Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Roylee

message: __TOC__
I don't understand the 'Discussion' section. Are we suppose to discuss there or on talk? — mark ✎ 11:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I that section is the carrot to get people here. Wizzy…☎ 11:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

message: I have always assumed that the aim of an RfC was to resolve a dispute within existing policies and procedures if possible. However, Wikipedia:Requests for comment#User-conduct RfC does not appear to restrict the aims or proposed solution in this way.
So I guess it's valid to use an RfC to develop and promote a proposed change in policy, which appears to be what is happening here. But IMO this is a major change that is proposed. So there's a long way to go, and other forums to be explored, before it actually becomes policy. Andrewa 15:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I started this section because I wasn't fully sure myself where this RfC could get us. What I do know is that it will prove to be difficult to sanction Roylee, if only because he frequently edits anonymously from a dynamic IP range. A block on his account (which in my opinion would be fully defensible since he has ignored a great many warnings) can be evaded easily by logging out, something he often has done to blank messages he didn't like. A block on his IP range (4.241.x.x) would be hindered by the fact that this is shared by at least one other user (who once complained on my talk page that I had sent him a warning adressed to Roylee). This RfC, then, seems to be a good place to discuss the underlying problem(s) of which Roylee is a symptom. I, for one, understand that there's a long way from here to establishing policy. — mark ✎ 16:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal should be able to handle that if it gets implimented, so please support it. Beyond that you did find out about the users edits and I doubt there is a huge scale effort going on similar to Roylee, so Linus law did work. There may be further things we can do in the current system, but insistence on higher quality sources can usually work. In the end the Wiki model is suitable to getting many articles to a very good state, but has it's limits. Perhaps the only way to go to a truly higher level is once the base articles are built, a formal peer review is conducted, where articles are checked against their sources and perhaps additional ones by experts, and those versions are what the public sees. Between that perhaps a wiki where only credentialled, trusted users get to edit could bridge the gap. In the meantime, the open Wiki system is working pretty well and most articles are improving. As long as we don't think we're going to be prefectly reliable under the current system we're okay. So far it's a path, not a destination. Various proposals to impliment what I'm talking about are out there, like published articles and a stable version like FreeBSD has for ex. - Taxman Talk 19:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where can I find this proposal? I doubt there is a huge scale effort going on similar to Roylee: why? It's quite easy to do such a thing, especially in low-profile specialist articles. — mark ✎ 12:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I lost track of this page. I linked the proposal above. It only solves the problem of letting logged in users edit from a blocked IP, but that itself is important. - Taxman Talk 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: While I agree with Andrewa that discussion of policy is acceptable in an RfC, especially as it is so closely linked with this one user, I have placed a notice at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notice of discussion about possible policy proposals at RfC to inform interested users that a discussion strongly linked to policy is taking place here. If the result of the discussion here suggests that a policy change is in order, I expect that a proposal would make its way over there eventually.  Obviously a proposal would have to strictly define what issue it intends to address and how it would work, but I find the current free flowing discussion of thoughts to be useful and well in line with its RfC nature.  - BanyanTree 17:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I think the notice on the Pump is timely. Andrewa 07:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This RfC and policy

message: This subject is now ripe for RFAr, in my opinion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark says: Personally, I am not interested in sanctioning the editor Roylee. He has not responded to this RfC, I think it unlikely that he would engage in arbitration. It is not about him, it is about Wikimedia. Wizzy…☎ 06:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I am interested in him being blocked, it's just that I am not primarily interested in sanctioning him; cleaning up the mess (and fixing up policy if needed) is more important. Besides, about what kind of block are we speaking here? I think only an indefinite block can be of help; Roylee has always been unresponsive to requests and warnings and we have every reason to expect that he would just go on with his 'work' after his block expires. But someone has yet to show me which policy would cover an indefinite block, except for this one, maybe. — mark ✎ 09:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yep, I came across  yesterday and have reverted all edits that fit the pattern outlined here. I have also pointed him to this very page; no reaction. It's very disheartening. (But as I asked above, which policy would cover an indefinite block?) Anyway, I'm all for mass-reverting all of his edits - this guy is doing far more harm than good to Wikipedia and should simply be stopped. I don't really care if there are good edits sometimes, it is clear to me that all of his edits, good and bad, are made to further an Afro-centric POV. Let me put it this way: I'm usually very optimistic about people, but this editor does not deserve any more good faith and simply needs to be stopped. — mark ✎ 06:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Ripe for RFA 

message: How do you expect anyone else to be able to follow this discussion when so many of the comments, at various degrees of indentation, are unsigned? Please go back and sign all your comments! u p p l a n d 07:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, no comments in this section are unsigned. The indentation clearly and accurately shows which comments belong with which signature. IMO this is an established convention on talk pages. To sign every paragraph seems unnecessary to me, although I can see how it could be strange at first, and it does assume everyone knows and follows the convention. Andrewa 22:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With all nested indentations, it is not at all clear who wrote which comment. It may have been clear at first, before later replies became interspersed, but it is not clear to someone who comes to the page later. u p p l a n d 23:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsigned comments