Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Bishonen

Response to Update 2
Since someone so beautifully wiped it out, here it is again. Hopefully this location will be more to your liking:

Bishonen - after conferring with a few other administrators, we have determined that it is highly unlikely that such a policy exists (Celestianpower being one of them, see his endorsement of your view). I suggest and request that you point me in the direction of the policy you are thinking of. Until then, I can only surmise that you are (once again) making up policies to suit your needs (which, once again, is completely unacceptable).

Search 4  Lancer  23:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Celestianpower and S4L
I'm replying here to Celestianpower's endorsement in the "Response" section, which goes like this:

''I endorse this right up to the bit about Search4Lancer. I may be wrong but I don't think giving an opinion on an RfC or endorsing any viewpoint is against policy. Search4Lancer, in my eyes at least, has done nothing wrong. --Cel e stianpower háblame 22:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)''


 * Celestianpower, an RFC page is supposed to carry this header, which is in the RFC template:


 * In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~ . If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:


 * This one didn't, though. I never noticed it was missing, and made my points abouot S4L on the assumption that readers had these important RFC conditions right in front of them. I didn't dream of censuring anybody for expressing or endorsing an opinion. :-( It makes me go a little cold about the heart to have you read me like that, but I realize my comment must have been rather confusing without the instructions in the header. My point was that an RFC is illegitimate without at least two people endorsing it: it's supposed to be deleted after 48 hours if the creator can't scare up a co-signer, somebody who formally endorses the RFC, thereby also claiming to have attempted to resolve the dispute. This is an important condition of RFC's, which those who bring them often have trouble with, and it's meant to be something of a bulwark against frivolous RFC's. HW perhaps had studied some RFC's, or been advised by someone that had; at any rate she seemed aware of the stringent co-signer condition, from the rather deperate tones in which she asked S4L and Everyking to sign ("Endorse my summary PLEASE!"), and called down divine blessing on S4L when he complied. And thus he breached the bulwark, and formally enabled a blocked user to post. To post an RFC, yet. That's what he did wrong formally; enabling HW to expose herself like this is IMO what he did wrong humanly. I linked to HW's posts and thought I had been quite explicatory, but without the page header it didn't quite come out like that.
 * As the header states, attempts to resolve the conflict are also a condition for retaining the RFC beyond the 48 hours: the co-signers of the opening summary are supposed to provide "evidence of their efforts" in this respect. The links HW has posted as examples of such attempts by herself and S4L are clearly ludicrous; apart from being aggressive/sarcastic outbursts, they're not directed at me (even HW may not have thought the ones that were directed at me were really good examples of diplomacy—here's one of them). Shouldn't this RFC be deleted, then? Oh, yes. But it's common to consult the subject or victim of the RFC before deleting it, and I'm not sure: the cupcakes and cookies and brownies are very tasty and gratifying (thank you, all!), but the cruelty of the process for the confused and bitter user who started it is distasteful to me. I suggest the RFC be archived, as it may be useful in case HW is RFAr'd. (P.S., I just noticed the footer was also missing. Sheesh. I've restored that as well, and moved S4L's comment here, in accordance with the footer instructions—sorry for jerking you around, S4L. Perhaps somebody else could check for any other important bits of the template that have gone missing? It feeels a little weird to have to be the one to keep patching up this nonsensical RFC.) Bishonen | talk 01:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC).
 * Sorry for making you feel like that. I'm not very experienced with RfC and what it sounded like to me was "by supporting the point of view that I had done wrong, you must have violated policy". Thanks for clearing it up :) --Cel e stianpower háblame 17:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: it is very unlikely that HW will be RFar'd, as "she" is no longer using that account. She is on her third or fourth, possibly fifth, account since this nonsense emerged. This goes to the heart of my view: this is a person evading blocks repeatedly, and even complaining that not being allowed to evade the blocks is an offense. RFar would have to proceed along the lines of the one against Willy. "She" has figured out dynamic IP's, and now it'll be a big block range. We can archive this, but I think "her" interests showing up on FAC, in particular, are going to prompt some rapid user checks, especially when they come from "new" editors. Geogre 03:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)\

Certified?
I can't find any certification section on this RfC. It's been more than 48 hours since it was created, so the RfC should either be deleted or there should be a reason for keeping it. Carbonite | Talk 16:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the certifiers was a sockpuppet account who presented no effort of dispute resolution attempts, so it isn't properly certified. I'm going to delete if no one objects. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Even ignoring the sockpuppetry, there's no Users certifying the basis for this dispute section at all - just Other users who endorse this statement. It's a sham RfC (and one that had we been paying attention should never have been listed, certainly) yet I'm not sure what net benefit there would be by deleting it and I will appeal to IAR and ask that it be left. I suspect the one person most indicted by this RfC would call just foul later were it to be deleted, anyway. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't even notice the signatures weren't in the certifying section. Given that it's not certified, it really ought to be deleted, but I take your point. I suggest we ask Bishonen what she'd prefer and let her decide. She may want to keep it because there was a lot of support for her. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * She already weighed in, from above: "Shouldn't this RFC be deleted, then? Oh, yes. But it's common to consult the subject or victim of the RFC before deleting it, and I'm not sure: the cupcakes and cookies and brownies are very tasty and gratifying (thank you, all!), but the cruelty of the process for the confused and bitter user who started it is distasteful to me. I suggest the RFC be archived, as it may be useful in case HW is RFAr'd."
 * I don't know what it means to archive an RFC, to tell you the truth - is there some renaming scheme? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's deleted as uncertified, it's not archived, BoG. For the future, to archive a case, add it to Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sean, I see you've restored this. I'm minded to delete it as uncertified. Do you have any objection? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just restoring it for now on Bish's behalf: I'm not sure what she wants in the long run, but it probably should be arhived.--Sean|Bla ck 23:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Sean, thanks. You're right: she'd like it to be kept and archived. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright. I imagine we can let it linger for a bit before plopping it into the archive.--Sean|Bla ck 03:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's an ugly fish that supports you
Everyone else has already said everything in words, but they haven't brought in the icefish for comment, so here he is.



Cyde Weys votetalk 19:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)