User talk:Steth/RfC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Neither of the pointers to attempts to resolve actually point to attempts to resolve. Midgley 13:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- According to the introduction, the Rfc page should be deleted:
-
- The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page ....... If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page, which was 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC).
- They have not provided such evidence, and it's been much more than 48 hours. -- Fyslee 20:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Uh, just look at the Chiropractic article history for all the evidence needed. Mac seems to have taken a holiday, or simply decided to avoid this page. Regardless, there was an ongoing dispute, and efforts were made to resolve it. Ombudsman 21:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't think anyone disputes that there has been a dispute. Regardless of whether Mac has written anything here or not, the rules for Rfc are stated above. You (the complainers) haven't done your part (to provide specific evidence - URLS at the very least). The time has gone and the page should be deleted. -- Fyslee 21:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
Well, why the sudden interest in this RfC?
Actually, I would like to go ahead and file this RfC, if it is OK with Fyslee. Why are you trying to clear Mccready's bad boy behaviour? He did bad-mouth an administrator, you know. Shouldn't he have to answer for his behaviour?
Ombudsman, any suggestions/help you can offer on what would be the next step in this matter? Thanks, Steth 21:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] wrong place, absence of evidence of attempts to fix, out of time
... Midgley 23:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Precisely. I haven't really followed this, but since my watchlist keeps bringing it onto my radar, I've dropped in a couple times.
- In spite of the fact that the whole page should have been deleted by now, Steth is going ahead with this:
- I don't know precisely why the rules are worded the way they are. The requirement for at least two to provide proof that they themselves have attempted to resolve the issue is relatively easy to understand. The time requirement....? Maybe a matter of gaging the relative urgency and importance of the matter. If the one starting the Rfc can't engage enough of the other editors who have witnessed the dispute, then maybe it's not worth taking up the resources of Wikipedia and others. The possible reasons for a lack of engagement by other editors can be myriad. Even if an Rfc is justified (as this one might be), maybe other editors are reluctant to support it considering the hypocrisy of the one who started the Rfc. If Steth had clean hands, then he'd likely get much more support. Who wants to aid him with this Rfc, when doing so would seemingly justify him in doing the same things? -- Fyslee 17:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
