, I think that it would be a good idea to have each of the requests dated. BlankVerse 06:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. Maurreen 04:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A question
I have been placed for a Request for Comment. So far one person has agreed with the RfC, and another has "partly" agreed. So far, two non-related comments have been made that lean towards the RfC being unneeded, with a third, withdrawn.

My RfC appears now in both not meeting and meeting the required two users. By my count, there is one and a half, the second person not wholly agreeing to the RfC.

Now, who determines if I have met the criteria are there two votes, or a vote and half, or even just one vote? Also, who moves my name from one section to the other? An administrator? One of the people who sides with the person placing the comment? Or can anybody move my name into a second position? Again, I'm just trying understand the protocols and I feel like I'm walking across a bed of razor blades.user: stude62 user talk:stude62 23:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moving my RFC into approved status
To be honest, I don't much care whether it's approved or not, however the RFC guidelines do state that for it to be approved evidence must be provided that the submitting parties have attempted to resolve the conflict. Perhaps if someone can provide this evidence then we can approve it. Hence my reverts. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evidence was provided on the dispute-specific page. It is not Ta bu shi da yu’s role to determine if that was sufficient effort to resolve the dispute. I moved the listing to Approved, thinking it appropriate since I had just become the necessary second person to certify the dispute. If I was not supposed to move it myself, I apologize. But surely this is a technicality. Would someone else, then, move the dispute to Approved, since it has met the requirements? And would Ta bu shi da yu leave it there?— Ford 02:27, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)


 * Not taking sides in this, but ... does saying "You're the one in the wrong!" really count as "effort to resolve the dispute"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What sort of effort would have satisfied you? Ta bu shi da yu left no room for compromise. If you want to characterize my and Simetrical’s response as you have, which may be fair, then you will surely agree that Ta bu shi da yu began this by saying, Do it my way — or I’ll force you to do it my way. There were no alternatives provided. Should we have accepted Ta bu shi da yu’s solution because it was the only one acceptable to Ta bu shi da yu? How could that possibly be seen as a compromise? It is true that my first reaction was flippant, but that is because Ta bu shi da yu was incredibly condescending; I do not repent of my tone. But even in being flippant, I explained that I did not think that Ta bu shi da yu’s solution would work, or that Ta bu shi da yu had any business using administrator power to force it. Simetrical’s response was better still: he gave Ta bu shi da yu a chance to back down, suggested that he would ultimately take things to RfC, and waited a day and a half before challenging Ta bu shi da yu’s edit directly. This wasn’t hotheaded behavior on Simetrical’s part. You must recognize that this was a binary situation: Ta bu shi da yu’s way, or not Ta bu shi da yu’s way. You must further recognize that it was Ta bu shi da yu who insisted that it be so.

Besides, if this Request for Comment is approved, it will not subject Ta bu shi da yu to any disciplinary action, as I understand it. Editors are commenting already, mostly in Ta bu shi da yu’s favor. The criteria for approval have been fulfilled; let the process proceed.— Ford 02:15, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll bow to your wishes. If you move the RFC to accepted, I will not revert you. However, next time that an RFC is filed, please let another user move this to the accepted RFCs. Incidently, I realise that this won't directly lead to any disciplinary actions. I don't really have a problem with the RFC itself. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Basic instructions
I'm adding my two cents worth to this because as a one who is currently the subject of a RfC, I'm finding the whole process not all that productive. These are my ideas, and again, this is coming from someone who is "in" this process. This is what I feel is lacking in the RfC process:


 * 1) Clear and concise instructions for placing an RfC on other users. This includes a standardized format that must be followed for setting up the comment, and a timeframe by which the format must be followed.
 * 2) Clear and concise instructions for the person on whom the RfC has been placed. For examples, what are our rights?  How are we notified? Can we get an advocate to discuss our options with befroe responding?
 * 3) Clear and concise instructions for conduct between disagreeing parties (ex. During the RfC, please limit your discussions with opposing sides to the RfC talk page) while the RfC is active. This prevents harrassment, stalking and baiting.
 * 4) Clear and concise instruction on who may comment, and in what section(s) they may comment in. For example, is it a conflict for those who agree and involved in placing the RfC (those users who in agreement), to also post in the "outside" parties section at the end.
 * 5) Set clear time limits on how long people to comment, and respond. There should be enough time given to the person that the request is upon to read, review and respond to the charges brought against them.
 * 6) Require that all accusations relating to behavior be hot-linked to examples.
 * 7) Require that the conflict be placed in persepctive - if conflict exists regarding one article, and the user has contributed to 100 articles (at the time the RfC is placed) without any other problems, this then puts the conflict in perspective, and it requires those placing the conflict to review an entire body of work instead of just one issue.
 * 8) Set clear guidelines on how additional comments can be made and the protocol for answering them.
 * 9) If a willingness to settle the dispute reasonably is placed on the table, encourge the sides to come to together to to discuss a win-win outcome. If the side that placed the comment refuses to discuss a settlement, then the comment should end. If the person on which the comment is made refuses to a settlement, the comment continues.
 * 10) Provide an exit strategy and time limits.

The purpose should have a positive outcomes for all parties, not be an avenue for ax-grinding. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 23:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Some of these are good points. Do you want to make a draft? Maurreen 07:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm starting a draft proposal page on Requests for comment (draft user conduct amendments). I thinkt the opportunity should be taken to emphasise the "resolution" aspects of resolving disputes, rather than the "dispute" bit, jguk 10:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Maurreen/Jguk - Thank you for your responses. Its nice to be heard and see that my suggesstions have some merit.  I would very much like to contribute, but I'm not real clear on what the protocols are.  Do I follow the link in Jguk's comment? Who makes a decision one whether the idea has merit?  Again, as far as Wikipedia protocols are concerned, I'm really unfamiliar the way things flow. Any help is greatly appreciated... user: stude62 user talk:stude62 13:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Be bold! Follow the link, paste ideas on the link, on this talk page and Wikipedia talk:Resolving disputes. There's no set protocol - we aim for consensus, and if a vocal group of other editors disagree with an edit, it will go. If no-one objects to an edit, or after a discussion it is clear there is no remaining significant opposition to an edit, it will stay, jguk 13:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I was bold, or tried to be. Again, I think its important to get everything spelled out in one place.  One of the great things about Wikipedia is the ability to interlace articles, however when it comes to dispute resolution, making people hyperlink to an affiliated page or definition increases frustration.  I feel strongly that to be fair to all parties, the rules of the road need to clearly and concisely stated on the RfC page itself.  user: stude62 user talk:stude62 22:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Getting rid of RFC?
Has anyone ever argued for getting rid of Requests for Comment on individual editors? I see it as putting someone in the stocks and throwing tomatoes at them. Arbitration is different because even though others can add evidence to an arbitration page, they tend not to, and people are meant to stick to the topic. But with an RfC, anyone can say anything without producing evidence. The whole thing strikes me as wrongheaded. Am I alone in thinking this? SlimVirgin 10:52, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) The subpage template calls for evidence.
 * 2) Slim, it seems like you are suggesting no lower level for handling problems. Maurreen 11:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree it's helpful to have a lower level of dispute resolution and I think it's excellent for article content; I just don't think this is the right thing for individuals. I should imagine it must leave a lot of lingering resentment, and so I don't see it as a good way of settling a dispute, only of airing it. If it were a page that only, say, the arbcom could see, or some other limited group of RfC judge-editors, that might be better, but as it's currently done before the whole community, I feel it's like tying up a suspected witch in the village square, or dunking her to see whether she'll drown. ;-) SlimVirgin 11:10, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

The other issue is that it could so easily backfire on those making the request, as comments could also be directed against them, so that might put some editors off even starting dispute resolution. I wonder whether, if editors were offered the choice of a more private type of RfC — say, before a committee of ordinary editors rather than the arbcom, meeting more informally and not making decisions as such but just giving advice — whether they'd be more inclined to bring cases. Just thinking out loud. SlimVirgin 11:16, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

"Wikiquette alerts"

 * How about maybe adding something streamlined: "Wikiquette alerts"? The aim being to nip a problem in the bud, more or less. Maurreen 11:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. How would you see it working? SlimVirgin 11:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem with the RfC's on users is the confrontational approach. My guess is that "Wikiquette alerts", if not handled carefully, would also be seen as confrontational - they'd certainly need another name: In essence a message that "you are doing wrong" message, rather than a "perhaps we both need to modify our approach" message, which is more likely to diffuse a dispute.


 * On Requests for comment (draft user conduct amendments), I outline how an approach more geared towards resolution might work. And I think a page where the views of other Wikipedians on a dispute are canvassed should be beneficial, as long as comments are directed towards resolution.


 * A pre-RfC stage - maybe well-worded standard paragraphs that user X can put on user Y's talkpage to say, tactfully, that X has a problem with Y's behaviour and requests it is modified, and come to a modus operandi with them may be useful. If this is what is meant by "Wikiquette alerts", maybe they'd work, jguk 11:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea too. Anything that heads it off at the pass, and that aims at resolution, not just airing the dispute, is welcome. At present, I find the RfC system almost cruel. It's often just "X said this on Tuesday, and that on Wednesday", then conclusions are drawn from it (X is evil), on and on, with every little thing X has done on Wikipedia held up for contempt or ridicule. It doesn't seem to resolve anything, and people are often left furious with one another. I'd say a standard note on a talk page as an 11th hour warning/avoidance tactic would be an excellent idea. SlimVirgin 12:11, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * The template idea has potential. But I expect that most people already know they're having a problem with someone else. And templates are impersonal and cold.
 * The "Wikiquette alerts" could essentially be pointers to remarks. More a single incident or conversation more than a list. One or more outsiders could chime in, such as: "Joe, that wasn't a good way phrase that" or "I don't think you two are understanding each other. Mary's trying to say ..." or whatever.
 * I think sometimes outside views can be very beneficial. That doesn't mean either party is on trial. Maurreen 12:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In principle this sounds like a very good idea. At present, one's options seem to be an escalation along the lines of, "please don't do that"; "please don't do that or I'll have to RfC you";  "I'm RfCing you". The gap seems pretty big at each step, especially if the problem is more a pattern of behaviour than any single really egregious incident, or where they're sufficiently scattered or one-to-one that one hestitates to start an RfC in case it doesn't get 'seconded'. I'd like to offer helpful suggestions as to the preferable procedure, but I'm far from clear myself at present. Alai 08:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, please see draft section on possible alerts. Maurreen 08:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reform of RfCs on user/admin conduct
I have made some further tweaks/comments on Requests for comment (draft user conduct amendments). I'd like a more friendly approach to replace the current confrontational one as soon as practicable. Please let me know whether it's ok to proceed with replacing the current method with the proposed method.

On the "Wikiquette alerts" idea, I have nothing against an informal process either before or alongside the RfC approach. However, I really do not like the name as it sounds too aggressive. If most people were sent a "wikiquette alert", they'd respond (either in thoughts or in actions or both) with a "well you can f- off then". Kind regards, jguk 15:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to ask you to wait until that page has consensus. Maurreen 08:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My RFC
Can we please remove this now? I think the outcome is pretty clear. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

15th DAY of lingering complaint on User:LIGerasimova
Dear fellow Wikipedians,

On February 15, 2005 I have filed a complaint against User:LIGerasimova for her(his) personal attacks and groundless accusations directed against several users, but mostly against me (see, official complaint). This complaint was signed by two users: myself and User:Ulvi I. (currently inactive), so it met a two-person threshold needed for consideration. According to rules a complaint should be either accepted or rejected (deleted) withing 48 hours, but my complaint is lingering in "Candidate pages - still need to meet the two person threshold" for more than two weeks (!). I am surprised that this case received no consideration so far, despite obvious evidence for LIGerasimova's disruptive actions. '''I ask for every concerned person to consider this complaint and give his/her feedback. This is very important for me, esp. considering that User:LIGerasimova renewed her attacks against me just recently.''' Hope to hear from you.--Tabib 12:10, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * If the case has met the quorum of two users showing a failed attempt to resolve the same dispute with User:LIGerasimova, edit the page to place it in accepted cases. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tony. I moved it. But actually, I thought admins should do it instead, that's why I did not move myself it so far. I very much hope that this complaint will be dealt seriously, because this person has been following and continuously attacking me for almost three weeks.--Tabib 12:40, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well put whatever evidence you have on that page. Post diffs if possible.  That is where you go to page history and find (using the differences mechanism provided on page history) an edit someone has made that you want to use in evidence.  Then copy the URL and paste it to our RfC page, alongside a description of when and on what page it was made, and a summary of the edit.  You may want to look at other RfCs to see how it has been done in the past.  See, for instance Requests for comment/Robert Brookes.


 * If RfC is unsatisfactory (eg: nobody responds--which seems to be the case here) and the problem continues, you may take this to the next step. This would normally be mediation or arbitration.  See Resolving disputes for an overview.  You should probably be looking at either mediation or arbitration if it's been going on for a while and is a serious problem of behavior rather than opinion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:44, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts
Here's a draft that could be added to the RFC page or somesuch, if people agree.

Wikiquette alerts are an option for a quick, streamlined way to get an outside view. Just post a single link here to the problem as you see it (for example, a single posting or section of a talk page). Label the comment neutrally and post the date but do not sign or use names.

Outsiders who visit the link are encouraged to make a constructive comment about any Wikiquette violations they see. Postings in this section should be removed after seven days. Maurreen 10:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I would prefer a different name from "Wikiquette" alert - it sounds too close to "etiquette lesson" (which may be the idea, but a term less likely to provoke a defensive response would be better). Also, I'd like a more neutral word than "violations" for the same reason. Otherwise, let's go for it, it's worth a try, jguk 11:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * PS I think this should be in addition to the RfC page (at least for now)


 * It seems sensible to me, too. Aside from the tweeness of 'Wikiquette' I have no problems with it, and it seems to be in general use.  Would 'breaches' be better than 'violations'? Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * What is "tweeness"? Maurreen 12:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In U.S. English, 'twee' is perhaps 'cutesy'? Self-consciously (and overly) sweet (it's C19th, and comes from the affected pronunciation of 'sweet' as 'tweet'). Like referring to children as 'the little ones', or to the stars as 'god's daisy chain'... Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'm not attached to the language. I only used "Wikiquette" because the word seems prevalent on Wikipedia. But a lot of stuff seems like it should be just basic manners to me. Maurreen 12:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a good idea. I don't mind the name Wikiquette alert myself because Wikiquette is the word used here for the way we're supposed to behave. See Wikiquette. But I'd be fine with another name too. SlimVirgin 21:23, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank. If anyone would like different language, I'm open to suggestions. Maurreen 22:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I've no real objection to 'Wikiquette' (suppresses slight shudder), nor indeed to 'violations'; I only suggested 'breaches' because of Jguk's concern. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm broadly in favour, though I have a number of (hopefully clarifying) questions. Is wikiquette precisely the scope of the proposed addition? Or is it more like "policy violations in general, but I don't quite want to start an RfC yet"? And the location is important, as RfC has one set of connotations, elsewhere would have other ones. And where would agreements/rebuttal go, if the link is not to a talk page? I assume to the corresponding one, but perhaps make that explicit, or require the link to be to a talk page comment (the Wikiquettealertian can always create one for the purpose). Alai 22:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I just made the page a few minutes ago. Can we move the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette alerts? Maurreen 23:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requests for comment (draft user conduct amendments)
Any more comments/discussions on this before it goes live? jguk 10:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Last chance! :) If there are no new comments, I will make this the live version sometime after 00:01 (GMT/UTC) on Thursday 10 March, jguk 23:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Granted, you weren't sneaky about these changes per se, but neither were you very vocal. You are suggesting a series of MAJOR changes to this process, yet have not solicited as widely as necessary to garner support. Trust me when I say this process is sacred for its consistency. -- Netoholic @ 21:15, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)


 * They have been discussed very well in exactly the place where people who are genuinely interested in these things would look. There's no need to be too vocal - indeed, unfortunately there's every need not to be too vocal, as otherwise trolls, and others who prefer a good argument and a long drawn-out dispute would hijack the proposed changes. The new method has been considered by a number of people - give it a change and see if it works, jguk 21:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That is not true. Posting short blurbs on three talk pages is NOT how you "consult widely".  You've only gotten input from 3-4 people (who I might say are a bit jaded on the RfC process). -- Netoholic @ 21:26, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)


 * This isn't policy. It's part of the process of resolving disputes (which is about to spawn a new page Most ironic edit wars ever the way you're going. The changes to a page are usually discussed on a talk page - which is exactly what happened. I see no need to overdramatise it, jguk 21:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mr RFC part deux
Someone? Can we, like, remove it? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Removed. An anon recently added it again to the list of new disputes, and I prompty removed that, since it was already listed. I just archived the original listing, too. Best wishes, -- Chris 73 Talk 08:59, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Aw, I wanted to see just how many 'outside views' it could rank up. Jordi·✆ 10:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Certification and Endorsement by AMA Advocate
Should an AMA Advocate who is representing the petitioner of a User conduct dispute RfC be allowed to certify or endorse that same dispute? The relevant sections of the RfC form are 1.5 (Users certifying the basis for this dispute) and 1.6 (Other users who endorse this summary). I noticed that in the RfC (now withdrawn or deleted) for User:Ungtss, Joshuaschroeder's (i.e. the petitioner's) AMA Advocate signed and provided more information in section 1.5 (certification). This just seems to be wrong. If I understand the RfC procedure correctly, the petitioners need to sign the certification and other users can endorse. It seems to me that the petitioner him- or herself needs to certify the RfC (section 1.5), since he or she is complaining, not the AMA Advocate. In addition, since the AMA Advocate is assisting the petitioner (in this case) in bringing the RfC, I would think that he or she should not be allowed to then endorse it (section 1.6), as any other User would [note: in Ungtss's RfC, the AMA Advocate did not endorse, but it is possible this may happen]. --JimCollaborator 19:22, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Once the proposal on Requests for comment (draft user conduct amendments) is adopted, this point will become moot, jguk 20:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I have now changed the page in line with the proposal. Let's hope it helps to resolve disputes quicker, jguk 21:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No longer two people certifiying?
Jguk, where was it agreed that RfCs didn't need to be certified by two people anymore? My concern here is that this will make it easier to start one up, which is probably not a good thing. Speaking of which, I thought Wikiquette alerts were a good idea. Do you know whether it's being followed up? SlimVirgin 21:40, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * The new approach has been discussed as per above. (And, as I'm sure you appreciate, for User:Maurreen and me to agree on something means it's gone through a thorough process.) Yes, the idea is that it is easier for on to start up - this makes it easier to get comments at an earlier stage in the dispute. And I'm quite sure that those who start them frivolously will soon find out what community opinion is! Of course, if it does not work, the approach will have to change.


 * I don't know quite where we are with Wikiquette alerts. I didn't think there were any objections to having them as well as the RfC process - at least when they are first introduced and before we know whether they will work, jguk 21:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You'll probably need to get more agreement for this change, Jguk, than just two or three people. I know this isn't a policy page, but it's part of dispute resolution, which probably makes it stronger than a guideline, so it might be best to post on the Village Pump, and let the arbcom know, as they're in charge ultimately of the dispute-resolution process, or on the mailing list. How do we go about pressing ahead with Wikiquette alerts (I have to smile every time I type that word). ;-) SlimVirgin 21:51, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Give the new process a chance. As soon as it's overpublicised the trolls who prefer creating and maintaining disputes and arguments will win the day. The aim of the proposal is right - to resolve disputes quicker and with less confrontation. It can always be tweaked in reaction to new practice, jguk 21:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm all for resolving disputes faster, but this will start them faster too, and start more of them. I'm surprised you support this because the RfC against you failed because there was no second person, so I'd have imagined you having other views. As you say, there are lots of trolls out there, and Nazis, POV pushers etc. This change feeds them to some extent, don't you think? SlimVirgin 22:02, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm hoping not. After all, a troll RfC would probably only gets loads of comments to stop trolling. One idea behind no longer having two people certifying is that it means that the disputee (if you will forgive the term) does not start the process 2-1 down. Note, there is an automatic deletion process, which means that RfCs cannot remain indefinitely. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that I needed to concede to Maurreen that users could keep copies of deleted RfCs on their userpage - and I hope, in due course, this will get edited out. But what we have is a good compromise approach aimed at resolving disputes quickly and less confrontationally. If the new approach does not work, it will have to change - but let's see if it works first. (It can't be worse than the current process, as anyone who has been through it will testify.) jguk 22:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I won't oppose it, but as you know, I dislike the whole RfC thing, even the concept of it. Bring us all your dirt and we'll dump it this person's head (whether true or not), then it gets cached by Google, and if the subject of the RfC happens to be editing under their real name, they could end up not getting a job interview because of it in the future - and might never even find that out. But that's not related to how many people are needed to start one. SlimVirgin 22:48, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this change in policy seems to be the result of only three users. Looking at the history of Requests for comment (draft user conduct amendments), only jguk, Maurreen and Stude62 have made two or more edits (Rananim made one edit). On the discussion page, only the same three users have ever made edits. Also, there are only four pages that link to the draft (one being this page). Perhaps this change should be more widely publicized so that additional editors can view the draft? Carrp | Talk 22:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * A number of points - first, this page is not policy. Second the discussion was referred to a number of times on this talk page. OK, only three users chose to discuss the proposal - but then, you won't get more diametrically opposed WPians than the ones who were discussing it. Let the new approach run for a trial period - it can always be tweaked (or, if really needs be, reverted) if it does not work out.


 * I will add that I am more than aware than most of what SV is saying. Unfortunately dirt can be thrown too easily on WP. That's why there's an automatic deletion mechanism in the process, jguk 23:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of -all- RFCs
This may have slipped the notice of most people, but it is the biggest reason this change should be reversed ASAP. To quote - "Once the request for comment is open, it will remain open for the longer of 14 days or 3 days after the latest new contributor to the page has posted their comments, unless both the disputants request otherwise, for instance, because their dispute has been resolved before this time expires. After that, it will be deleted. But users are free to keep a copy on their user page."

Is it really fair that only admins get to review past RfCs? -- Netoholic @ 23:03, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)


 * There is no need to retain RfCs indefinitely after they have closed. Indeed, there is every reason to put past disputes behind us and move on to improve the encyclopaedia. I wish the last sentence was not there (SV notes some good reasons why it shouldn't be there) - but it was a final compromise to get Maurreen's consent to it. Let the new approach stay a while and let's see if it works, jguk 23:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Archiving an RfC
I would like to know if an RfC will be archived, like a VfD. Thanks. — Instantnood 01:51, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Old RfCs under the old approach are stuck there forever as far as I can see. New RfCs under the modified approach will be deleted once their time is up, which will be once all disputants have had a chance to consider community views, jguk 06:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In that case, I still have to say that I disagree with this aspect of the new approach. As I stated (and still believe, after reading and thinking on your reply) in Village pump (policy), I believe the RfC is also important for arbitration cases. It provides evidence that previous attempts were made at dispute resolution, and also serves as a repository for information to replace or supplement the /Evidence subpage. While it is true that arbitrators are also admins and can therefore view deleted pages, there are other people that are sometimes involved in these cases who are not admins, and therefore are unable to read these pages. RfAr, VfD, and RfM cases, among others, are also archived, regardless of result, and I see no reason why the same can't be done for RfCs. I think we can preserve enough WikiLove simply by moving the old RfC off the main RfC page. --Deathphoenix 22:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * While your point is a really good one, Deathphoenix, jguk points out that RfCs are too often just a stepping stone to arbitration and not genuine attempts to resolve the issue at their stage. Answer this, though, what is to stop a complainant, if they don't feel that the RfC had the desired result, manually c&p'ing the text into the arbitration evidence page? Dr Zen 23:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * There is nothing stopping the complainant from doing that. But there is also nothing stopping the arbitrators from rejecting a case when they feel that the complainant is making a trivial request. --Deathphoenix 23:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Count me as another editor who finds the concept of erasing all old RfCs and the new policy in general to be hastily adopted by a small minority of users. Already we have more people objecting to the new process here than the few who created it. This change was made completely without consensus and needs to be put on hiatus until it can be discussed thoroughly. The fact that jguk apparently likes making changes with only a handful of people and ignoring complaints appears to be a clear attempt to make a run around of the way things are normally done here. DreamGuy 23:02, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Reverting to the old process
There seem to be many voices on this page and at Village pump (policy) opposed to adopting this new process, and only one (jguk) wishing to see it stay. If the page is not returned to its previous wording by about 21:30 today, I will be reverting it to prevent disruption. I hope that we continue to discuss changes, and that the proponents of change consult the community widely by making sure those discussions are fully advertised. -- Netoholic @ 15:39, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * Netoholic, you have yourself added a template to the page asking that the page is not reverted. It would be somewhat hypocritical of you to ignore your own request.


 * Your reactionary response is somewhat negative - you seem to see no merit in the new approach as it does not preserve animosity and ill-feeling for the prurient interest of others.


 * Also - the 3 comments on the village pump first make the mistake of calling this policy - it isn't. And the only opposition is that the new version does not encourage people to move their disputes onto the ArbCom. Let's see whether the new approach works. If you revert it, we will always be laboured with a confrontational process that causes a lot of bitterness, and which encourages disputes to go to ArbCom. The old approach has failed - let's see if the new one works. If anyone has queries about the new approach, let them ask them here - on the RfC talk page, jguk 18:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yours is one opinion. As "misguided" as you think we all are for not taking your changes lightly, you are one voice.  Agreement has been reached by everyone except you that we need a lot more input on your changes before implementing them.  If you are doing this in good faith, you'll accept that this is the current state of opinion, and revert the pages yourself. If not,then I will revert them, and this page will be returned to normal operating procedure for the time being.  -- Netoholic @ 19:03, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * You seem to just like conflict for the sake of conflict, and are, at present at least, the only voice on this talk page not willing to give the less confrontational approach a try. Do you like the old approach? Do you want cases to make a bee-line to Arbitration? Do you support keeping open months-long disputes for no good purpose?


 * Give the new approach a try - it can always be tweaked to iron out its imperfections. Why just destroy a positive move towards Wikilove?


 * And let those wishing to discuss the new approach do so here, on the talk page, rather than killing it at birth, jguk 19:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I'm mildly in favour of the new version. Several people have added new stuff to the page on Jguk's version with apparently no complaint. I humbly suggest that both J and N stop reverting the page - let others do so. N, if anyone supports your view, you'll find out. And if no-one does, you might as well stop and save the conflict.


 * I don't care how wonderful his proposal is. It was not advertised at all (except as minor notices) and yet it affect this process tremendously (like making all RfC's subject to deletion, certified or not). I do not like having one person ram his change down our throats.  He does not have consensus, no matter what I think of the changes. -- Netoholic @ 22:13, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 22:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)) If people agree with you, they will revert to your version. Or comment here. If they don't, you should stop reverting, it will only cause bad feeling.


 * Note also that in general, the long-tested status quo should be the default -- unless we can agree that Jguk's changes are a good thing, we shouldn't be just trying them to see if they work too (at least not here). Further, I again strongly object to the idea of cases ever being deleted. We should keep records of policy and dispute cases as public record because they may prove useful to later dispute cases, and because otherwise false statements may be made about them or they will be invisible to people who might find the information helpful in some way. Naturally, we don't want people to hold things against us forever, but simply hiding our past is not the way to do that. Instead, we should keep the stuff around and make people learn that other people change. I imagine a number of the well respected wikipedians may have not had the most promising starts. That's ok, and in fact it makes our humanity more evident when signs of our growth are still there. Again, I support reverting Jguk's changes until and unless he gets full consensus from a proposal that's well advertised (village pump policy section, relevant pages, etc). Note, however, that as always, if I were to be convinced that he has a better system, and we all have a say in it, I'm not opposed to change in principle. I primarily feel that it must have a proper mandate, and saying "just try it" isn't good enough. I also do want to give Jguk a small pat on the back for inviting me back to comment here by a note on my talk page, despite it being visible that I'm bothered by the changes he made. That's a good sign of good faith, and I appreciate it. --Improv 22:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * A major policy change like this should not have taken place without discussion. There are approximately 1,400 major contributers to Wikipedia, while approximately 100 user RFCs have been certified.  The current policy was put in place with the contribution of only 4 users. --Carnildo 22:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In case people don't read my comments on the potential revert war, I just want to say that I second (or third, in this case) Improv and Carnildo's comments about maintaining the status quo for now. --Deathphoenix 22:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right now I count five users for restoring the status quo, and two for retaining the proposed version. Someone please revert to the old procedure, and then jguk can put together a proper survey regarding his changes. -- Netoholic @ 22:47, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Potential revert war
I don't want to be directly involved in a potential revert war, however, I strongly agree with Netoholic that the new method of deleting vs. archiving old RfCs is wrong. Although I don't believe old pages are actually being deleted at present, my opinion on this potential revert war centers around what we do with the status quo while we vote on changes to that status quo.

Regardless of how I feel about either method of RfC, I have to say that I think it's best that we stick with the status quo until we've had further discussion on this matter. I never heard of this discussion until Netoholic brought it up on the village pump, and I'm sure a lot of people didn't know about it either. I think we have a fair number of people discussing the matter now. Isn't it normal to do things the old way while talking about (or voting on) a new way of doing things, instead of the other way around? I appreciate any comments any of you have about my thoughts on this. --Deathphoenix 22:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought there was a 3RR rule out there preventing revert wars from going on too long? — Rickyrab | Talk 06:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There sure is a lot here
Several people have asked me to comment on the current disagreement over RfCs which, to be honest, I had not up to just now been following at all. My main reaction after looking at this page is, "There sure is a lot here!" To be honest, I'm not very tempted to read through it. If someone could attempt a neutral summary of what is currently in dispute, I'd sure appreciate it. My guess is that there are a relatively small number of issues that are really salient.

That said, even coming from rather comprehensive ignorance of the current disputes, I will venture a few comments: 1. I see this as something of a "court of first instance", a way to get evidence into the public record, and hopefully to resolve most matters by informal consensus, rather than resort to less public mediation or more coercive arbitration. 2. Because RfC is a major part of our formal process for resolving personal disputes, major policy changes should result from consensus, not from some individual altering the policy 3. I've only been involved in a few RfCs, but in my small experience generally good contributors who have been in some way behaving badly in some way often desist just on the basis of seeing their conduct described. Often the process of gathering comment obviates the need for formal mediation. 4. Often RfCs are more informative about the people who start them than about the people whose behavior is supposed to be commented upon. 5. Similiarly, people with terrible etiquette usually manage to provide clear eveidence against themselves in the course of the RfC process. 6. I don't think that, once certified, RfCs on individuals should ever be deleted (maybe after five years, or such, but not otherwise), except by unanimous agreement of the certifying party and the person or people the RfC is about. 7. I would like to see a way to bring an RfC that was less prosecutory. For example, I think that recently some admins have been using their blocking power too arbitrarily. I'd love to bring an RfC to try to spark general discussion on the matter, but I'm not at all interested in blaming some individual. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:57, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a legal process, and not a court. It should be a way to get the honest opinions of other WPians on how best to resolve the dispute. The old process does not achieve this - indeed, I doubt you will find a current or former RfCee who is not very bitter about the whole thing, jguk 09:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * First, it's not a policy - as you note above it is a place to gain informal consensus to try to resolve disputes. Second, changes were discussed in detail (see above). Third, there are those who wish to maintain a confrontational approach: it is more entertaining for an outsider; and it is better to bully other users with threats of launching a RfC - we should not feed these trolls, jguk 09:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Believe me, there is a lot of bitterness in the current process. It's seen as an RfC against someone, with the RfCer already having condemned them. If anyone else, rightly or wrongly, certifies the dispute, the RfCee is left with a permanent blackmark against them, which any other WPian (or potential employer) can read, jguk 09:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes - the new approach preserves this. Mind you, any which way you look at it, RfCs under the old process are nasty, jguk 09:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The new approach preserves this, jguk 09:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * As SV notes above, nowadays often potential employers do websearches. Do we really want to risk someone losing a job in real life because they annoyed 2 WPians at one time? Also, what's the benefit of maintaining them once the dispute has been resolved? For the interest of gossips and trolls? So we can all remember, in many months time, what would otherwise be a long-forgotten dispute? Remember, if the dispute is not resolved, the Arbitrators will still be able to read deleted RfCs as they are all admins. Also, the diffs, links, etc. can easily be recreated if necessary, jguk 09:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That discussion should be on WP:AN/I. However, be careful not to feed the trolls, jguk 09:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fresh start?
I'd like to suggest a fresh start. I believe everyone involved in the current disagreement about RFCs has good intentions, but is just coming at the matter from different perspectives.

In Jguk's defense, for lack of a better word, he introduced what he sees as a good idea; he gave notification of the of his idea, draft and discussion on the most relevant page; and he was responsive in that discussion. He gave plenty of notice and time, on the most relevant page. I believe it did not occur to him to publicize his draft more widely.

From the other perspective, at least several people were very surprised. Possibly they don't follow the RFC page on a regular basis, but see Jguk's change as a major one which deserves wider review.

I'd like to suggest we not fault anyone in this. Now that Jguk's idea does have wider publicity, why don't we just start over from scratch?

Several people object to the idea of deleting all RFCs. Well, maybe that issue could be put aside for the time being, and people could review the rest of his idea to see what they like or don't like. Maurreen 08:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course RfCs should be deleted - there's no good reason not to, and every reason to do so. The purpose of an RfC is to help diffuse and resolve a dispute - not leave a blackmark forever against a Wikipedian just because they happened to annoy two readers once. SV above raises a good point - many Wikipedians, such as yourself, can be easily identified in real life from their username. And many potential employers do websearches. Do we really want to risk having someone lose a job offer in real life in four years time, say, just because we want to satisfy the prurient interest of the gossipers and trouble-makers?


 * For those who are concerned about disputes that do not get resolved by the RfC process, remember that the Arbitrators are able to see deleted pages, so there will be no problem there, jguk 09:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, admins can only see deleted pages while they are still in the database. My understanding is that deleted pages are not backed up and are occasionally purged when the database is reorganised. They probably do in practice hang around for a considerable period of time, but it would be unwise to rely on that.-gadfium 04:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree wholly with Jguk here. I firstly feel that people should understand that people change, and erasing history isn't the right way to deal with the fact that people make mistakes. Tolerance comes from realistic expectations of people and their growth, not from whitewashing the world. Secondly, I feel that we're losing records for a lot of important and useful purposes when we delete them for these purposes. Patterns of behavior can be useful to understand, as can record of due process. In most countries, proceedings of the legal system are available to the public, for good reason. --Improv 19:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposal on deletion of old user conduct RfCs
There's probably a middle way in all of this. After a period of time (I suggest, as an opener, 14 days - but we can discuss how long) one of two things will happen: the dispute will be resolved; or the dispute will remain unresolved and need mediation and/or arbitration.

On the first instance, there is no need at all to keep RfCs: no-one acting in good faith, and who wants to develop WP as an encyclopaedia, wants a constant reminder of a dispute; nor should we keep permanent blackmarks against users who have annoyed two other users (who may or may not have been acting reasonably themselves). Further arguments on this are outlined above.

On the second instance, we could agree to retain the RfCs of disputes that have gone to mediation/arbitration until that mediation/arbitration process is complete - and, perhaps, a short while after to deal with the cases where Arbitrators refuse a case, only to rehear it very shortly afterwards once it has been presented better.

I propose to replace this text in the proposed new RfC process:

Once the request for comment is open, it will remain open for the longer of 14 days or 3 days after the latest new contributor to the page has posted their comments, unless both the disputants request otherwise, for instance, because their dispute has been resolved before this time expires.

With this:

Once the request for comment is open, it will remain open for the later of:

(i) the later of 14 days and 3 days after the latest new contributor to the page has posted their comments; and

(ii) if mediation or arbitration is requested before the expiry of the time referred to in (i), 7 days after the mediation and/or arbitration process is complete.

However, if both the disputants request deletion earlier, their request will be met.

jguk 09:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm against deleting old RFC's. And I also strongly disagree with what you are asserting - that they constitute a black mark against people. I have one "against" me: Requests for comment/William M. Connolley: it contains a lot of useful information one way or another. If I thought that page was likely to be deleted, I would take a copy. Which would, of course, have the disadvantage that without the edit history it would be impossible to prove that it was genuine. As far as I can tell, your main argument for deleting them is the "black mark" bit: the solution to this is to make it clear that it isn't.


 * Of course it's a black mark - as many WPians will tell you, jguk 20:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 11:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Well, I don't see them telling me so. All an RFC means is that two people disliked your edits. Rather than go on about "black marks" it would be better to explicitly state that they aren't. Cure the problem, not the symptom.


 * The problem, as I see it, is that old disputes aren't put away and forgotten - they are in the past and that's where they should remain, jguk 21:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 22:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Old RFCs contain valuable information, or at least mine does. As I said above: if I thought it was to be deleted, I would certainly take a copy. And so, I would guess, would several other participants. Why waste peoples effort this way? I appreciate your idea that past disputes should be "forgotten"... at least to the level of not poisoning current debate. But deleting the files will not do this. Resolving the disputes will.

stale rfc's
how long are unsigned rfc's permitted to stay up? the policy says 48 hours. User:Ungtss's has been up for 8 days. my removal of it (and the RfC i posted) was reverted without comment. why? Ungtss 18:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Ask a friendly admin to delete it. Whatever you do, don't list it on VfD or you'll never get rid of it. Kind regards, jguk 18:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Any friendly admins willing to delete the RfC's for Ungtss and JoshuaSchroeder, the Ungtss one because it's 6-days-stale without being signed, and the schroeder one because it's contingent on the 6-days-stale one?  Thanks:).  Ungtss 18:24, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record, if an admin deletes the first one for being past the 48 hours without proper signatures they'd have to delete the second one because it is too, regardless of any intended contingency. DreamGuy 20:47, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * that's what i'm going for. i tried to delete both, but i didn't realize that was only for admins, i got reverted, and they're still here.  Ungtss 21:03, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requests for de-adminship
I'd like to ask for any feedback on the process I've outlined on this page. I understand that this is a controversial issue, but I also see that we have no consensus-based way of removing sysop status. Indeed, it seems that the only method that has been done in the past is via the dispute resolution process. Certainly, gaining adminship should be "no big deal", and removing it should be, but it should not be impossible.

I am concerned that as certain admins come to understand that there is no easy way of removing their access, those which have a disposition toward conflict and policy violation do not have a "compensating control". The process I've outlined mirrors very closely the process for gaining adminship, requiring a consensus for support of the request. I've also proposed a petition system (requiring at least ten signers) to prevent gross abuse of the de-adminship process. I welcome comments and suggestions on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 19:06, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)


 * This just seems like another method for Netoholic to attack Neutrality. Wikipedia is not a game, it's an encyclopaedia. Netoholic would be better promoting articles and Wikilove, jguk 20:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it's also a potentially-useful procedure. --Carnildo 20:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If my experiences can help fill in a gap in "grand scheme", I am only to happy to help. I'd be lying if I said I couldn't think of a few potential candidates... but then, that's how the RFA process started, too. -- Netoholic @ 20:58, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)


 * I would not oppose such a measure, and I actually think it makes a little sense. The problem is, I can envision trolls listing dozens of "rogue" admins. Ah, well... Johnleemk | Talk 21:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Previous attempts at this didn't plan for them, and so failed. That's why the petition is a "speed-bump" in the process, and I think it will shield most of them. Getting ten people to agree is no easy task, except where there is broad agreement. -- Netoholic @ 21:24, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

Third opinion
Please see Wikipedia talk:Third opinion. It is intended to get a third opinion when just two people are in a disagreement. Are there any objections to linking to it from the RFC page? Maurreen 02:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleting RfCs
Sorry to bring this up again, but I can't find a definitive answer above. I've just found a 'speedy delete' template on Requests for comment/Kappa; I removed it (although it's true that the RfC remains uncertified after 48 hours, and has little merit anyway), and left a message with the poster (rather pompously, I'm afraid — the result of haste rather than intention) thatRfCs aren't deleted but archived. Now I'm not so sure. The rubric clearly says that the page will be deleted. Who makes the decision? Should I delete any RfCs not certified past their due date? Should I only delete ones on which I haven't voted or commented? Or should I leave them all alone? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That SD notice was mine. I admit the policy is not entirely clear on it, but both the RfC page and the new-rfc-template state that 'the page will be deleted unless it is certified by two people within 48 hours'. I can understand why concluded RfCs should be kept, but an uncertified RfC is (imho) rather pointless, and could be construed as an unfounded personal attack. Opinions welcome. Radiant_* 13:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about deletion, I see there are other old uncertified RfCs hanging around. I don't think they should be speedied because the target has the right to keep the page if they wish, but they should be marked or separated out somehow, so people realize they aren't live and don't really need any more comments. Kappa 16:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. There doesn't seem to be an archive or anything, either. I believe any certified RFC should be kept for historical record, at least. The template may be appropriate - or we should make an 'old RFC' template. Any non-certified RFC should be kept or deleted at the discretion of its subject (because if it were grounded, it would likely have been certified in the first place). Radiant_* 07:15, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment on an organization
I'm concerned about a particular user organization. The organization in question is promoted within a user's name, and is maintained and operated via his user page. I don't have a particular issue with the user himself, or with the other users recruited and working in the organization, but I am concerned that the organization has vast potential for misuse and is contrary to the spirit of both Wikipedia and the AMA, of which the main user is a part. Do I start an RFC or what? Exploding Boy 21:32, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest contacting the user on his talk space and discussing it. If that discussion fails to alleviate your concerns, RFC sounds appropriate. Radiant_* 12:48, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Does this actually work?
I can see the usefulness of RFCs on articles. However, it seems that RFCs on user behavior don't actually accomplish much, as in most cases I've seen the subject simply denies or ignores the allegations. Or am I missing something here? Radiant_* 12:48, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * These work in three ways -- first, the originator of the RFC comes to realize that the subject's behavior they complain about is actually acceptable by much of the community; second, the subject is shown that their behavior is not acceptable (whether they admit it or not) and changes at least somewhat; or third, nothing much changes and the RFC is really just evidence collection in anticipation of the Arbitration process. I do think they work. -- Netoholic @ 14:58, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Two-person threshold
The current instructions are a bit vague; does an RfC reach the threshold so long as two people sign anywhere, or only under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute"? I ask for general information, but also because at least one (Requests for comment/Johan Magnus, Ruhrjung, Tuomas) has been deemed to have met the threshold with one person signing "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" and one signing "Other users who endorse this summary", with the proviso: "By "endorsing" I do not mean that I support an rfc against these users, it simply means that I want outside opinions, as we have discussed for a long time and have had some healthy discussions but sometimes that may not be enough. I am also signing in the "Other" section because of this very reason."

My feeling is that this hasn't met the threshold yet, but am I wrong? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "[A]t least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with these users and have failed" – it hasn't met the threshold. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The requirements certainly are a bit vague, as Mel says—the instructions don't really fit the template for the subpage. According to the instructions, at least two people are supposed to have tried to resolve the dispute, to provide evidence thereof, and to "sign the comment page", but, just as Mel says, sign where? My impression is that most RFCs are considered to have "met the two-person threshold" once two people have signed under ""Users certifying the basis for this dispute", but that's not actually in accordance with the instructions at all. The instructions require that two people must have made documented efforts to resolve the conflict, not that they must certify the basis of it (=certify that the conflict is correctly described by the complaining user, I presume). Since Requests for comment/Johan Magnus, Ruhrjung, Tuomas lists evidence of at least two people having tried to resolve the dispute (Inter, a practised mediator, and Mustafaa, a linguistics specialist), three if you count Peter Isotalo himself, I advised Peter to move his page to "certified". I thought it was better, not worse, qualified for this than the average RFC, since it showed quite exemplary efforts at resolving the dispute (compare especially Inter's comment). Perhaps I was wrong: please don't delete the page, but tell me where Inter and Mustafaa are supposed to sign in order for their mediating efforts to be properly recognized! And once this page has been rescued from deletion, I think it's time to edit the instructions or the page template (or both) for a better fit.--Bishonen | talk 17:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Four users have tried, if you count Etxrge, who intervened at Talk:Scanian language, (though that dispute seems to have solved itself). I must say that the instructions are very vague. And I really asked around before filing the RfC to get advice on how to do it. I also asked for outside opinions from people just to make sure it wasn't sloppy or generally unreadable.
 * I'm going to ask Inter and Mustafaa if they're willing to sign according to what the rules mean (but don't actually say (-:). I would really appreciate if you kept the RfC alive a bit longer, especially since Johan Magnus has already made a sort of reply.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:20, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Article Title Disputes
Is the "Article title disputes" section redundant with Requested moves? I'm worried about instruction creep. Rhobite 02:19, May 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think requested moves should be deprecated in favor of article title disputes. With requested moves you get tons of new people coming upon a dispute (even admins) and them taking it upon themselves to retitle an article, which invariably gets reverted.  I think working towards consensus on a title is the way to go, do you disagree and/or should we officialize or proposal this change somewhere? zen master    T  02:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I disagree. I think it's instruction creep, and I don't think people should make policy proposals with specific articles in mind. Requested moves works fine. We form a consensus on each article's talk page. Rhobite 01:23, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * When requested moves doesn't work (last half dozen or more title disputes I've been involved with) and/or when there is obvious disagreement about a title then Article Title Disputes makes sense. zen master   T  03:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There are currently comments on users, and comments on articles. The comments on articles section is pretty big.  I don't see any reason why a comments on titles section shouldn't be created.  Organization is an important issue for wikipedia, and this would sure help. Kevin Baastalk: new 03:24, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Dating RFC?
There is a note not to sign RFC requests (which makes sense to me), but how about dating them with (5 tildes) so we know when they were entered? RJFJR 01:05, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that would be tremendously useful. -Willmcw 02:16, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Rfc on Rfc on Rfc
Regarding the title of the article currently titled Antoine Carême: This Rfc process is a mystery to me. I honestly do not know what to do next. I asked for comment on an article title dispute, and only got a response only when I went to the help desk, where I was advised to summarize the dispute on the article talk page. I did that, and I got two comments on the matter, both of which seemed reasonable to me. But the response of the article's author was to suggest more possible titles, i.e. ho ho let's drag this simple question out as long as possible and that annoying person will go away. This is not about end-of-the-world, rescuing-vital-human-knowledge-from-the-sinkholes-of-modern-culture stuff, but the simplicity of the dispute and the inane furniture thrown in the way of a resolution have produced this bizarre game of getting nowhere fast. I don't want to play anymore, but I still believe the article should be retitled. Now what? --Mothperson 00:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, looks like you've got four votes (including mine, now) for Marie-Antoine Carême. I'd say stick with that, as you're unlikely to get much more input any time soon. Radiant_* 09:03, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * One of the frustrating things about RfCs, is that if the subject area is slightly obscure many people reading the RfC may not feel qualified to comment. In any case I would agree with Radiant - a quick glance over the discussion at Talk:Antoine Carême suggests that you have sufficient concensus to move the page to Marie-Antoine Carême. So I would be bold and go ahead and move it and then put in some Redirects for the other solid name alternatives. If this turns out to be a problem, you might do well to raise the question at Requested Moves. Poor guy though - I bet he got a beating at school. -- Solipsist 09:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * One can only hope there were a lot of Marie-Antoines around at the time. Thanks, all. --Mothperson 10:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Marie was (and may still be) a common male prefix in French names.
 * Since there do seem to be a number of alternative names around I've decided to make this formal, with a WP:RM listing. Just all vote support on the talk page and if there is no significant opposition it'll mean you can just go ahead and move it without anyone suddenly belly-aching. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not the "Marie", it's the "Marie Antoinette" association we're bemoaning for the guy. But thank you so much for formalizing this.  --Mothperson 11:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

SPAM Blacklist
One of the administrators at Wikimedia's SPAM blacklist is acting in a continuously arbitrary way - almost invariably negatively. He is disregarding the facts in assessing what is or is not SPAM to a ridiulous extent. He either gives no reason for his actions or gives the merest of reasons that have no substance. He is not clearly not fit to be dealing with the blacklist. Please take a look at :

davincisketches.com

viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/

In both cases his actions are completely contrary to the discussion, which he has not contributed to. It appears that he has not even read the discussions. Web sites are consequently being maintained on the SPAM blacklist that don't fulfill any of the requirements for being SPAM.

Can he be replaced as Administrator of that section ?

Can his decisions regarding these web sites be overruled ?

--XX7 20:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, actually there has already been two meta administrators comment on that. I did the original blacklisting, and I left it open to another meta admin, who said to request whitelisting. In any case, here is not the place for things on meta, just ask other meta admins to have a look (2 already have). The meta admins involved are User:Naconkantari and I. Regards —— Eagle 101  Need help? 21:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is Naconkantari that these criticisms are directed at. He should have instantly removed davincisketches.com from the blacklist, but he didn't. That web site is both the best there is concerning that subject and plainly isn't SPAM.

According to the discussion, it was your inclination to remove viartis.net but he also overrid that inclination then kept it on the SPAM blacklist without good reason. That is for a highly informative web site that does not contain any adverts at all, and that was added to the relevant article of Wikipedia for only 15 minutes on one occasion !

There is no point in having discussions concerning the SPAM blacklist, if Naconkantari ignores it all, and instead comes to decisions that are devoid of logic. That is what he is doing. He is very arrogantly not responding any further anyway. His actions show that he really isn't fit to deal with SPAM assessments. He really should be replaced as Administrator on the SPAM blacklist. --XX7 22:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, regardless this is not the right place, perhaps try talking to Naconkantari for his/her reasoning. If you have an issue on meta, please raise it on meta. As far as the one link, I had an inclination, but another user raised an issue with abuse of it, so I left it up to another admin. It looks like Naconkantari did not realize that the issue was still ongoing, if that is the case a simple message to him/her will resolve this issue, without having to raise accusations of bad faith. Thanks. —— Eagle 101  Need help? 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia requests that we have good faith. However, due to his actions, I can not help but to have genuinely no faith at all in Naconkantari. I am happy to discuss this wherever it is more appropriate. However, I have already tried entering in to discussion with him concerning both web sites on the SPAM blacklist discussion page. Despite his being active on that page since then, he has completely failed to respond. He has already very arrogantly suggested I complain about it elsewhere anyway. I would at best expect any response from him to solely consist of illogic and irrelevant statements because that is all I've seen from him. This isn't a matter of an understandable error, or a debatable issue. His responses are arrogant, devoid of logic and factually baseless. He really should be removed from his role. There must be plenty of Administrators that are wiling and able to do the job infinitely better than him. They couldn't do it any worse. I will be checking his other recent actions in order to see how widespread his bad decision making is. --XX7 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * XX7, as a practical matter, I suggest you remain civil and assume good faith on Naconkantari's part. Naconkantari has a reputation as a fair admin. As for your statement above:
 * "He [Naconkantari] has already very arrogantly suggested I complain about it elsewhere anyway"
 * You wrote:
 * "Therefore, discussion concerning your actions will be opened up amongst other Administrators on the Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard and elsewhere so that more senior Administrators can their give opinions and judgements concerning the total inconsistency and lack of substantiation of your failure to remove the web site from the spam blacklist.--XX7 11:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)"
 * Naconkantari then replied:
 * " Please do so ..."
 * ... and then you wrote:
 * "...Jimbo Wales and the various Adminsitrators that will be asked to check this discussion and your actions are going to be wondering what you're up to ! --XX7 15:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)"
 * --A. B. (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What you have added confirms precisely what I have written. He completely failed to justify his actions, which were totally contradicted by the facts. He then (1) failed to enter in to any discussion concerning it, (2) unilaterally ceased all possible discussion for two weeks, (3) then as you have confirmed, arrogantly wrote "please do" when I indicated that I would have to take the issue elsewhere. He does not have a reputation for being a fair administrator. If he did it wouldn't be justified. The Da Vinci web site is further evidence of this. Never should that site have been blacklisted to begin with. It is one of the best I've seen. It certainly shouldn't have remained there. However, Nakonkantari has shown in his actions that he is indiscriminate, lacks objectivity and is negative by nature. I would like to assume good faith, but I can not do that when the evidence proves that there is none. He really does need to be replaced on the SPAM blacklist. Unless the two web sites are removed as they obviously should be I will be pursueing his removal. Eagle101 has been dealing with the SPAM blacklist in a a reasoned manner, ready for discussion, and proportionate in his actions. Nakonkantari is entirely detrimental in that process. His persistent negativeness solely refelects his nature and not the web sites that he inadequately assesses. --XX7 11:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)