Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 7

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Section break

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Added section to template 

message: 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)
thread_title: I don't understand how to report a user

message: 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)
thread_title:  User who certified dispute now editing "Response" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Early end to an RFC? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Help

message: 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)
replies: text: I concur. The RfC is way beyond the deadline for certification, and its filer has acknowledged it to have been out of process.Proabivouac 08:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to delist the [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Proabivouac|Proabivouac RfC]] 

message: ...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)
thread_title:  [[WP:RFC/NAME]] archives 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup of Math & Science RFCs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal: RFC/User Clerks 

message: 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)
replies: text: Um... why should it be? -Amark moo! 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User who already responded to RfC deciding retroactively to certify 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Disallow. Feature creep, no precedential value. Phooey. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 05:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *shrug* This is why I asked before up and doing anything. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: True. I hadn' thought og that. Good idea. Acalamari 21:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Archiving username discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  This place is dead 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I created an archive for [[WP:RFCN]] 

message: As a followup to Asterion's , please see , 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)
thread_title:  RFC/NAME "Consensus=Allow" notification template 

message: 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)
thread_title: Architecture RFC subject area

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should a predicted conflict be listed here? 

message: 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)
replies: text: But, unless a nation is specified, how is this partisan? --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 16:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Slippery slope.  "Nationalist" isn't exactly a charged term. Flakeloaf 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[User:Nationalist]]

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What do we have to do to go about doing that? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usernames as companies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed category: Organizations and businesses

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deleted a loooong story and misfiled science RfC 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I am delighted to move along provided people do not delete these sections.Ferrylodge 06:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Unjustified deletion