Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 2

message: I think it would be useful to add some info on the expected timescales of each stage of the dispute resolution process. Having recently listed the dispute over Zviad Gamsakhurdia on the RfC page, I have absolutely no idea how long to leave it on there... -- ChrisO 00:07, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No set time. List on RfC until it seems that it is no longer helping or there has been little to no response. Then either move to the next step of our dispute resolution process or drop the issue. --mav 03:25, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Timescales?

message: I object to being listed as a "sock puppet".  I am accused of this with absolutely no proof.  VeryVerily keeps making accusations about me, and then pointing to someone else's page.  I refuse to accept this.
If you want to create a page where you give proof of me having a "sock puppet" or being a "sock puppet" then do so.  In other words, if you have a problem with me, I do not object to a page being made about that, referring to ME.  But I will not allow myself to be listed on SOMEONE ELSE's page with absolutely no substantiation, and have that continually referred to (by VeryVerily) as "proof" of something. Hanpuk 16:34, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I object to my listing 

message: Since this was added, there have been no new comments on the talk page regarding PoV issues. Indeed, the one person who was commenting has actually stopped commenting on the matter. Seeing as no one is taking other steps either, such as a VfD listing or a request for mediation, I think this can go now, can't it? Snowspinner 06:15, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am still requesting comment, which is what this page is for. I don't want the page deleted, and mediation is innapropriate. Sam Spade 06:18, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The NPOV issue was voted on on the talk page - there were no objections to removing the POV tag, and, following its removal, no further objection was noted, nor has its presence on RfC netted any objection. I think the matter has reached consensus now. If, as you have said, the talk page is beyond repair and no useful dialogue can occur there, then the situation is a textbook example of what mediation is for. Otherwise, as you are not presenting your case on the talk page, nor did you present it in the explicit call for comments on whether to delete the POV tag, I have trouble counting your objection for much. Snowspinner 06:22, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing was solved on the talk page. I witnesses that tragic high-fiving lovefest to celebrate my rejection of further conversation with those unwilling to respect Wikipedia:Verifiability and wikiquette. The very fact you feel concensus has occured is a not so gentle reminder of the need for comment. Why you think your approval is necessary for me to refuse to waste my time with the abuse of reason and audacity within that talk page, or for me to request comment on the editorial disservice that article provides is beyond me. Find someone else to lord it over, I have no interest in your empty authority. Sam Spade 06:27, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you feel so the talk page is not helping, and yet you still feel so strongly on the matter, I have submitted a request for mediation. Snowspinner 06:28, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You have? That's weird, it certainly doesn't look like you did... What exactly to you expect from that? Were already communicating, and mediation is not for article content. Check out  Btw. Sam Spade 06:32, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The request just went up. And mediation is indeed for article content. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolutionSnowspinner 06:36, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Heteronormativity

message: On Wikipedia talk:Requests for review of admin actions it has been proposed to have all disputes alleging misuse of admin privileges be part of Requests for comment. This would be subject to the two-person certification requirement. Comments are welcome as to whether this is a good idea, and if so, whether disputes over the use of admin privileges should be a separate category, or simply part of the user conduct disputes category. --Michael Snow 21:00, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible return of admin conduct disputes

message: It seems to me that this page is essentially useless for complaining about a certain class of irritating users.  I give you User:PolishPoliticians aka User:Szczecin aka User:Gdansk aka User:Caius2ga and possibly some others besides.  This user goes on to cities related to Polish topics, where extremely tenuous compromise arrangements as to nomenclature have been worked out with exceedingly difficulty, changes to his preferred version (generally one in which the German name of a place is not mentioned at all), then goes on and adds mind-numbing amounts of tedious detail about sporting figures from the city, or whatever, so he can complain when he gets reverted (well, among other things).  He'll edit war for a while, and then go on talk pages and accuse everyone who disagrees with him of being a Nazi (see Talk:Szczecin, for instance).  Then he goes away for a few weeks, only to emerge again with a new user name.  So, what on earth is one supposed to do about this?  I don't even have any idea how I am supposed to attempt to "resolve the difficulty" before bringing it here, and, in any event, each user name is gone so quickly that by the time two people have tried to "resolve the difficulty", he's gone again.  Beyond that, the problem is not so much an individual difficulty, as the user's entire modus operandi on Wikipedia.  Forgive me for going on at length, but this is massively frustrating. john k 08:05, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what on earth is one supposed to do about this?? Think twice before you revert. That's very simple, if you leave the important pieces of information and restore only the part you find unacceptable, noone will call you a vandal. Otherwise, it's hard to argue that one of you is right and the other is wrong since both of you use the same blind revert policy. Halibutt 14:49, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
I don't accuse people of being Nazis when they disagree with me.  I also make useful contributions in articles throughout the Wikipedia, while this use seems to almost exclusively make troublesome edits on Polish city articles.  And I don't constantly create new sock puppets.  At any rate, as I've said before, practically all of the non-controversial additions made by this user are entirely trivial, and clutter up articles with largely uninteresting information.  I'd note that on Szczecin I was not blindly reverting - the first time I merely changed the first paragraph back, and then changed references in the history section to say Stettin rather than Szczecin.  After that, I did revert, but you can't possibly expect me to go through by hand every time because he might have (well, scratch that, probably did, in order to make me look bad) added the name of another footballer from Szczecin?  Sigh. john k 15:22, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Limitations to user conduct system currently in place

message: I believe information - even unpretty information - is needed in an article. I'm willing to wait a week to see if we have more people comment on other's heavy handed approach to suppression of that information. Please tell me if I'm being unreasonable. - Sparky 02:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: How long should I wait?

message: While this page is very comprehensive in explaining how to list a topic for comments, it fails to address the issue of how those comments should be formatted and what purpose and effect they have.  Is there another page that lists this information?  If not, could someone add it to the page?
Acegikmo1 19:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What you see is what there is. The comments themselves should be directed to the talk page in question - that's why we list the talk page, not the article itself. There is no particular format for the comment process on articles, it's just a request for people to join the discussion on a debated topic. If you're asking about the format of a listing, we try to address that in the instructions. If you think improvements could be made, I would welcome any suggestions. --Michael Snow 03:33, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better directions 

message: WP:RFC is a rather useful page, but I'm not sure how to make use of the subpages for disputes regarding users' conduct. Can someone give me a quick runthrough, as another sysop has asked me the same thing and I was only able to give an "I think..." answer? From what I gather, if somebody has been directly involved in discussion with the user in question, and attempted to resolve the conflict, they are permitted to add their own summary of events and various proofs to the "Statement of dispute" section. Is this true? Also, WP:RFC is rather vague on what sort of action will be taken after a user has passed the two negotiator threshold, which brings me to my next question: How can one achieve this threshold? Is it by adding one's summary of events to the "Statement of dispute" section as I discussed above, or is it possible too to count somewhat unrelated experiences in "Outside view" to what is mentioned in the "Statement of dispute" section, but related to violations of the policies the user is alleged to have broken? Thanks for any and all help — and if this is any indication, I think the page should be overhauled, because I had enough trouble trying to figure out the formatting for subpages (thank goodness there's an example). Johnleemk | Talk 12:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of Request for Comment 

message: Yesterday I went to Berlin's meeting of wikipedians and spoke with the head of the German wikipedia organization, Kurt Jansson. He said that the problems with the articles related to pedophilia and abuse were well known for quite some time and probably started with a posting in a forum for pedophiles about wikipedia as a great opportunity to spread the message  that sex with adults is helpful for children. He already mentioned it in an interview with a newspaper in order to increase awareness of the problem. In the German pages the most notorious abuser is de:Benutzer:Mondlichtschatten, his english version - or at least one of them - is user:Moon_light_shadow. Here user:Zanthalon seems to play the main role. Checking their contribution lists tells easily which articles need a complete rewrite: List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles, Childlove movement, pedophilia, Child sexuality, Child pornography, Child sexual abuse, Capturing the Friedmans, Rind et al.. I put the german articles on the list of articles that lack neutrality and need more care - the latter was immediately reverted by guess who. Please help taking care of the trouble. Get-back-world-respect 12:34, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Child sexual abuse]]

message: I would like to get some consensus on the format of lists of incumbents.
I have been working on standardised format for Heads of State and Heads of Government.  However my work is regularly being reverted to a previous, more cluttered, less detailed and inaccurate version.
A case in point is List of Presidents of Benin where clearly very few of the listed incumbents were actually 'president'.
My version, which is now located at User:JohnArmagh/Heads of State of Benin clarifies the office of the imcumbent and details the political party of the incumbent whilst uncluttering the format.  
It appears though, that I am not allowed to use it.  The reason behind this is that it is duplication (or, as it has been called, quote:stupid duplication) of the List of Presidents of Benin.  However whilst the names of the incumbents are essentially the same, the latter includes a description that is specific to the post of President, whilst including non-presidential incumbents in the list.
So it currently appears that lists of Heads of State which include at least one President must be titled Presidents of Xxxx, which can only serve to render the information held in the Wikipedia as amateurish.
If this is an enshrined policy of Wikipedia then the phrase You are encouraged to create, expand, and improve upon articles on the edit page should be removed as it is clearly untrue.
--JohnArmagh 16:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convention for Lists of Office-Holders 

message: Where do we go from here?  I think we have a fairly good case against this chap, and he's not beggering off like I hoped he would.  We need to delete the imagevios and send the rest to strong bleach cleanup. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:18, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[/Tran Van Ba]]

message: How long is an RFC to be listed before it can be removed? Gzornenplatz 19:36, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
:They are generally listed until the dispute is resolved, the discussion goes inactive for a while, or in the case of article disputes, moves on to other subjects. Listings may also be removed if superseded by another venue such as mediation or arbitration. --Michael Snow 18:28, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlisting 

message: A question of form: how do I "comment about individual users" regarding new disputes if they already have a subpage under their name discussing an old dispute? Should a format such at /username/2 be used? -- Itai 14:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need for two levels of subpages I think; use /Username2 or /Username 2. —No-One Jones (m) 14:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it helps to have all disputes related to a single user under the same subpage. I have considered /username/archive (archive2, archive3, etc.), but this breaks precedental links. Hhmph. (In case you wondered, this currently applies to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Netoholic, but I'm sure there were cases in the past where this happened as well.) -- Itai 16:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existing subpages 

message: I just removed a single entry from the RfC list.  Unfortunately something went wrong during the save and it saved the page once in proper form and then immediately saved it again, this time with most of the content of the page missing.
I tried immediately to revert it only to find that the database is having that charming problem again where you attempt to go back to the last good version of the page and it tells you it can't find that version.
As soon as I can get a good version of the page saved, I will.  I apologize for the inconvenience.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is fixed now.  Thank you, Bkonrad!  -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  strange database/other problems 

message: What is the situation of an RfC where the complainant has been unwilling to certify the basis of the dispute?  (I refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein)  Do these get to stay for 48 hours?  Because this seems like an abuse of process to me.  Essentially, CheeseDreams seems to have created this page knowing full well that it has not been and will not be certified, and has made no effort to follow the usual form for an RfC page.  It seems to me it should be immediately deleted, but I'm not really sure how this works. john k 19:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like we're now preserving CheeseDreams's most recent forays onto this page as potential evidence for arbitration. --Michael Snow 23:01, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If an RFC is not certified, is the page deleted? Maurreen 06:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I added the following sentence to the second paragraph of the RfC page: "On the article's talk page, please summarize the dispute." Maurreen 05:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certifying disputes 

message: Proposed: To amend the rules so that if the RfC complaint against a user has not been certified by two users after 48 hours, the defendant (and no-one else) may, at any time and at their sole discretion, require the page to be speedily deleted. (Once speedily deleted, a page may not be undeleted.) jguk 21:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: My proposal

message: I also find it appallingly unfair that some users appear to wish to not apply the clearly stated promise to delete pages after 48 hours if there the RfC is not certified by two users within 48 hours. To require anything other than their summary deletion seems dishonest to me. 
Proposed: to apply the current policy in all cases until such a time as it changes. When it changes, any new policy should apply only to new RfCs against users. jguk 21:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsidiary proposal

message: From reading this page, it appears we are very close to a consensus for change regarding the deletion of un-certified user conduct disputes in some cases – specifically where the subject of the RFC wishes to use it as evidence.  This wording will be placed onto the main RFC page, and the example templates (grammar changes as needed).  I also propose that this standard be applied for all current disputes, if necessary.  Please suggest changes to the wording, if you feel them necessary.  If after a couple days with no objection or significant changes, the proposed text can be copied over. -- Netoholic @ 21:39, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
=== Proposed wording ===
Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by discussing it with the subject on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute.  This must involve the same dispute or have observed the same disputed activity, not different ones.
Once the request for comment is open, these two people must document their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed, and sign the comment page.   Requests for comment which do not meet these minimum requirements after 48 hours from creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed.  The subject RFC page (and any other copies of it) will also be deleted, unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained.
:Last modified by:  Netoholic @ 00:31, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
=== Comments ===
*
* This is not at all what I understood from the previous discussion. If anything, this is precisely the opposite of the growing consensus, a restriction of the current policy. - Amgine 02:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: last modified by - Amgine 02:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handling deletion of uncertified RFCs 

message: *
* This is not at all what I understood from the previous discussion. If anything, this is precisely the opposite of the growing consensus, a restriction of the current policy. - Amgine 02:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: A Request for Comment needs to be certified by at least two users who have attempted to resolve the same issue by verifiable means. The users must document their efforts, and provide evidence those efforts have failed.
A Request for Comment which fails to be certified 48 hours after its creation is considered "uncertified", and will be de-listed from the RfC page. The subject RfC page will be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rejected/, and retained as a resource.
:last modified by - Amgine 02:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed revision 

message: * This appears more reflective of the above comments. - Amgine 02:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I think the word "expired" is clearest for RFCs that are not certified within 48 hours. The word "uncertified" can also apply to RFCs that haven't been signed within the initial 48 hours. Other terms are overstatements. Maurreen 10:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: This RfC is getting increasingly unreadable. We need outsiders to comment; many editors are discussing already, but most of them are involved themselves. Please help out!  — mark ✎ 12:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antifinnugor]] 

message: Please excuse the current reversions underway. I am not trying to disturb this page, but the misstatement here of the issue under discussion is significant, and a disservice to those seeking to understand the growing debate. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misstatement of the debate

message: We now require notification of users who have an RFC against them. I'd like to add a suggestion for notification on any RFCs, such as for article content and convention questions. Does anyone have any objections? Maurreen 05:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any article that is listed under Requests for Comments should have a notice put on its talk page explaining that it has been listed at WP:RFC. It would probably be best if the notice was standardized, so a template should be created for that purpose. Also: Although it doesn't have to be a requirement, there should be a strong suggestion that notification should also be given to any of the appropriate Wikipedia interest groups, such as WikiProjects, Regional notice boards, Weekly Wikipedia collaborations, etc. BlankVerse 06:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notification

message: Although the instructions say not to sign the Requests for Comments, I think that it would be a good idea to have each of the requests dated. BlankVerse 06:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Maurreen 04:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding dates

message: I have been placed for a Request for Comment.  So far one person has agreed with the RfC, and another has "partly" agreed.  So far, two non-related comments have been made that lean towards the RfC being unneeded, with a third, withdrawn.
My RfC appears now in both not meeting and meeting the required two users.  By my count, there is one and a half, the second person not wholly agreeing to the RfC.  
Now, who determines if I have met the criteria are there two votes, or a vote and half, or even just one vote?  Also, who moves my name from one section to the other?  An administrator? One of the people who sides with the person placing the comment? Or can anybody move my name into a second position?  Again, I'm just trying understand the protocols and I feel like I'm walking across a bed of razor blades.user: stude62 user talk:stude62 23:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: To be honest, I don't much care whether it's approved or not, however the RFC guidelines do state that for it to be approved evidence must be provided that the submitting parties have attempted to resolve the conflict. Perhaps if someone can provide this evidence then we can approve it. Hence my reverts. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not taking sides in this, but ...  does saying "You're the one in the wrong!" really count as "effort to resolve the dispute"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, I'll bow to your wishes. If you move the RFC to accepted, I will not revert you. However, next time that an RFC is filed, please let another user move this to the accepted RFCs. Incidently, I realise that this won't directly lead to any disciplinary actions. I don't really have a problem with the RFC itself. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving my RFC into approved status 

message: I'm adding my two cents worth to this because as a one who is currently the subject of a RfC, I'm finding the whole process not all that productive.  These are my ideas, and again, this is coming from someone who is "in" this process. This is what I feel is lacking in the RfC process:
:1) Clear and concise instructions for placing an RfC on other users.  This includes a standardized format that must be followed for setting up the comment, and a timeframe by which the format must be followed.
:2) Clear and concise instructions for the person on whom the RfC has been placed.  For examples, what are our rights?  How are we notified? Can we get an advocate to discuss our options with befroe responding?
:3) Clear and concise instructions for conduct between disagreeing parties (ex. During the RfC, please limit your discussions with opposing sides to the RfC talk page) while the RfC is active.  This prevents harrassment, stalking and baiting.
:4) Clear and concise instruction on who may comment, and in what section(s) they may comment in.  For example, is it a conflict for those who agree and involved in placing the RfC (those users who in agreement), to also post in the "outside" parties section at the end.
:5) Set clear time limits on how long people to comment, and respond.  There should be enough time given to the person that the request is upon to read, review and respond to the charges brought against them.
:6) Require that all accusations relating to behavior be hot-linked to examples.
:7) Require that the conflict be placed in persepctive - if conflict exists regarding one article, and the user has contributed to 100 articles (at the time the RfC is placed) without any other problems, this then puts the conflict in perspective, and it requires those placing the conflict to review an entire body of work instead of just one issue.
:8) Set clear guidelines on how additional comments can be made and the protocol for answering them.
:9) If a willingness to settle the dispute reasonably is placed on the table, encourge the sides to come to together to to discuss a win-win outcome.  If the side that placed the comment refuses to discuss a settlement, then the comment should end. If the person on which the comment is made refuses to a settlement, the comment continues.
:10) Provide an exit strategy and time limits.
The purpose should have a positive outcomes for all parties, not be an avenue for ax-grinding. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 23:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of these are good points. Do you want to make a draft? Maurreen 07:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm starting a draft proposal page on Wikipedia:Requests for comment (draft user conduct amendments). I thinkt the opportunity should be taken to emphasise the "resolution" aspects of resolving disputes, rather than the "dispute" bit, jguk 10:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maurreen/Jguk - Thank you for your responses.  Its nice to be heard and see that my suggesstions have some merit.  I would very much like to contribute, but I'm not real clear on what the protocols are.  Do I follow the link in Jguk's comment? Who makes a decision one whether the idea has merit?  Again, as far as Wikipedia protocols are concerned, I'm really unfamiliar the way things flow. Any help is greatly appreciated... user: stude62 user talk:stude62 13:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Be bold! Follow the link, paste ideas on the link, on this talk page and Wikipedia talk:Resolving disputes. There's no set protocol - we aim for consensus, and if a vocal group of other editors disagree with an edit, it will go. If no-one objects to an edit, or after a discussion it is clear there is no remaining significant opposition to an edit, it will stay, jguk 13:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I was bold, or tried to be.  Again, I think its important to get everything spelled out in one place.  One of the great things about Wikipedia is the ability to interlace articles, however when it comes to dispute resolution, making people hyperlink to an affiliated page or definition increases frustration.  I feel strongly that to be fair to all parties, the rules of the road need to clearly and concisely stated on the RfC page itself.  user: stude62 user talk:stude62 22:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic instructions 

message: I have made some further tweaks/comments on Wikipedia:Requests for comment (draft user conduct amendments). I'd like a more friendly approach to replace the current confrontational one as soon as practicable. Please let me know whether it's ok to proceed with replacing the current method with the proposed method.
On the "Wikiquette alerts" idea, I have nothing against an informal process either before or alongside the RfC approach. However, I really do not like the name as it sounds too aggressive. If most people were sent a "wikiquette alert", they'd respond (either in thoughts or in actions or both) with a "well you can f- off then". Kind regards, jguk 15:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to ask you to wait until that page has consensus. Maurreen 08:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reform of RfCs on user/admin conduct

message: Can we please remove this now? I think the outcome is pretty clear. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My RFC 

message: Should an AMA Advocate who is representing the petitioner of a User conduct dispute RfC be allowed to certify or endorse that same dispute?  The relevant sections of the RfC form are 1.5 (Users certifying the basis for this dispute) and 1.6 (Other users who endorse this summary).  
I noticed that in the RfC (now withdrawn or deleted) for User:Ungtss, Joshuaschroeder's (i.e. the petitioner's) AMA Advocate signed and provided more information in section 1.5 (certification).  This just seems to be wrong.  If I understand the RfC procedure correctly, the petitioners need to sign the certification and other users can endorse.  It seems to me that the petitioner him- or herself needs to certify the RfC (section 1.5), since he or she is complaining, not the AMA Advocate.  In addition, since the AMA Advocate is assisting the petitioner (in this case) in bringing the RfC, I would think that he or she should not be allowed to then endorse it (section 1.6), as any other User would [note: in Ungtss's RfC, the AMA Advocate did not endorse, but it is possible this may happen]. --JimCollaborator 19:22, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
:Once the proposal on Wikipedia:Requests for comment (draft user conduct amendments) is adopted, this point will become moot, jguk 20:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now changed the page in line with the proposal. Let's hope it helps to resolve disputes quicker, jguk 21:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certification and Endorsement by AMA Advocate 

message: This may have slipped the notice of most people, but it is the biggest reason this change should be reversed ASAP.  To quote - "Once the request for comment is open, it will remain open for the longer of 14 days or 3 days after the latest new contributor to the page has posted their comments, unless both the disputants request otherwise, for instance, because their dispute has been resolved before this time expires. After that, it will be deleted. But users are free to keep a copy on their user page."
Is it really fair that only admins get to review past RfCs? -- Netoholic @ 23:03, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
:There is no need to retain RfCs indefinitely after they have closed. Indeed, there is every reason to put past disputes behind us and move on to improve the encyclopaedia. I wish the last sentence was not there (SV notes some good reasons why it shouldn't be there) - but it was a final compromise to get Maurreen's consent to it. Let the new approach stay a while and let's see if it works, jguk 23:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of -all- RFCs 

message: I would like to know if an RfC will be archived, like a VfD. Thanks.  — Instantnood 01:51, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
:Old RfCs under the old approach are stuck there forever as far as I can see. New RfCs under the modified approach will be deleted once their time is up, which will be once all disputants have had a chance to consider community views, jguk 06:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I still have to say that I disagree with this aspect of the new approach. As I stated (and still believe, after reading and thinking on your reply) in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), I believe the RfC is also important for arbitration cases. It provides evidence that previous attempts were made at dispute resolution, and also serves as a repository for information to replace or supplement the /Evidence subpage. While it is true that arbitrators are also admins and can therefore view deleted pages, there are other people that are sometimes involved in these cases who are not admins, and therefore are unable to read these pages. RfAr, VfD, and RfM cases, among others, are also archived, regardless of result, and I see no reason why the same can't be done for RfCs. I think we can preserve enough WikiLove simply by moving the old RfC off the main RfC page. --Deathphoenix 22:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While your point is a really good one, Deathphoenix, jguk points out that RfCs are too often just a stepping stone to arbitration and not genuine attempts to resolve the issue at their stage. Answer this, though, what is to stop a complainant, if they don't feel that the RfC had the desired result, manually c&p'ing the text into the arbitration evidence page? Dr Zen 23:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing stopping the complainant from doing that. But there is also nothing stopping the arbitrators from rejecting a case when they feel that the complainant is making a trivial request. --Deathphoenix 23:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving an RfC

message: I don't want to be directly involved in a potential revert war, however, I strongly agree with Netoholic that the new method of deleting vs. archiving old RfCs is wrong. Although I don't believe old pages are actually being deleted at present, my opinion on this potential revert war centers around what we do with the status quo while we vote on changes to that status quo.
Regardless of how I feel about either method of RfC, I have to say that I think it's best that we stick with the status quo until we've had further discussion on this matter. I never heard of this discussion until Netoholic brought it up on the village pump, and I'm sure a lot of people didn't know about it either. I think we have a fair number of people discussing the matter now. Isn't it normal to do things the old way while talking about (or voting on) a new way of doing things, instead of the other way around? I appreciate any comments any of you have about my thoughts on this. --Deathphoenix 22:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential revert war 

message: Several people have asked me to comment on the current disagreement over RfCs which, to be honest, I had not up to just now been following at all. My main reaction after looking at this page is, "There sure is a lot here!" To be honest, I'm not very tempted to read through it. If someone could attempt a neutral summary of what is currently in dispute, I'd sure appreciate it. My guess is that there are a relatively small number of issues that are really salient.
That said, even coming from rather comprehensive ignorance of the current disputes, I will venture a few comments:
1. I see this as something of a "court of first instance", a way to get evidence into the public record, and hopefully to resolve most matters by informal consensus, rather than resort to less public mediation or more coercive arbitration.
*It's not a legal process, and not a court. It should be a way to get the honest opinions of other WPians on how best to resolve the dispute. The old process does not achieve this - indeed, I doubt you will find a current or former RfCee who is not very bitter about the whole thing, jguk 09:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  There sure is a lot here 

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Third opinion. It is intended to get a third opinion when just two people are in a disagreement. Are there any objections to linking to it from the RFC page? Maurreen 02:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: Sorry to bring this up again, but I can't find a definitive answer above.  I've just found a 'speedy delete' template on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kappa; I removed it (although it's true that the RfC remains uncertified after 48 hours, and has little merit anyway), and left a message with the poster (rather pompously, I'm afraid — the result of haste rather than intention) thatRfCs aren't deleted but archived.  Now I'm not so sure. The rubric clearly says that the page will be deleted.  Who makes the decision?  Should I delete any RfCs not certified past their due date?  Should I only delete ones on which I haven't voted or commented?  Or should I leave them all alone? Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 13:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting RfCs 

message: Regarding the title of the article currently titled Antoine Carême:  This Rfc process is a mystery to me.  I honestly do not know what to do next.  I asked for comment on an article title dispute, and only got a response only when I went to the help desk, where I was advised to summarize the dispute on the article talk page.  I did that, and I got two comments on the matter, both of which seemed reasonable to me.  But the response of the article's author was to suggest more possible titles, i.e. ho ho let's drag this simple question out as long as possible and that annoying person will go away.  This is not about end-of-the-world, rescuing-vital-human-knowledge-from-the-sinkholes-of-modern-culture stuff, but the simplicity of the dispute and the inane furniture thrown in the way of a resolution have produced this bizarre game of getting nowhere fast.   I don't want to play anymore, but I still believe the article should be retitled.  Now what?  --Mothperson 00:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rfc on Rfc on Rfc