Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 6 |
Archive 7
| Archive 8 →


Contents

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/InShaneee

Has seen nothing but the occasional signatory for the last two months. Can this be archived now? --InShaneee 04:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go for it unless somebody has a problem with that. Just H 01:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
...Sure it's kosher to archive my own RfC? If so, I'll go ahead. --InShaneee 03:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not involved in this and have not previously checked out the RfC for InShaneee - but I think that it is extremely bad form for the user under RfC to archive it, especially when the RfC looks like the user in question InShaneee has abused their powers (do not hold me to this - only had a quick look now). Surely if this is the case this RfC is going to go further - potentially to Jimbo or ArbCom. Lethaniol 02:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Doh...I thought no one was going to respond to that, so I went ahead and did it. You can restore it if you think that's appropriate, but it IS essentially dead, and has been for over a month. --InShaneee 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
No its fine, have checked with a user who gave a review and think it is okay. Of course there really should be people who read these pages that will close the discussion for you - especially in the case of an admin RfC. That way any perceived WP:COI will be removed. Cheers Lethaniol 13:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. That's kind of what I was hoping would happen when someone else inspected the situation. --InShaneee 23:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Despite being archived, this is suddently getting a lot of traffic again...could someone do something about that? --InShaneee 14:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Usually, RfCs continue until resolution is found. Many people found fault in the subject of the RfC, and the fact that there is no resolution combined with the number of people who agree with the RFC DEFINITELY does not warrant its closure. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The question was directed to someone uninvolved. --InShaneee 00:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Does it matter? The RfC is still active and should not have been closed, especially by someone with a conflict of interests. Just because you archived it, doesn't mean no one's allowed to post further comment. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does. That's how an archive works. If you read above, the archiving was endorsed by more than one other user. --InShaneee 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
One person said "unless someone has a problem with it". And tell me, why do you seek to have it closed? You archived it because it is inactive, and ironically, the more active it gets, the more closed off it gets. Why should an active RfC be closed? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You opened the RfC; of course you have a problem with its closure. If someone uninvolved in all of this believes it was closed early or needs to be reopened, I will be more than happy to do it myself. --InShaneee 00:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It was closed by a party with a conflict of interests on the basis that it is inactive. If its inactivity was why it was closed, you wouldn't be objecting to its unarchiving now that it IS active. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It was inactive; you've chosen to make it active again. I asked for someone else to do archive it, and I was told to do it myself. I did, and my action was later approved by two separate users. --InShaneee 00:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is still ongoing within the last few seconds; do not try to 'win' by going ahead and reverting to your preferred version of the page. Whichever version belongs there will be implemented once this is complete. In the meantime, if you are so sure that my actions were innapropriate, you should request they they be reviewed by someone uninvolved with this situation. --InShaneee 00:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
And it's active now. I didn't make it active. Before I did anything to unarchive it, YOU said it was inactive. People are still discussing it. If the reason for archiving it was because if its inactivity, then being active would warrant unarchiving. It's as simple as that. And besides, the people you asked agreed with the archiving because it was inactive. Are you saying that if you asked them for input on it now that they'd say the same thing?
I am very confused with your objection. If you feel that inactivity is reason enough to archive an RfC, then you should also agree that activity is a reason to not archive it. It seems like you'd do anything to get rid of this RfC. The fact that you are so against it being brought back up doesn't scream objectivity. You yourself gave the best reason to bring it back - it's not finished. And most disturbingly, you reacted to its activity by attempting to squelch the activity. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your accusations and insinuations. As I keep saying, since we both disagree, why not simply ask someone uninvolved to comment on that? Do you have some objection to outside review? --InShaneee 00:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This is an extremely trivial case that requires no outside view.
Answer this one question. Why should it remain archived? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Simply because it is now closed. If you wish to 'continue the dispute', I suggest mediation, and would like to express on the record here that I am completely open to an attempt by the MedCab or MedCom to find an amicable solution to this. --InShaneee 01:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
And of course, it serves SO much of a purpose to try to prevent an RfC from being reopened. So tell me - are you implying that it is bad for Wikipedia to resolve issues?
Oh, and here's a suggestion - actually apologize for all of the things you've done wrong and stop abusing your position as an admin as if it made you king over all of the lowly Wikipedians. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I will ask you again to keep your tone civil. You are now doing nothing but making hateful accusations. --InShaneee 01:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I still would like to hear from an outside party what their opinion on reopening a closed RfC is. --InShaneee 01:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I can be an outside party for this. My opinion is that if the RfC was properly closed, it should not be re-opened because people wish to argue again; they're closed for a reason. But I'm not convinced it was properly closed; it seems that absolutely nobody uninvolved agreed that it should be closed. -Amarkov blahedits 01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I was misreading it, but I thought that was what Lethanoil's second comment was indicating. I originally took Just H's comment to mean that as well, though I could see how it might not. --InShaneee 01:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Lethanoil was saying he got another editor who had commented in the case to agree. While that's better, definitely, it's still not an uninvolved party. And I don't see Just H's comment anywhere? -Amarkov blahedits 01:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It's up there - he recommends that InShaneee be bold and go ahead and do it himself. Anyways, I think that regardless of how the RfC was closed, since it's now become active again there should be some place for the new comments. We could always build a second RfC to reflect the more recent comments, but that seems confusing to me and wasteful. Just re-opening the earlier one would seem the more reasonable approach to me. However, I don't have any idea if that would be correct policy-wise. --TheOtherBob 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
My problem exactly. I'd like to say that 'closed' means closed, but I can't find anything in writing to adress this type of situation. --InShaneee 02:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing; it prevents something being closed unless it actually should be, and people agree on that. -Amarkov blahedits 02:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
But the question remains what to do here. Can we start off by agreeing that it was inactive (by the definition) when I archived it? --InShaneee 02:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course, nobody should be seriously disputing that. -Amarkov blahedits 02:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, that's a start. Now, here's where I see an issue forming. This is happening fairly recently, but what if a year had passed? Or two? Should we say that anyone can reopen an RfC at anytime? My other issue is, I don't think that any significant arguments have really been added since the closure; is that worth the trouble of reopening? --InShaneee 02:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
On the second question, I'm in favor of reopening if there is more to say (except in rare situations.) So I'd say it's worth the trouble, generally.
On the first question, I'm not sure what the community view is on closed RfC's - are they always available to re-open, or is it a dead issue? I don't know - I can see arguments on both sides, but don't know of any guidance on that point. (But if you do know of any, please point me to it; I could definitely use a Wiki policy about now to help sort this stuff.)
Even if RfCs should eventually be dead, however, I personally don't think that the slope you propose will slip. If we believe that RfCs should "die" at some point, 1-2 years is plenty of time for them to be dead and buried.
What makes this situation hard to sort out is that the RfC had closed only about a week before it suddenly got "hot" again. While we may want to have closure on these at some point, at the same time we don't want a rule that says "once closed (even prematurely) the RfC's always closed" - and an RfC that gets hot soon after closing is typically prematurely closed. At the same time, however, this one was more or less inactive for a while before hand, so it's hard to call the closing premature. Nonetheless, the arguments that have been added seem to be generally related, and so make more sense on this RfC than on another one. So all that confusion about the proper course of action gets me back to my above comment - I think if there are a few substantive comments to add that fit with this RfC, it's just cleaner to add them to it rather than starting another one. That also creates a more complete record, in case this thing is ever needed for anything. If there were a whole separate issue, however, we might want to make a second RfC. But I have no policy guidance to support that - I just think it's a reasonable approach. (And now enough long-windedness from me.)--TheOtherBob 02:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, fair enough. So I suppose here's the next question: can we call what has recently been added 'substantial'? --InShaneee 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd call the new additions substantive (i.e. they're not just formatting fixes or someone saying "me too.") So, yes, I think. By the way, to raise another issue - I'm not sure, but this RfC may be becoming inactive again. If so, I'm of the opinion that even if we reopen it, it can be put back to sleep in a week or two. Does anyone disagree with that? --TheOtherBob 03:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
In that lies another problem that I am actually concerned about: what happens if Link has something new to say a few weeks after that? It's always been my concern that this will be dragged out to perpetuity. I'm alright with your suggestion of leaving it up for a week or two for now, but I'd like to discuss how this might be handled in the future. --InShaneee 03:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a tough question - I'm thinking about how we could keep this from dragging on in perpetuity. I don't think closing off the RfC would really do it, because if the issue is going to drag on, it will just drag on somewhere else (and I'd think it would be better in an RfC than in talk pages and such). My initial reaction is that we either have to hope that things have run their course and don't drag on, or have to resolve things somehow and then declare it water under the bridge. (I've got no idea how we can resolve it, but let me think some more about that.) In any event, you're right - this thing can't go on forever. --TheOtherBob 04:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright. If you think of anything, please do contact me. I suppose for the moment, we just leave the RfC up and see where things go. Can you keep an eye on it? Obviously, I can't archive it myself a second time. Thanks again everyone for your thoughts here. --InShaneee 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that these so-called "additions" were substantive.

  1. "RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted."
  2. RfC's are supposed to be about ONE dispute. This is a pure pile-on of WP:IDONTLIKETHEM. Quickpolls were for the 5 minute hate. RFC's were supposed to be focused. Here are the January changes. [1]. Nothing of substance but whiny users whining about someone slapping them on the wrist. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Substantive means "having substance." You disagree with the substance, and that's your right. But it's not the case that they were, say, formatting changes or very minor comments.--TheOtherBob 21:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Substantive means "having substance." You are confusing light and heat for mass. I'm not saying I disagree with their concerns - I'm saying their concerns are trivial, and that their obvious goal is not to have their concerns adressed (seeing as the only additive user has expressed his satisfaction, already), but rather to drive the final nail in. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a rare bit of heat and light that can drive a nail without some variety of mass. Is that mass wrong? Maybe. Would it go better somewhere else? Maybe. Does it sway any argument? Maybe not. But is it there? Of course. Your view of its purpose or its merit is inconsequential to this question. The question is "is this RfC being added to - is it active?" Yes, it is. You think the additions are in bad faith and don't help things, but they're clearly not patent nonsense or minor comments. And now if you want the last word on this, I'm going to bow out - it's fascinating, but somewhat rhetorical, so I'm going to go do work I actually get paid for. --TheOtherBob 22:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed a couple of recent signatories, but none with comments. At the risk of kicking an ant hill, does everyone agree that we can finally put this issue, and this RfC, to bed? If so, could someone with more technical prowess please do so? --TheOtherBob 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to ask that myself. --InShaneee 15:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Less than 24 hours after this was closed, a new one has now been opened up. Any thoughts? --InShaneee 02:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the two are related (though I am at a loss for why the user in the second RfC felt the need to file one over a month after the events he's complaining about - I thought we had resolved that issue). --TheOtherBob 03:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Nothing was resolved. I have been trying to get a meaningful response to my questions from InShaneee for that month - trying and failing to resolve the dispute. Surprised to see he's capable of complaining about RfCs against him, but not capable of stringing together just a couple of sentences to explain why he applied a block, even when given a month to do so. Worldtraveller 09:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
As you can see, the personal attacks are already well underway. I think my main reason for posting here is I'd like to make sure that the old signatories from the last one don't flood in to keep this one open for another howeverlong. --InShaneee 15:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, my old RfC is being edited again. Can someone please either look into this or pass it along to someone who can? --InShaneee 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, my new RfC has now been uncertified for two days, so I'd appreciate if someone could delete it. --InShaneee 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You're spending plenty of time campaigning for the removal or closure of RfCs against you, and yet you refuse to spend a couple of minutes explaining why you applied this block? You're a terrible administrator if you can't or won't justify your actions. Worldtraveller 18:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
If you would read the rules, and RfC that stands for two days with no certification is to be deleted. Just procedure. I'll also warn you one last time not to make personal attacks. --InShaneee 07:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Where are the personal attacks? I'll ask you one more time to simply say why you applied the block under question, and how that related to WP:BP. If you refuse to justify your actions, you're a terrible administrator. Worldtraveller 11:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Cindery's RFC

Would someone kindly format the RFC and move it to a subpage for her? I'd do it myself, but Cindery might have a problem with it if I did it. ---J.S (T/C) 07:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, it's under User Conduct. ---J.S (T/C) 07:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Added section to template

I've slapped a "what in the name of pete moss and the mulches is this about?" section into the template. Starting with the end is usually a good thing. - brenneman 06:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


I don't understand how to report a user

Can someone explain the steps? I've seen the infobox markup, and the radio button which takes you to a separate page, but I don't really understand how to go about reporting someone who is breaking rules and being abusive. Please take this as an opportunity to make this system more accessible. Please explain.22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joie de Vivre (talk • contribs)

User who certified dispute now editing "Response" section

At RfC/Tim Smith, FeloniousMonk, who started the RfC and certified the basis for the dispute, is now editing the "Response" section, responding to my response. The instructions say that "Users signing other sections ('Statement of the dispute' and 'Outside Views') should not edit the 'Response' section", so I moved his comments to the talk page. He then moved them back, claiming "common practice". My understanding is that the "Response" section is for the user whose conduct is disputed, or other users who object to the initial "Statement of the dispute", and that further comments by the signers of the initial statement belong elsewhere. Is that correct? I'd appreciate advice on how to proceed. Tim Smith 21:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Early end to an RFC?

I'm having second thoughts about a RFC I initiated and may be interested in rescinding my endorsement of my own description. Since the RFC hasn't been certified yet, would a rescission bring an early end to the RFC? I would rather not drag everyone through a needless process. There would be only one other person endorsing the description. Simões (talk/contribs) 06:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Help

Could someone give me some advice regarding bringing an RFC's for a content dispute involving the Taj Mahal? I've drafted a statement on my talk page and I'd appreciate some comment and perhaps mentoring before I make the request official. Many thanks. --Joopercoopers 12:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've now filed the RFC at Talk:Taj Mahal#Request for Comment: Inclusion of minority points of view. I put it in the Media, Art and Literature section because there isn't one for architecture - hope this is ok. --Joopercoopers 16:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Request to delist the Proabivouac RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Proabivouac has not been certified for 4 days. I request that an admin delist this RfC. --BostonMA talk 12:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The RfC is way beyond the deadline for certification, and its filer has acknowledged it to have been out of process.[2]Proabivouac 08:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't think it'll have to be an administrator that does it. I think I'll just be bold and do it myself. -- Karl Meier 20:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC/NAME archives

...actually the archives don't exist at all. We should create an archive for this, as we do other boards, rather than just deleting old requests. This will especially help out to a) make sure the request hasn't come up before, and b) if a user is blocked, will help explain the block. Agree, disagree? Patstuarttalk|edits 06:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Same here; it's disconcerting, to say the least, to engage in a discussion, come back the following day, and just find that the whole thing has disappeared. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of Math & Science RFCs

People have been cutting and pasting the top RFCs in math and science, resulting in a bizarre series of "sub-categories" like "Playstation 2" as a subset of "Math and Science" when there's a perfectly good "Technology" category just below. Tidied and sorted, I hope. I'm a little nervous about editing "meta" pages, but I decided to be bold and see if anyone complains. --MattShepherd 13:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: RFC/User Clerks

I have posted a proposal for the creation of a clerk corps to help out at RFC/User at the Village Pump (Proposals); it's currently gathering crickets and dust over there, so hopefully some folks here might be interested in comment. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

An excellent proposal. Note that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CltFn never met the two-user certification threshhold, yet still somehow got listed.Proabivouac 10:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
No no no bob help us all no no no ... the last thing we need is yet _another_ set of minor chieftans here... If a backlog develops, just use one of the many "hey look at me" forums available. - brenneman 12:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
And that's the general response to the concept, which is why I've withdrawn the proposal. I seem to have misread the need for such a thing. I should note yet again that there was absolutely no intention to create a "set of minor chieftains" with this idea, something that I thought I had made abundantly clear in the proposal and the note on the Village Pump, but either way, it's obvious that it wouldn't gain consensus at any point in time anyhow, so. On to something else. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User who already responded to RfC deciding retroactively to certify

Tbeatty decided to retroactively certify the RfC against me in spite of having already written a response that had informed the process. I ask that his certification be voided. --BenBurch 01:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... why should it be? -Amark moo! 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Move archive link to top of page?

Does anyone else think there should be a more prominent link on RfC to the Archive? --Aervanath 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

New notification template

Just a quick note to let you all know there is a new notification template to inform users of discussions about their usernames: Template:UsernameDiscussion (just insert {{UsernameDiscussion}} in their talk page). Regards, Asteriontalk 20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's best to "subst:" the username templates:
{{subst:UsernameConcern|reason for objection}}
{{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}
{{subst:UsernameAllowed}}
One advantage of this is that when that user edits the page to reply, the full text of your message (not just the template tag) will be visible in edit mode, so he can reply point by point if he likes.
Also note that the templates will add the four-tildes signature for you, so you needn't add it yourself. This is explained on each template's page. But this feature only works right when subst'd.
Typing something into that "reason for objection" space tells the user just what you find worrisome about the name, like "I worry that this name may be taken to imply an official role on Wikipedia." Ben 22:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for missing this. Great work with the templates. Thanks, --Asteriontalk 12:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving username discussion

Right now, we simply remove stuff from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names once it has run its course. Should we perhaps archive them somewhere? I'm thinking of a system similar to WP:DRV, in that it is a compressed version of the entire discussion (such as Bought Science). Some of our discussions are short-and-sweet, while others (such as a recent one for User:James Brown) could be relevant to setting precedents when dealing with usernames.

What does everyone else think? EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't see the point. So little discussed there is earth shattering. Most usernames are changed and become history, or are left as they are, so i don't see how useful these archives would be. Especially for the short and sweet ones. Seems like a waste of time and server space. When this page starts making decisions that change the course of wikipedia, maybe. Right now it just isn't needed. pschemp | talk 05:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Disallow. Feature creep, no precedential value. Phooey. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 05:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
*shrug* This is why I asked before up and doing anything. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What might be useful is when someone is blocked, leaving a link to the diff of the closed discussion on their talk page ... that way, if somoene wonders why a username was blocked a month down the line, they can see the discussion. --BigDT 12:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Not needed, however, storing a list of the diffs used to removed a name would be nice. But who would do it? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I can make a bot that finds any edit that removes an entire section, and adds a link the the last version of that section to an archive page. It would require no change of behavior in humans and will provide an archive that could be a great use in looking at future names. It can even run retroactively and provide an archive of all names past. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
In fact I have already downloaded the entire revision history of WP:RFCN, 35 megs. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't archiving the usernames take up a lot of space megabyte-wise? I agree it would help as a reference, I'm just concerned about the space-factor. Acalamari 20:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The information is already being stored in the history, my archive would be a single line for each username with a link to it's already existing location in the history. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
True. I hadn' thought og that. Good idea. Acalamari 21:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This continues a discussion a little up the page; as there, I support archiving. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok then, I will write an archive retrieval bot, any edit that removes a whole section will be name after that section and linked to on a special archive page. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Once the archive exits, it may be worth the time going through it to find a list of precedents on what is acceptable or not under various headings: e.g. political, religious, illness, insults etc. I'm thinking of something similar to the precedents page at Redirects for Discussion. It might help to ensure discussions stay focused and consistent? WJBscribe 17:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This is me manually pasting my programs output. I had to install a diff engine, it will detect any closing where a section heading is removed, and nothing is added: User:HBC archive builderbot/sandbox <- Check it out. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Next thing for me to do is make it detect when multiple names are closed at once, and make the link to the last revision before it was removed. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think archiving them is a great idea.Proabivouac 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This place is dead

Some RFCs don't even have a third party; all discussion is via the two parties. --Howard the Duck 15:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

On the article side, I just randomly clicked on RfCs. Of nine that did not lead off into oblivion (i.e. the poster did not follow instructions, making it both more difficult for others to have commented and for me to even find the thing), six had comments from users not previously involved on the talk page. Of the other three, one or perhaps two had reached an amicable conclusion regardless (i.e. anyone coming to comment would find there is no need, and the RfC was probably premature). On the user side, I clicked on seven RfCs older than four days, all but one had outside comment. —Centrx→talk • 19:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
What in particular are you thinking of? The username board is pretty much always hopping, though I admit that I haven't checked out many of the other RfC boards... EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I created an archive for WP:RFCN

I created an archive for WP:RFCN at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names/Archive. I am currently manually pasting the output of my bot there, but once it is approved it will be automatically updated. Every time an edit takes place which removes a heading, that edit will be added to the archive with a list of headers effected. You can remove multiple reports at once, though they will all share the same edit summary. No change in human behavior is needed for this bot to work. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC/NAME "Consensus=Allow" notification template

As a followup to Asterion's {{UsernameDiscussion}}, please see {{UsernameAllowed}}, so a user who missed the discussion of his name can be told of its favorable outcome. (The block and block notice would notify him of an unfavorable outcome.) Ben 06:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Architecture RFC subject area

We currently have no specifically defined area to post architecture RFC's. I suggest renaming Media, art and literature to Art, Architecture, Literature and Media and moving Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature and media --Joopercoopers 10:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

biting

Is anybody else tired of stuff like this where an new editor is promlty jumped on to change there username? I see this as biting and am getting very frustrated by it? While some usernames are obvious and blatnat, it seems like there are many editors out there whos sole job it is is to find a problem with usernames? I find this counter-productive personally. Do any other editors who work on this page want to weigh in? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not jumping on someone, that is telling them of a discussion about their name. It does not even say the name is unacceptable, it just says a discussion has begun. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
First off, i provided the wrong diff. That notification is important. it is this diff that concerned me. To to a new editor, that might be enough to scare them off. I guess I try to look at things back when I first started and that might have been enough to make me say screw it. I dont really know what would be better but, I feel that it is a bit harsh to jump on somebody like that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I see, it does bother me when someone tells a person their username is not allowed, when it is not a clear cut case and the WP:RFCN has not finished or even started. The template that politely explains that a discussion is going on is rather new, and will most likely be used more often. I hope so at least. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to drop Ryanpostlethwaite (talk · contribs) a friendly reminder about it? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Its ok I get the message RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yay! HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's also take into account that in one respect Ryan did exactly the right thing, by trying to discuss the issue directly with the user on the user's talk page first, rather than skipping that step to go straight to RFC/NAME. Kudos to Ryan for following WP:U's and WP:RFC/NAME's recommendations in that respect. Now the trick becomes how to phrase that approach in a gentle, friendly, and diplomatic way. We've been depending on each person to accomplish that trick in their own words. Perhaps a semi-boilerplate template, with a space to fill in for the specific concern, would help some of us. But here using the template {{UsernameDiscussion}} isn't appropriate, since that's specifically to notify the user of an RFC/NAME already opened and underway. Let me see what I can do with yet another template, {{UsernameConcern}} -- when that link turns blue, please check it out, and please-please-please suggest any improvements that come to mind. Thanks! Ben 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
{{UsernameConcern}} is working. Try it out! So much of the phrasing is a matter of personal style that I encourage people to paraphrase it their own way if they prefer, or even write their own text as if this didn't exist -- but for those of us too harried and/or tired to type long notes or find diplomatic words, it may be helpful. Ben 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, did you type that on a silver keyboard? Very non-confrontational. I like it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I like the template, and to be honest it would be exactly the template I would want to use if I ever talked to another user about their user name. Although it may not have been apparent in previous comments regarding usernames, it is definately better not to bite new users RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeating a note added several topics up, it's best to "subst:" the username templates:

{{subst:UsernameConcern|reason for objection}}
{{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}
{{subst:UsernameAllowed}}

Subst'ing lets the auto-signature feature work right, and makes the message text (rather than just the template tag) visible in edit mode so the user can reply point by point.

Filling in the "reason for objection" lets you specify just what the problem is, for instance "I think this name too closely resembles the obscene word 'xxxx' in the 'yyyy' language." Ben 22:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Need family of notification templates?

It seems that the RfC process draws many comments on highly controversial and politically sensitive issues, but doesn't function as well on specialized topics that only concern a small number of editors. There are too few comments to arrive at anything like closure. It is understandable that many editors would prefer not to get involved, but it also seems that some editors don't get the word about an RfC concerning an article or incident of interest.

Would it be wise to put together a family of notification templates that can be placed on article or user talk pages? I have in mind something like the new template about user name controversies. Let me know if there already are such templates, and I'll put links to them at the bottom of the main RfC pages.

This might help the concern expressed at various places on this talk page that many RfCs don't come to closure. --SteveMcCluskey 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I may not have seen all the types of RFC there are or have been, but I think that two major types remaining are article content and user conduct. I can work on templates for these that parallel the three username-topic templates mentioned above.... Ben 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ben, I look forward to seeing what you work up. I know that for user conduct it might be appropriate to have a template for the affected article talk pages as well as for the affected user(s) talk pages. I haven't considered article content RfC's much, but I imagine similar considerations apply. --SteveMcCluskey 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
RFC/Article entries link to the article talk pages (and ideally the specific sections) where the discussions actually take place.
Since the RFC/USER itself should give diffs or section links as evidence, and more may be added during the discussion, I think it would be more practical to just advise the user of the RFC, with links to the WP:RFC/USER entries list and the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/USERNAME discussion. The evidence itself shouldn't have to be repeated in this notification. Let's make the bad news clear and polite, but succinct.
That said, please check out the new templates as their links turn blue:
{{subst:ArticleConcern|article name|nature of concern}}
{{subst:ArticleDiscussion|article name}}
{{subst:ArticleResult|article name|outcome of RFC}}
{{subst:ConductConcern|nature of concern}}
{{subst:ConductDiscussion}}
{{subst:ConductResult|outcome of RFC}}
Please consider the original versions to be "first drafts", since I might not have thought to provide all the information needed, or optional parameters to include other info that may only sometimes be required. I expect these will need revision, and I would cheerfully welcome suggestions or helpful edits. Thanks! Ben 04:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
They're all up now, and fully functional, as far as my poor tired brain can determine. Please check them out and give me feedback, or make whatever fixes or tweaks seem appropriate. But do please remember to "subst:" them and include any required parameters (like article names), or they can't work right. Thanks! Ben 08:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Khukri of the user-warnings project had suggested:"Just my tuppence worth but maybe trying to group them with the prefix rfc, and all the templates titles should be in lowerecase."   Okay. The long forms now also have lowercased shortcuts. Since the longstanding {{UsernameBlocked}} already had shortcut {{unb}}, I gave the others similar shortcuts (as close as I could get, since {{ucr}} and {{unc}} were already taken), and then also rfc-prefix forms with just three letters after the dash:
(edit view)

RFC-related templates and shortcuts:

Template lowercase rfc- prefix short rfc- prefix Parameters, (req)uired or (opt)ional
{{ArticleConcern}} {{articleconcern}} {{rfc-articleconcern}} {{artc}} {{rfc-arc}} article name (req), nature of concern (opt)
{{ArticleDiscussion}} {{articlediscussion}} {{rfc-articlediscussion}} {{artd}} {{rfc-ard}} article name (req)
{{ArticleResult}} {{articleresult}} {{rfc-articleresult}} {{artr}} {{rfc-arr}} article name (req), outcome of RFC (opt)
{{ConductConcern}} {{conductconcern}} {{rfc-conductconcern}} {{ucc}} {{rfc-ucc}} nature of concern (opt)
{{ConductDiscussion}} {{conductdiscussion}} {{rfc-conductdiscussion}} {{ucd}} {{rfc-ucd}} conduct issue (opt)
{{ConductNotice}} {{conductnotice}} {{rfc-conductnotice}} {{ucn}} {{rfc-ucn}} RFC/USER subject's name (req)
{{ConductResult}} {{conductresult}} {{rfc-conductresult}} {{ucres}} {{rfc-ucr}} outcome of RFC (opt)
{{UsernameConcern}} {{usernameconcern}} {{rfc-usernameconcern}} {{uncon}} {{rfc-unc}} nature of objection (opt)
{{UsernameDiscussion}} {{usernamediscussion}} {{rfc-usernamediscussion}} {{und}} {{rfc-und}} name issue in discussion (opt)
{{UsernameNotice}} {{usernamenotice}} {{rfc-usernamenotice}} {{un}} {{rfc-unn}} RFC/NAME subject's name (req)
{{UsernameAllowed}} {{usernameallowed}} {{rfc-usernameallowed}} {{una}} {{rfc-una}} archived RFC's "oldid=#" (opt)
{{UsernameBlocked}} {{usernameblocked}} {{rfc-usernameblocked}} {{unb}} {{rfc-unb}} reason for block (opt)

All of these templates need to be substituted: please use {{subst:template}}, not just {{template}}. All these templates (except {{UsernameBlocked}}) will automatically add your signature, unless you add the optional parameter sig=n.

That should save a bit of typing time. -- Ben 08:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've got no problem with using these for the simple "this rfc has closed notifications" (but they're only a sentence anyway so why have a template). Theres a worrying parallel here with civility templates and other such things - when used with established users, this impersonal lazy approach causes more problems than it solves - I think the same is true here. We've got people involved in content disputes or concerns over their conduct - often these people will be established users and the issues will be complex a require some diplomacy - is dropping these templates on there talk pages going to help matters? A more carefully crafted and pesonalised message that refers perhaps to the specific issues is what we owe wikipedians like this - it takes longer but its a better approach in my opinion. --Joopercoopers 12:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Which is why I've said over and over that using these templates is optional, not mandatory, and that people are encouraged to write their own original text, though welcome to paraphrase from these templates if that helps. Note in #biting above, the problem has been that some people have trouble finding the diplomatic words to make what is essentially a complaint come across in a friendly, non-confrontational, and soothing manner -- especially to newcomers, who don't know how things work around here and who therefore need extra explanation and a very gentle approach. Between old-timers, and especially between long-time colleagues, a short and even terse personal note may suffice... so they don't need any template at all, and are not the "target audience" for these. -- Ben 03:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the effort Ben, but most of the templates miss my central concern. I was asking about a possible family of templates that could be used to notify interested parties who weren't personally involved in a controversy about an RfC concerning activities by a third party or on a page that they habitually edited. Those are the kind of people who could contribute to making the RfC process more effective.
The only template in your group that addresses interested observers is articlediscussion; the similarly named conductdiscussion is aimed at the person whose conduct is being discussed, not at observers who might be able to comment on the effects of his activity. --SteveMcCluskey 22:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but people who are not the subject of a conduct discussion probably don't need either the diplomatic language or the explanation of dispute-resolution options, mentorship, advocacy, etc. A brief note ("There's an RFC on [[User:X]] at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/X]], if you want to participate. -- ~~~~") will neither hurt their feelings nor deny them information they need to save their accounts, since they're not the ones at risk. I can do a template for that if you like, I just never thought of templating something that short. Is there anything else you'd like it to say? Or any other sort of message you want templated? Please let me know. Thanks! -- Ben 03:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Steve, here's {{subst:ucn|username}} for you. Enjoy! -- Ben 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Having done some tinkering, I'm actually feeling rather proud of {{ucn}} / {{ConductNotice}}, after all. I built in a bit of functionality that makes it a little more than just a short text-printing macro. When someone's already been the subject of one or more previous RFCs, the new RFC is supposed to have a number appended to the name. RFC#1 may be "John Doe", but after that come "John Doe 2", "John Doe 3", and so forth, which would put the burden on you to look up the current RFC's number and add that to the notice. Originally I made this an optional parameter: {{subst:ucn|John Doe|2}}, etc. But now, as long as the numbering is standard format (not in parentheses or Roman numerals or anything odd like that), and all the RFCs are still around to be counted, this template will look up the number for you and provide the correct link -- so all you have to provide is the username.   <wipes sweat from brow>   -- Ben 04:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Another new template: {{subst:un|username}} is to mention an RFC/NAME discussion to someone other than the named user, for instance to invite the blocking admin to discuss an existing username block. -- Ben 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Should a predicted conflict be listed here?

I'd like to have some community input for at Talk:Temple (Latter Day Saints)#Legality issues, but since there's not an active conflict at the moment, I'm not sure if RfC is the best place to list my request. Since the issue described there is almost certain to come up at some point, I thought it may be wise to have some sort of precedent set. Should it go here or elsewhere? Tijuana Brass 01:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


User:Nationalist

As this user has been editting for awhile, I'm not certain that a username RfC is appropriate, but I forward his contributions as an example of one principle I've been advocating: partisan usernames nearly invariably signify partisan intent. By allowing them to register, we mislead them into believing that it is acceptable to view Wikipedia as a battleground.Proabivouac 01:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

But, unless a nation is specified, how is this partisan? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Slippery slope. "Nationalist" isn't exactly a charged term. Flakeloaf 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You could bring it up at WP:RFCN, but I am almost sure it would be allowed, I don't see how it can be partisan if it does not mention a nation. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe that non-neutral usernames usually wind up disallowed, at the end of the discussion -- the question, then, would be whether a particular name displays an inherent bias. Example, "sucker" might be allowed, but "Foo is a sucker," probably not. (well, "sucker" might not be allowed anyway, I dunno, but it's the first example coming to mind... throw poor Luna a bone?)– Luna Santin (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions

I've moved that section where more applicable (WT:U#Countries et al) NikoSilver 22:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive not working

The automatic archive function seems not to be working since February 21. Is he back? 00:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Usernames as companies

We have had a fairly large number of users signing up with companies as their usernames. I just logged out and looked at the sign up page, and from what i saw, i dont see anything prohibitng such names there. I know that there is stuff in WP:UN, but i dont expect a new user to know that. Would it be possible to update the signup screen to let new people know that usernames that are the name of companies may be blocked? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This has become an increasing issue as more and more people realize that they can attempt to use wikipedia for advertising. Probably 50% of the username blocks I do are for companies try to advertise. I think adding that might be a good idea. pschemp | talk 22:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
What do we have to do to go about doing that? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This was added: [3]. It might do to make it more explicit at the signup that Wikipedia is not a promotional service. —Centrx→talk • 16:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed category: Organizations and businesses

There's a separate category for biographies, and sometimes organizations don't fit very neatly under one of the existing guidelines. I've seen several cases now in which a category like this would be useful. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 01:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's mostly what "Economy and trade" is used for. It might be best to just rename it to "Economy, trade, and business" or something. —Centrx→talk • 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Done: "Economy, trade, and companies". —Centrx→talk • 16:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User name subpage

Our username policy states that on seeing a dubious username that could be misinterpreted or is borderline acceptable, the first stage is to contact the user and ask them if they will change their name. I have spotted a recent spate of usernames being immediately added to WP:RFCN without any attempt to contact the user. Does anyone object if I start removing any submissions to RFCN where no attempt to contact the user has been made? Proto ► 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as it is not blatantly obvious block. I think this is a situation where good judgement is required. But, i dont have a problem with it. it is just like removing aiv reports without proper warnings. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I think thats a good idea, if the username isn't a blatant failure of WP:U and hence not blocked on sight, an active effort should be made to contact the user to ask about their username, or at least notifying them of the RFCN RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
There are 3 kinds of user names:
  1. Username is perfectly acceptable. Action to take based on name: None.
  2. Username is completely and clearly unacceptable (ie, contains trolling, foul language, hate speech, obvious impersonation). Action to take: Block.
  3. Username is unacceptable for less serious reasons (ie, resembles another user's name, too long, a company has the word Wikipedia or bot). Action to take: Ask the user to change their name. If no response: Then (and only then) submit to WP:RFC/N.
If you don't bother to contact the user whose future editing under that name is in the balance, you're exhibiting a rank ignorance of assume good faith. Proto ► 16:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree. I've been removing quite a few names from AIV that seemed borderline (and some of them I couldn't even figure why they were unacceptable at all). The only ones I've been blocking are obvious harassment (XEditorIsAMoron), profanity/racial slurs in the name, etc. A lot of editors probably pick "WikipediaEditor321" or something in perfectly good faith, so those should be dealt with quite a bit more gently. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted a loooong story and misfiled science RfC

Just FYI: there was a six-paragraph story about how two users weren't getting along, misfiled under "Science" so that "Creationism" became subject 5.1 and all other subjects a subset about this. I pared it down to core: two people are arguing about falsifiability; I also put it in the right category (biology). --MattShepherd 18:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly false summary

This RfC was closed by mutual agreement, and it was also agreed that it would be archived. The RfC was then de-listed without being archived, so I archived it. KillerChihuahua then edited my summary of this dispute. It previously read:

"No conclusion. Closed per agreement. No agreement reached about harassment charge."

KillerChihuahua changed it to read:

"Unanimous rejection of assertions made, with solitary exception of person bringing Rfc."

KillerChihuahua’s edit summary says:

"Correction. This is ridiculous - about 30 ppl have told you your Rfc is basically nonsense, and you continue the "fight" in archives? Get another hobby, Ferrylodge."

KC's summary is blatantly false, and misleading as well. Neither of the parties who brought this RfC have rejected the assertions initially made. And they are not the only ones who have agreed that at least some of Bishonen's diffs purportedly showing harassment do not actually show harassment.[4] Therefore, I edited KC’s summary merely to say “This summary is disputed.” She then reverted without explanation.

I am tempted to withdraw my consent to close this RfC, and begin arbitration, except that this has already wasted too much of my time. This RfC is archived, so people will always be able to see for themselves what the facts are and whether they have been fairly considered, and that's enough for me. However, I object to KillerChihuahua unilaterally insisting on a blatantly false summary that does not even allow me to register dissent with that blatantly false summary.Ferrylodge 17:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(Per your request/suggestion below, I will address this posting.) Are you asking a question? Or is this simply another opportunity for you to declare your view of the injustice on wikipedia? Please note, per the top of this discussion, this is not an appropriate place to bring disputes. If you believe that someone has acted improperly, you should start a thread on AN/I. You should be aware that at some point, your actions may well be considered trolling or lawyering or canvassing and you could find yourself blocked again. Perhaps you should take the advice of 30-ish people and drop it. Lsi john 02:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Lsi john, please let this matter drop. There is nothing wrong with my post that started this section. I am simply disagreeing with what another person said. I am not initiating any dispute resolution. Can't you allow me to merely disagree? Please let this drop.Ferrylodge 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Lsi john, I repeat, please stop denying me the right to disagree. Please leave the comments in this section and the next section alone.[5] Please drop your assertions that I have no right to disagree with other Wikipedia users. Removing this section and the next section to an archives is grossly inappropriate, and I am politely asking you to please stop.[6] Thank you.Ferrylodge 04:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Technically your entire post (above) is out of line, and improper. You are making a statement, not a request. It is not a statement about RFC policy. It is a statement about how your feelings are hurt and how you were served injustice. It is inappropriate here. Due to your clearly sensitive feelings and wounded pride, I will not re-archive it, though it serves no purpose except to feed your vanity.
However, it is inappropriate to revert archived material, and in your bull headed efforts to document the fact that your feelings are hurt and your ego is bruised, you have disruptively reverted additional archived material to this talkpage. Please correct your mistake and re-add the archive reference, and remove the other archived material.
Happy editing. Lsi john 04:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that using Wikipedia to make a point is improper. It is also improper to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. My post above does neither. It points out an error in the summary of an RfC. Please stop making unsubstantiated statements about my ego and pride. As for any errors that may have occurred while I was restoring the two entire sections which you removed, I will look into that right away. Thank you, Lsi john, and peace be with you.Ferrylodge 04:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. This is not the place to point out an error. - therefore you are soap boxing.
  2. The only error in the summary was yours, when you said there was no concensus. The concensus was 100% against you.
Lsi john 04:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The place to discuss an error on a project page is obviously at the talk page for that project page, unless someone is seeking dispute resolution or an RfC, which I am not.Ferrylodge 04:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
You're a lawyer, right? How is it that you get things so twisted up? This is not the talk page for your RfC (project page). This is the talk page for the RfC Process. Your point was not about the RfC process, it was about your specific dispute. Additionally, you are not asking a question and you are not opening a discussion. You are simply making a declaration, in an inappropriate venue. Please fix the archiving that you inappropriately reverted. Lsi john 04:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
My post above was about an error on the project page, not at the RfC page. Please stop with these endless comments criticizing me for posting here, Lsi john. And please stop posting at my talk page as well. Thank you.Ferrylodge 04:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

So now its appropriate for you to delete my comments? Lsi john 05:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Restore them if you wish. However, you already thanked fredrick day for removing them.Ferrylodge 05:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
No sir, I will not play the revert game with you. You are in violation of wiki guidelines. You objected to your text being archived and now you have deleted other editor's posts and restored your WP:POINT and WP:SOAP material. You have been told by three editors that your material is inappropriate here. I thanked Fredrick for relocating the entire discussion. You did not revert him, you re-posted your original soapbox material.
My free advice is that you fix this situation quickly. Lsi john 05:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the comments in this section that you thanked fredrick day for removing, and I will do so for the next section as well, as a favor to you.Ferrylodge 05:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC) If you wish to extend this discussion of whether this section and the next section should be deleted or archived or moved to a personal talk page, then please do so in the next section, which deals with "deletion." Thank you.Ferrylodge 05:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that you avoid throwing around inflammatory accusations like "KC's edit summary is blatantly false." They constitute personal attacks. FeloniousMonk 06:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
FeloniusMonk, I appreciate your warning. However, it is incredibly false that LCP rejected the assertions made in the RfC. Which makes it all the more ironic that Swatjester has deleted LCP's perfectly civil comments from this very discussion.Ferrylodge 06:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
That's hardly the point, you are using the opportunity to fan the flames. To what end I do not know nor do I care. The only relevant point is that this has become disruptive and it's an ongoing pattern on your part that needs to stop, now. How about dropping it and find a article to edit quietly. FeloniousMonk 06:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I am delighted to move along provided people do not delete these sections.Ferrylodge 06:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Notice Swatjester's comment below? Pay heed. Whether admins or trusted members of the community remove comments here or not is not for you to say, and it is no longer your concern, starting now.

Unjustified deletion

I object to this deletion of material in the previous section. There was nothing uncivil about the deleted material.Ferrylodge 01:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, this is EXACTLY the same type of obstinate nonsense that got you blocked in the first place. Other than one uninvolved editor, whom you snagged to 'support the underdog' (his words), not one person supported you in the RFC. Everyone agreed that the block was proper and that the block comment was proper. It was not a no-concensus or no-conclusion or no-agreement. It was resounding concensus of agreement against you. You harassed, you were warned, your ego objected, you repeatedly ignored the warning to stop, you got blocked, you filed AN/I and were rejected, you filed RFC and were rejected. Its over. Get over yourself already, sir. please? Lsi john 01:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Lsi john, your comment is not germane to the title and subject of this section. Therefore, I decline to respond to your comment. I have no desire to prolong the discussion which you evidently wish to prolong.Ferrylodge 01:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually its very germane. Relevant too. Perhaps you should read it again. It specifically addresses your post. Lsi john 01:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

See top of page: "NOTE: This is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment. " That is exactly what you did just now with this section: you're posting a notice of a dispute. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, I am simply disagreeing with your deletion. Is no disagreement tolerated at this talk page? I am not doing anything more extensive than merely disagreeing with you.Ferrylodge 01:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Blatantly false summary is a dispute. You posted it, correct? You have an issue with being told you are wrong, and it clearly affects your judgement. As LCP said .. Let it Go. Lsi john 01:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Lsi john, if you wish to join the discussion in the previous section, then please post there. This section pertains to deletion of material by swatjester. Thank you, and peace be with you.Ferrylodge 01:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Two Wikipedia users, Lsi john and fredrick day, have sought to remove this section and the previous section. Lsi john sought to archive them, and fredrick day sought to move them to my personal talk page. I would respectfully request that they please not tamper with other users' comments in this way.

The initial purpose of these posts was to discuss an error in the table of archived RfCs at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Archive. Where are such errors supposed to be discussed if not here? If one goes to that page and clicks on "discussion" then one goes to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Archive which says, "If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page" which links to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct, i.e. this page here. This is the place for comments about errors in the table of archived RfCs.Ferrylodge 04:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no errors on that page. The closing summary is correct. You just don't like it. Lsi john 06:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It is incredibly, blatantly false that LCP rejected the assertions made in the RfC. Which makes it all the more ironic that Swatjester has deleted LCP's perfectly civil comments from this very discussion.Ferrylodge 06:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, Ferrylodge, give it a rest and move along. These constant objections and accusations are becoming personal and disruptive. Please find a way to contribute more positively to the project instead of continually fanning the flames. FeloniousMonk 06:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I am delighted to move along provided people do not delete these sections.Ferrylodge 06:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Notice Swatjester's comment above? Pay heed. Whether admins or trusted members of the community remove comments here or not is not for you to say, and it is no longer your concern, starting now. FeloniousMonk 06:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
FeloniusMonk, my only objective here has been to sincerely discuss the fact that KillerChihuahua's summary of the RfC falsely implies that LCP rejected the assertions made in the RfC. You could verify this fact with minimal effort, if you had an inclination. This is my last comment on this page. It will be somewhat interesting to see how soon it is deleted.Ferrylodge 06:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)