Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Diyako, Heja helweda, Muhamed 1

Not a formally valid RfC
I'm afraid this RfC has formal and substantial shortcomings that make it invalid. I suggest for the creator of the RfC to retract it for now and start afresh.


 * Reasons:
 * There is no evidence that this is about a single dispute. It seems to be an unconnected list of alleged incidents of questionable behaviour by three unrelated people (whose only commonality is that they are all three Kurdish?)
 * For the same reason, it is unclear to me what status could possibly attach to any alleged "evidence of trying and failing to resolve this dispute", or who could possibly be in a position to "certify" it.
 * As of now (23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)), there is no evidence of "trying and failing..." with respect to two of the three persons in question.
 * This RfC was created at 22:50, 21 March 2006. . It has been listed at Requests for comment/User conduct since the same time. . However, it was brought into the proper form of an RfC page only at 14:49, 22 March, and as outlined above, still does not fulfill all the requirements (as per now: 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)). The parties involved were notified only about 14:51, 22 March 2006 . Under these circumstances, it is unclear which time should count as a deadline for the 48-hour certification period.

Lukas (T. 15:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC) [Updated 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)]
 * Sorry for the trobble. The time of properly formatted rfc (real rfc) should be counted. As there was no activity prior. Sorry I just didnt file an RfC for ages. -- Cool CatTalk 09:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)