Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Lihaas

Request administrator review
adminhelp I'd like an administrator to review this RfC/U Requests for comment/Lihaas and note wheather or not the original Request can be closed due to the fact that there is no scope to the request, and it is extremely poorly written. There seems to be a consensus upon both editors involved, and editors providing an outside view (like myself), that this is indeed poorly written, and if it wishes to be rebrought for consideration, it needs to be correctly refiled.

I will also be placing this same message on the RfC's talk page.

Thank you, Ltcb2412 (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That can be resolved within the RfC itself; you can comment there (and request closure, for whatever reason) - I see no need for use of . If you disagree though, please just re-add it.  Chzz  ► 01:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No longer monitoring this page
Please contact me if I may be of help.

I would ask that editors who support Lihaas also revise the comments appearing like personal attacks or accusations of bad faith. Both sides should try to focus on behavioral issues that may be resolved, and avoid general comments. (I made a similar suggestion to the critics of Lihaas before.)

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Outside view by The Egyptian Liberal

 * If you would read carefully, I stated that "I would also like to see the original filer review the desired outcomes, and make improvement as to not be ambiguous and offering a Non-Neutral POV..." meaning that the person that filed this request has taken a NPOV stance, not Lihaas. Ltcb2412 (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Another outside view by Egg Centric

 * Some acknowledgement by Lihaas that he or she will take greater care when editing in future would be helpful - their above response is basically a counter-attack on  Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This RfC/U is uncertified so it can be deleted. Minimum (certification) requirements exist precisely to avoid RfC/U being misused by any parties - including filers - and to ensure that this step in dispute resolution is not being used prematurely. The requirements simply require that the two or more editors who are ready to certify a RfC/U have to show that they are involved in the dispute and have made attempts to resolve the dispute through discussion of the conduct issues (usually on a user talk page); that goes beyond, for example, notifications and demands. See also what I said on the talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Uncertified RfC
This RfC/U is uncertified as the minimum requirements are not satisfied. Of the evidence presented showing of the attempts by the certifiers to resolve the dispute:


 * - is in itself not really an attempt; the attempts by Ofenian can however been seen in the discussion preceding that - see this section.
 * - is not an attempt in itself and there is no other presented evidence of RepublicanJacobite trying to discuss the matter with the user (evidence needs to be presented if RepublicanJacobite is, in fact, a certifier)
 * - is a good attempt, but the user is not certifying the dispute
 * - is a good attempt, but the user is not certifying the dispute

Parties are requested to satisfy the minimum requirements by either asking Asarlai or Ray to certify the dispute in lieu of RepublicanJacobite. RepublicanJacobite can also document his attempts to actively discuss the matter with Lihaas. In the event that this cannot happen within 48 hours, this RfC/U is likely to be deleted per standard practice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed your speedy deletion tag. WP:CSD says "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases."  It is at least debatable whether or not the RFC is certified (maybe poorly certified, but certainly not indisputably uncertified) and hence it is inappropriate to delete it without discussion. --B (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is validly certified. Both myself and RepublicanJacobite "tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed". It is the same dispute, relating to Lihaas' addition of incidents unsourced as terrorism. It would seem Ncmvocalist is inconsistent with his/her own standards, given this selfrevert of Requests for comment/Ryan kirkpatrick which is certified in the same way. In addition I do not see how there is any tangible difference between comments such as "Either Lihaas provides clear, verifiable, reliable sources that these were acts of terrorism or he stops adding the information", "Lihaas, the problem with the source, is simply that it doesn't refer to these actions as terrorism. Period. Full stop. There is, so far as I can see, nothing else objectionable about the source. Please point to where it does. You can't put up a source for "Bob doesn't like drug dealers" and say "See? Bob is a terrorist!"" and "We can't have editors going around labelling things as "terrorism" without supporting that labelling with reliable sources. Furthermore, just because some sources label Group X as "terrorists" doesn't mean that everything Group X does counts as "terrorism"". The message in all three posts is clear, stop adding incidents that are not sourced as terrorism. Therefore if the other two are potentially valid, so is RepublicanJacobite's. O Fenian (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I see there has been no attempt to address this point or what B said, and even an admin has been reverted. O Fenian (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Er, no it isn't, and kindly refrain from suggesting that my standards differ for users I'm in no way involved with.
 * The certification of Ryan kirkpatrick's RfC was not standard because of the nature of the dispute. At 21:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC), you'd requested him to refrain from engaging in a certain type of conduct (and explained why it was an issue). The diff you provided in the RfC demonstrates another example of doing the same except it was at 09:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC). Although it is true that RepublicanJacobite subsequently just "agreed" with you, it was sufficient in that dispute because of the circumstances: in both instances, there was absolutely no response provided from the subject and that became part of the grounds of the dispute. His contributions indicated he did not make any comments - not even in his edit summaries - which is why an RfC became necessary and certified. As to my mistaken tagging of the RfC, the tag simply fell on the wrong active RfC which is why it was self-reverted and moved to the correct RfC that ended up deleted for being uncertified.
 * The lack of commenting was not an issue in this dispute meaning the certification should be standard. That is, clearly, per Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2010, Lihaas was continuing to comment in response to what you and RepublicanJacobite said. In fact, his response indicated that RepublicanJacobite was not discussing and that claim seems to be substantiated by the fact that he did not say anything else on the talk page or on Lihaas talk page.
 * If the only comment that an user makes is "I agree. Either Lihaas provides clear, verifiable, reliable sources that these were acts of terrorism or he stops adding the information. This is disruption" that is nothing more than a demand; it is not an attempt to resolve a dispute - which is why RepublicanJacobite is not a valid certifier of this dispute. That comment is not identifical to the where Ray and Asarlai specifically attempted to explain what the issue is. Note also that even when they did, their input was not limited to a single isolated comment of 'I agree' (which your evidence perhaps misleadingly suggests) - they made several attempts.
 * Whether RepublicanJacobite is in fact merely tagteaming with you, O Fenian, as Lihaas suggested (either in the forms of reverts or making isolated comments of 'I agree with O Fenian') is a separate issue which may very well deserve attention.
 * Finally, two administrators, be it or  don't trump the minimum requirements. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The proof is right there in the diff. If Ryan kirkpatrick's RFC was adequately certified, so is this one. If it was not adequately certified, why was it agreed it was and why did you not attempt to get that deleted? The "wrong RFC" excuse does not hold water. If that RFC was adequately certified so is this one, unless you are deliberately applying the critera differently for different editors? O Fenian (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The exact words regarding cerficiation are "Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". Did RepublicanJacobite contact Lihass on the talk page involved in the dispute? Quite clearly, as the diff shows. Did he fail to resolve the dispute? Quite clear, as Lihaas still added incidents unsourced as terrorism. It is an attempt to resolve a dispute. The dispute is about to Lihaas adding incidents unsourced as terrorism, he clearly attempted to resolve that.


 * Last time I checked you were not God or the sole arbiter of whether something is validly certified, are you either of those? O Fenian (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you're deliberately engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or whether you just really don't get it. I suggest you make the effort to read the words I write in that comment instead of ignoring them. I also note that you are too involved in this dispute to be in any position to decide whether this RfC/U is certified or not, and that your edit warring  over it when this is clearly in dispute is remarkably inappropriate. It is not an attempt to resolve the dispute and your behavior is becoming disruptive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you say anything worthwhile I might listen, you have yet to do that. B says it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion and at least half agrees it may be validly certified, Fram says it is validly certified. So who made you judge and jury to say they are completely wrong and that you are in fact right? Are you God or not? Declined once, and described as "long certified" by Fram. So what did you do after that? Discuss it? No, you tried to delete once again without attempting to discuss it. What makes you the sole arbiter of whether something is improperly certified when others disagree? You can claim I am involved all you want, is Fram? While I'm asking questions, how does "Either Lihaas provides clear, verifiable, reliable sources that these were acts of terrorism or he stops adding the information" not explain what the problem is? It does not take much, if any at all, reading between the lines to see that he is explaining the problem is that the sources do not describe the acts as terrorism, thus making it equal to the posts by people you claim could validly certify this. There is no tangible difference between the underlying messages in any of the posts. O Fenian (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * B has indicated that it is not clear enough for him/her to unilaterally take the action, but there are certainly other administrators who are familiar enough with the requirements of a RfC/U and how they are enforced which is why I'd readded the tag. The only indication that was given to this being discussed was when you reverted it and said "see talk page" explicitly - which is why without reinserting my deletion message, I've come here and pointed out the distinction between both RfCs. Your responses have so far been to been to use the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach. Further to that, you've simply reinforced the criticism that several editors have made about this RfC/U - in particular, you the filer. That you refuse to respect the comments that you are being given is a bit ironic - given that you requested for comment yourself. As for Fram, I've directed him to this discussion. Finally, the problem is that Lihaas claimed that he was doing exactly that when he inserted the content, so it fell on a potential certifier to explain what the problem was (did you even read what Ray and Asarlai said in their comments - note not just a single comment)? That you and RepublicanJacobite may agree and think both are the same thing, to others, it isn't so black and white. I note Ray and Asarlai had no issue trying to resolve the dispute...which brings us back to the question, precisely why are they not certifying this dispute? Maybe if they were willing, this RfC would not focus as much on you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are not planning to actually answer any of my questions then? Perhaps you should read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT yourself? You are welcome to look at the history of List of armed conflicts and attacks, 2011 and the related talk page to look for input from Ray and Asarlai, that might answer your question. Perhaps you would also like to explain where you are getting your own unique interpretation of certifier requirements from, I have quoted them directly and they read "Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". That differs substantially from your version which has yet to be quoted in the same way, so where does your version come from? O Fenian (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've answered your questions but apparently you're not reading - for example, you've also failed to quote the following: The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise.  What that should indicate to you: attempts should be made to discuss and resolve the dispute beyond an isolated comment (I agree with O Fenian. Either Lihaas provides clear, verifiable, reliable sources that these were acts of terrorism or he stops adding the information. This is disruption, plain and simple) - that diff is unsatisfactory evidence of RepublicanJacobite making attempts to resolve the issue; if anything, it seems to be an attempt to escalate the issue. By contrast, Ray has made several (actual) attempts towards resolving this dispute which is why Ray is in a position to certify dispute. Ray specifically told you about the issues with your approach to the dispute: I am disappointed that you are so quick to threaten quasilegal sanctions, and will defend Lihaas' prerogative to air genuine, more-or-less thoughtful, and well-meant differences of opinion, even if it costs us time and energy to respond to him. - the suggestion from that is quite clear. In response to your accusation of editwars and probable sockpuppetry on Lihaas' part, Ray again made another attempt: I'm seeing back and forth discussion at a measured pace by edit summary, on the part of a newbie user who quite frequently forgets to sign in or sign his statements. I've remarked to him on both counts at some point. But his IP address is reasonably static within a range, so I see no attempt at sockpuppetry, which requires an intentional attempt to obfuscate identity. Ray then puts the question more directly to Lihaas in the hopes of resolving the issue "Lihaas, could you summarize for me, why you think the current criteria for inclusion shouldn't stand?" and then specifically explains how the policy is not being followed in this case Lihaas, the problem with the source, is simply that it doesn't refer to these actions as terrorism. Period. Full stop. There is, so far as I can see, nothing else objectionable about the source. Please point to where it does. You can't put up a source for "Bob doesn't like drug dealers" and say "See? Bob is a terrorist!" [emphasis added] That you personally think RepublicanJacobite's single isolated comment is no different to Ray's attempts to resolve this dispute is obviously an issue; that comment is *in fact* unsatisfactory to qualify RepublicanJacobite as a certifier and as Ray is not certifying this dispute, the minimum requirements have not been met. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that there is a good faith dispute about whether or not it is correctly certified means that an admin should not unilaterally delete it. This isn't a statement of anything other than that.  It's not an endorsement of the RFC.  It's not an endorsement of the claim that it's certified nor the claim that it's uncertified.  Nor does it mean that "admin says" should be a trump card in a discussion - administrators have no special position beyond a few extra buttons. --B (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact is that this editor has mentioned you and Fram in an administrative capacity, and is using your reversion of the deletion template (as well as Fram's edit summary) as a basis for this reversion - I note you did not undo this edit even though this editor is clearly involved in the RfC both procedurally and substantantially, and I, an uninvolved editor, have disputed the certification which makes this a candidate page (even though it should be deleted as uncertified). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems unproductive for the same editors to continue to argue these points. Would it be helpful if I or someone else would post a request at WP:ANI, asking for some more uninvolved administrators to look at the issue? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. The more people who look at O Fenian's behaviour the better, frankly. While you're there, please mention the mysterious counter on his talk page. Egg Centric 19:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not what I meant. I meant looking at whether or not the RfC/U is properly certified. If anyone wants to open dispute resolution about another user besides Lihaas, please do so at another RfC/U or in a separate noticeboard request. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've posted a request. I hope it helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The time to question the factual accuracy of the certifications is in the 48 hours after the RFC was posted. No one seems to have questioned them at that time, and the RFC proceeded. Multiple editors have commented in the two weeks since. It seems clear that, whether it should or should not have been certified, it is indeed a certified RFC and must proceed accordingly. I should further note that, given this dispute, the RFC is absolutely ineligible for speedy deletion. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from creating non-existent rules Ultraexactzz. Certification has been disputed some two weeks after a RfC/U has been allegedly certified in the past and they have been deleted without an issue; the only time a certification issue can be waived is after it has passed the 30 day period and the RfC has been closed. That editors have commented here (and comment in other uncertified RfCs) is in case administrators dismally fail to enforce the rules like in this case.


 * On another point, I will note that the subject of this RfC/U, on 28 January 2011, did in fact ask for evidence from the certifier about what attempts they made to resolve the dispute. So this was never a matter of waiving the requirements either; it was a matter of administrators failing to do their job and other editors skipping right past the section. That more than 48 hours was granted does not mean that this editor cannot expect to be afforded the protections granted by the RfC/U rules - rules, which I might add, precisely exist to prevent such misuse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What is happening?
Is this a fair summary? (I ask for comments especially from œ™ or Wikifan12345 or both, because they agreed with criticism of Lihaas, but stated that this criticism was of moderate or minor concern. I also ask for comments from Tryptofish, who was in the middle. I am probably regarded as a member of the anti–anti-Lihaas camp! I am tired, and I'm sorry if I misrepresent anybody, of course.)

After a month, nobody has demonstrated an interest in continuing the discussion, so that it is difficult to conclude anything.

There is seems to be a majority feeling that Lihaas does not deserve any formal public admonishment through this venue, and certainly not to the extent requested by the filers.

It seems that a plurality (or perhaps a majority) agree Lihaas should have been more careful with avoiding synthesis, as shown by some diffs that seem to involve synthesis of material not using "terrorism"; Lihaas wrote that the page in question has weakened its evidential standards, about the "word", but this was not answered, so it is hard to conclude that this discussion has considered the evidence available.

Perhaps a majority of editors have commented that Lihaas is a valued and productive member of the Wikipedia community.

On the other hand, the proposers's conduct has been criticized by a plurality (and even intentions have been questioned by a minority). However, no sanctions or behavior modifications have been proposed.

Shouldn't some administrator, arbcom person, or other demigod close this? Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 03:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. This is my attempt at a neutral statement about this dispute. (My personal belief is that this has been a destructive adventure by the proposers.) P.P.S. I admire Lihaas's contributions to Wikipedia during the last months, when so much has been changing in the Arabian countries, and wrote a statement saying so today on my page.


 * Overall, I think it's pretty fair. But what I feel is missing is some further statement about what is expected from Lihaas, going forward. Perhaps you might consider basing that on what I said in my View. From where I sit, it's not entirely true that "no... behavior modifications have been proposed". No sanctions, yes, but some behavior modifications are called for, lest sanctions arise in the future. If you would rather that I attempt to write that, please just let me know. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)