Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 5

message: I suppose that it's too late to do anything about it, but one problem with splitting the page into topic-based sections is that it can (and probably does) limit those looking at the articles to certain groups.  For example, I'd like people who are not from within the small group of those editing pop-music articles to have a look at Talk:Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song) (as part of a much wider issue); in the old days, anyone might see the RfC request, but now it's likely to be seen only by those already editing this sort of article.
OK, it's not quite that bad, but I do worry that the old cross-fertilisation has been at least partly lost. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 16:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this.  Also it's devilishly hard to maintain.  I recently went in and pruned the list.  Of those issues that I checked, nearly all had been resolved long ago.  After that I just pruned out older undated entries and anything before August 1.  I still worry that too few people are watching these pages. It was much more accessible as a single list at the head of the main RfC page. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't obvious what the wider issue is.  It appears that the talk page has been partly deleted.  Robert McClenon 20:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the split pages makes it hard to find anything. I've just put one up about Open gaming, but I had to put it under "other," so it's unlikely anyone will see it. Can we go back to having them on one page? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division into topics 

message: Is there anyway to close/remove a RfC? Erwin Walsh's RfC has been open now for over a month, and hasn't had any activity in almost two weeks. Erwin Walsh has seemed to mellow out a bit, so I don't see any reason in having this open any longer. Acetic'Acid 06:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it just gets added to the archives, and a note can be placed on it advising that it's closed. I'll do it for if you like. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a signature added on September 23. Maybe we should wait just a bit longer? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, we can wait a bit longer. Thank you. Acetic'Acid 07:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it has been long enough now (almost three weeks). I'd do this myself, but I'm not 100% of what I'm supposed to do. Acetic'Acid 19:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi AA, I've closed it and added it to the archives. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a bunch! I'll let Erwin know so that hopefully we can bury the hatchet. Acetic'Acid 16:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing a RFC? 

message: Please, SlimVirgin, Jayjg:  There is a substantive content issue about this page.  FuelWagon disagrees with the consensus as to what it should be.  Reverting his changes is NOT a "minor edit".  Please do not label it as one.  I do not object to reverting his changes, but I do object to labeling it a minor edit.  A revert of vandalism is a minor edit.  His edits are not vandalism.  They are non-consensus edits reflecting a content dispute.  Give them that respect.  Robert McClenon 17:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do in the future. Jayjg (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Not minor edits

message: Carbonite, regarding your "less is more" comment. I agree. This was the original version, which was supported by multiple editors, all of whom wanted something in the text cautioning editors against taking RfCs lightly, because of several frivolous ones that had been posted. FuelWagon was the only one who objected to this. Since then he has made several additions, which have resulted in the longer text you see today. I'd be quite happy to go back to the shorter original version, but I do want something in there cautioning people against taking RfCs lightly, and reminding people that an RfC can be the first step toward arbitration. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, regarding your continued attempts to rewrite history, you conveniently forgot to mention that Sam Korn proposed a COMPROMISE consisting of three bullets which you and Jayjg refused to allow. You also ignored it and reverted to YOUR version, calling your version the "compromise" version. So, you can stop with the "ministry of history" stuff. It's getting old. FuelWagon 21:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All I know is that changes you have made (additions and deletions) have been reverted by Mel, Jpgordon, Jayjg, Robert, Carbonite, and myself. Most of what you've done on this page is make personal attacks and comments. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: that's all you know? YOu don't know that you reverted Sam's compromise version? How could you not know that? Interesting application of selective memory. FuelWagon 22:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't. The suggestions that Sam wanted were retained. But I'm not going to keep on arguing with you. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes that Sam requested were first reverted by SlimVirgin and then restored at FuelWagon's request.  I see no need to continue arguing about the wording.  15:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Less is more

message: Tony Sidaway wrote: "User-conduct RfC - rm scare para--we should be encouraging people to air their problems, not trying to scare them off!" 
And I couldn't agree more. I keep saying this paragraph is intended to acomplish nothing except to tell editors "be afraid, be very afraid". FuelWagon 16:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. Anyone who's been watching the Wikipedia dispute resolution process for more than a month will see that vexatious litigation is a genuine problem here. A simple caution is not a "scare paragraph." In fact, the passage deleted wasn't explicit enough, so I've expanded on it a bit in restoring it. FeloniousMonk 17:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that there exists a problem of users adding frivolous RFCs. I like the new version as it lacks the bold emphasis, which I thought really was scary, and properly explains the reasoning behind the warning. Johnleemk | Talk 17:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't support a meritless RfC filed solely to harass or personally attack an editor. But the original version of the paragraph by SlimVirgin didn't use that wording, and it could have been interpreted to scare off even a legitimate dispute. I also think the bold wording was specifically intended to scare editors off. I'd say either remove the paragraph completely, or use FM's language that calls out a meritles RfC filed solely to harass or attack. Without the bolding. FuelWagon 17:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for compromising with me on the language. I agree with your reason for dropping the "regardless of merit" bit. FeloniousMonk 19:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: scare paragraph

message: Some of the user conduct RfCs have been accepted by the ArbCom.  Could it be made a practice that the link to a user conduct RfC can be deleted one week after it is either accepted by the ArbCom or rejected by the ArbCom?  One week seems like a reasonable amount of time for the originator to copy the diffs from the RfC to the Evidence page.  Robert McClenon 21:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Cleanup on User Conduct RfCs 

message: #I propose to merge the Philosophy and Religion sections, because of significant overlap.
#The Projects section isn't used much, if at all, so I propose deprecating it. I think that proposing new projects should be done on e.g. the village pump (as it's requesting participants, rather than comments). I haven't seen any useful RFCs on a wikiproject in my lifetime, other than concerns about user conduct of the project members.
#And I propose deprecating the "Other" section as so far everything I've found in there is miscategorized and should have been filed in the appropriate category instead.
Opinions please? Radiant_>|< 16:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sectionalizing 

message: According to Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy, I'm supposed to link new proposed policy here.  Anyhow, come on over to Wikipedia:Hypothetical_Future_Concensus and voice your opinion on this one.the1physicist 15:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothetical Future Consensus 

message: The link to the RfC on the admin culture of abuse has been deleted.  I assume that the RfC itself still exists.  Can it be moved to BJAODN?  Robert McClenon 12:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin Culture of Abuse 

message: I am eliminating "natural" from the title of this category because it excludes many other branches of science. The new title is actually more consistent with the broad categories listed on the Main Page. Edwardian 01:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Math, natural science, and technology" to "Math, science, and technology"

message: I am confused about the format and status of this RfC.  Can someone who is experienced with this process help sort things out?  Jkelly 19:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to have been copy/pasted, the date on page itself was 11 nov. for when it was created but it was listed originally on 9th nov.  I went by the listing date and went ahead and deleted this since it was uncertified. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 06:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: User conduct -- [[User:Hogeye]]

message: I'm concerned that RFC's are remaining open for far too long. If a user is repremanded by the community, and chooses to take note, then an open RFC is simply a festering sore that prevents bygones and moving on. If a user is not choosing to note the RFC, then it is unlikely that extra time will help, and the dispuite probably needs to more to an RfAR. I'd like to suggest the following:
# RFCs should be closed after a maximum 21 days.
# RFCs should be closed earlier if an RfAr is filed. --Doc ask? 23:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say lock an RfC page after a month, just to prevent snowball effects, hanger's on, and people with a grudge to use an RfC as a way to subvert a legitimate dispute and turn it into axe-grinding. I think if that an RfC moves onto a request for arbitration, put a notice at the top of teh RfC that it arbitration has been requested. If arbitration is accepted, then lock the RfC with a notice saying that arbitration has been accepted. I think that locking the RfC at the point where arbitration is requested might be premature, especially if the request is rejected, and it might also be something that users could abuse, immediately requesting arbitration as soon as an RfC is requested. But I can see a point to locking an RfC after a month or so. FuelWagon 20:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It also prevents someone with a grudge who would not otherwise be able to get a second certifier to jump onto an already existing RfC with an outside comment. Locking an RfC after a month would require the grudgeholder to at least find a second certifier for their dispute, rather than riding the coattails of an unrelated dispute. FuelWagon 20:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC's open for far too long 

message: I just posted an RfC which has evidence of 2+ users trying to resolve.  Do I move it to the certified group myself, or wait for someone else to do it? Dsol 23:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  certification 

message: Please discuss and edit Wikipedia talk:Ethno-cultural labels in biographies abakharev 12:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy on the ethnical labels in biographies

message: I think that it is time for some admin to clean out obsolete user conduct RfCs again.  
Tony Sidaway appears to have been resolved.  The issues about Mel Etitis and Ombudsman appears to be in the past.
Reddi, FuelWagon, and SEWilco have been accepted for arbitration, and should probably either be locked or deleted.  
Robert McClenon 19:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for Another Cleanout ? 

message: i am referring to the external link for tenderloin.net on Tenderloin%2C_San_Francisco which has been repeatedly removed for constantly evolving reasons by one individual.
tenderloin.net contains 255 web pages.  253 of those pages contain absolutely no commercial content, not even in the form of google adwords or doubleclick banners.  2 pages contain simple text links to commercial sites and are part of editorial content, not paid advertisments.  does 2 out of 255 define commercial?
for more info on offensive & off-topic, please visit the talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tenderloin%2C_San_Francisco%2C_California
07:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  please define what is offensive/commercial/off-topic (take your pick) 

message: It seems to me that we need a category for people/biographies and maybe one for journalism.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I see a need for a category of Military.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Biography?  Journalism? 

message: The Veganism RfC has been posted improperly. I changed it to "Talk:Veganism: Whether to include information about environmentally destructive agriculture of meat animals, and whether to include information about rates of eating disorders among vegans and vegetarians. Currently protected. Vote to restore page has been initiated. 04:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veganism 

message: I would like to broaden the debate at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_archive_%28pronunciation%29 over whether Wikipedia style should allow editors to use other pronunciation representations alongside IPA. I feel that the regular readers of the talk page in question are linguistics aficianados whose views do not necessarily reflect those of most Wikipedia users. As a result, the concerns raised by many people in various parts of Wikipedia about the exclusive use of IPA have not been properly addressed.
Would it be appropriate to add the page to RFC? Thanks -- Mwalcoff 01:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate for RFC? 

message: i am officially requesting this administrator have his role of adminstrator revoked due to hsi involvement in many instances of abuse of power. see recent arbitration against him in the rangerdude case for more info.Jonah Ayers 07:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Willmcw Trouble 

message: At present, I manually clean out all article RFCs (not user RFCs) that are over a month old, since they've gone stale by then. Any objections to botting this, apart from the idealistic but entirely impractical view that someone should read through them all before closing any? Radiant_>|< 15:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many subjects that are listed on RFC have simply been avoided and still exist.  --CylePat 13:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanout 

message: I have a question about the RfC user conduct rule. There is this rule in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#User-conduct_RfC saying that Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. In Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Molobo the evidence is signed by two users but only one of them tried and failed to resolve the cited dispute. I questioned validation of the RfC on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Molobo but in response I was only informed that the rule is hardly ever observed. Could you, please, clarify it for me?--SylwiaS | talk 00:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC User conduct rule 

message: User lumiere added the following to my RfC on Transcendental Meditation, which I took out since it has nothing to do with TM:
 See also Rfc in Maths, science, and technology 21:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing of RfC page

message: If you're going to dispute a username as inappropriate, please provide some reasoning for why you feel the username is inappropriate and deserves a block. android79 22:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Username RfCs 

message: Not sure if this is the right place (if it's the wrong place, somebody please move it to a better one and let me know in "talk"!) to post this but comment is definately required. It seems curious that this articleNarcissism and schizoid disorders, combining the topics of two pre-existing articles Schizoid personality disorder and Narcissism should exist at all. The logical solution being to merge the relevant sections of the articles with the two pre-existing articles, however, when I tried to integrate a portion of the article (without deleting at this time) into one Schizoid personality disorder of the two articles I discovered almost all of it to be original, unsubtantiated research, much of it to be completely irrelevant, and some of it to be relevant only to yet a third article Schizophrenia. Currently Narcissism and schizoid disorders rejoices in two "mergeto" flags (am I allowed to DO that?), which is weird enough without adding a third. I am a bit of a newbie and I really need as much comment as possible on this. Something certainly needs to be done. --Zeraeph 08:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Narcissism]] Empire needs cleaning up

message: In both of these articles there has been a concerted effort to portray The Arcata Eye in an extremely bad light, such that I would consider it vandalism. This includes calling the paper bigoted, slanderous, and insulting. This is occuring mainly through anonymous edits, but at least one member, named Nick Bravo, has been involved as well. When possible I have improved the edits, as per policy, instead of reverting them. Unfortunately, many of the edits that I have been dealing with appear to be in bad faith. I don't know the specific people who are involved in these attempts to cast The Arcata Eye in a bad light, but I would surmise that they are mostly involved in small political group in based Arcata, possibly loosely associated with the publication The Plazoid, that has a very specific agenda to defame The Arcata Eye. I am requesting other Wikipedians take note of these pages and help to uphold reasonable discourse and protect the pages from vandalism. Thank you. --Metatree 04:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need help with [[The Arcata Eye]] and [[Arcata, California]]

message: Having been prevented from listing Catholic Apologia at Systemic Abuse, I have come here  in good faith and listed religion based reivisionism under Religion and Philosophy. This is not a content dsipute but is denialist clerical revisionism at work in Wikipedia, which is a rapidly growing force. This is a far-reaching dispute . There is no dispute of content or source, but a Straw Man attack on the presenter of that source (me) at Arbcom. It touches Pope Benedict XVI and talk, Theology of Pope Benedict XVI. It is very boring, and poisonous to the vested interest of the branch of the religion, hence the dispute.  EffK 19:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Denialist Clerical Revisionism in Wikipedia

message: I have filed many RFCs and nobody replies. The only thing that seems to help is to start an Wikipedia:edit war. Only that can attract serious editors. I do not want to be sarcastic but this has really been my experience. Andries 23:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFCs do not work because nobody seems to care: edit wars are better

message: RfC (as opposed to RFC) is currently redirecting to this article, but couldn't users searching for "RfC" be searching for the TLA?  I think that redirect should either point to RFC or perhaps we could add some notice like  to the top. --AySz88^-^ 02:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC Redirect? 

message: Tomer listed the RfC for Dabljuh in the approved pages section when all four of the users certifying the RfC did so when the page was one of Tomer's personal Talk pages.  In the interest of fairness, certifications made before the RfC was officially listed should be deleted. -- DanBlackham 23:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper listing 

message: Please, PLEASE, take a look at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#"Redirect" option. It is amazing. No one bothered to say a word on a real problem, which is at the heart of a dispute raging right now. Mukadderat 18:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A hole in the policy

message: A major change in RfC policy -- giving it teeth, if you will -- has been proposed. Please comment. Johnleemk | Talk 16:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcement]] 

message: Once again you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the very rules your tasked with upholding AM.
1. List newer entries on top, stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about.
Your statement completely violates the neutrality requirement of posting a RFC request. Alyeska 19:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Akira Talk page

message: RfC edit history
I believe the original RfC was biased, and I mentioned that to the poster who admitted it could be seen that way and invited me to change it.  I changed it and he reverted it back to his version.  A series of edits ensued; I reverted once, the original RfC poster reverted multiple times.  A third party stepped in with a compromise synthesis which was good but inaccurate in an important detail.  After I corrected the compromise version, the original poster removed the detail I corrected.  I have since replaced the disputed detail (a school administrator threatened a student Wikipedia editor who created an article about the school with disiplinary sanctions for conduct which could harm the reputation of the school if he failed to ensure the article's accuracy; he since has been blocked and agrees with the block to protect him from such punnishment) and added a contrasting view to the biased RfC.  I have been clearly falsely accused of dishonesty, stubborness, and breaking 3RR by the original RfC poster, who is now upset about image sizes in the article.  Suggestions are welcome. --James S. 22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[La Salle College High School]] RfC 

message: In past RfC's I've waived the usual requirements that the respondent should have actually have made an attempt to contact me prior to initiating an RfC, and that there should be at least two persons bringing the complaint and able to show that they made good faith attempts to resolve the complaint.
This sign of my patience doesn't mean that Wikipedia should continue indefinitely to entertain false and malformed RfCs. I have a talk page and those who are interested in resolving problems are direct there in the first instance.  I've removed the malformed RfC a second time. If it's restored I won't remove a third time (1RR).  To restore it in the name of process could only bring process into further disrepute, for no part of process has been followed by the putative respondent. --Tony Sidaway 04:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got no problem with this de-listing. In fact, it should probably just be deleted. android79 04:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: For further information, it was originally listed as certified.  I moved it to uncertified, and had my doubts as to whether it was properly formatted also.  I just didn't want to delete it unilaterally.  Robert McClenon 08:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, you are completely right. However, I don't think you should have removed this, because there is most certainly a conflict of interests. However, had you asked, I'd have been glad to do it for you. --Doc ask? 09:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony Sidaway RfC 3

message: I requested help 8 days ago, and have gotten no answer.  The situation is summarized in this request:  Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-02_Tourette_Syndrome.  If you look at the talk page, you'll see that I'm having a very hard time. I'm new to Wikipedia, and the other user seems to be as well. I need assistance. Sandy 01:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sandy. If I were you I would list this dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology, in the "Clinical and medical topics" section. This is just a page to talk about the RFC process, not many people will see your message here. Rhobite 01:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks again, Rhobite !  Sandy 01:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tourette syndrome

message: There seem to be some conflicting instructions for RFC, multiple locations say to leave a link to the talk page and then a short description, but the top of every page says to make a new page structured after Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example article and link to it. I personally like the structured page so outsiders to the debate know what's going on, but even if most people like the link to the talk page we should at least be consistent in the instructions. - cohesion★talk 08:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I think about it a few minutes more, wouldn't it be nice to have a smallish subst you could throw in as a section on the contested articles talk page for the people to explain the situation? This way you have the benefit of structure but you also don't end up with a million pages. - cohesion★talk 08:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC Format 

message: How does one request strikethrough or removal of an RfC that has been resolved?  The item that sparked this disagreement turned out to use a fictitious quote, so now the editors are in agreement.  I requested the RfC and I'd like to withdraw the request. Durova 09:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Front National (France)]] 

message: Dear admin, User:Aucaman chronically participates in repeatedly violating the 3rr policy, placing numerous dispute tags on articles, [unstoppable] possible sneaky vandalism, repeated violation of the personal attack policy by referring to multiple users as `racist` and other, going against the over-whelming consensus, refusing to compromise, and single-handedly hijacking this and two more articles.  He has been engaged in a systematic campaign of misinformation, maliciously editing/disputing Persian people, pushing his POV, ignoring the majority consensus and authoritative sources, trying to establish new 'facts" based on his own personal assumptions, political beliefs, and racist comments.  He also repeatedly engages in racially-motivated personal attacks and possibly vandalizes the Persian people article which has resulted in the protection of page. Seemingly, he has single-handedly disrupted the integrity of the page in question, and perhaps other articles too.  Furthermore, he is a chronic 3RR violator, but also violates other wikipedia rules by vandalizing and then removing warnings from his talk-page.  Would you please take a look at this issue and help us clean up the Persian people page?   Please take a look at ( Talk:Persian people & Mediation/Persian_people ).  ThanksZmmz 07:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Aucaman

message: The question has been raised at the admin noticeboard whether Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All should be unprotected.  It's currently protected, apparently, solely in order to prevent someone from editing it accidentally if they want to add a new RFC.  This of course prevents people from making good-faith changes to the page without asking an admin.  Any thoughts would be welcome.  Thanks.  Chick Bowen 03:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I posted this, some admins at WP:AN have questioned whether unprotecting it is necessary or a good idea, so I've left it protected for now.  Please let me or another admin know if any work needs to be done on it.  Chick Bowen 17:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection of [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All]] 

message: I protected Teemu Selänne against moves only to stop User:Masterhatch from moving it to Teemu Selanne, which I and some others feel is a completely incorrect spelling. Masterhatch later commented that I abused my AdministrativePower®. However, no action has so far been taken against me. Should I start an RfC on myself just in case? JIP | Talk 22:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teemu Selänne 

message: I've initiated a user conduct RfC for the first time (and the last time, I hope).  Should I notify people on their talk pages?  If so, who should I notify?  I don't want to err on either side.  Welcoming advice, Durova 08:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the proper procedure? 

message: "Request for comments" does not imply dispute resolution. Many people add RfC for articles without there being any dispute whatsoever. I've seen several entries where it is just one editor asking for a comment. Unless we separate these two factors, those who want to use RfC as an actual dispute resolution will get lost in the lot.
Fred-Chess 10:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why content-RfC fails 

message: "This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view."
:As I understand the above statement, anyone editing the "Statement of the dispute" or "Reponse" as for example by adding an endorsement of one (or both?) of them would then be limited to only endorsing "Outside Views" and not contributing one.  Conversely, contributing an outside view would prohibit one from endorsing the statement or response.  Or do I read that incorrectly? Esquizombi 21:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Endorsement of statement or response by authors of outside views

message: What is the length of a user RfC?  I see some that are almost 2 months old.  67.163.110.126 06:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User RfC length

message: What should be done when a user conduct RfC is clearly out of control due to too many threaded comments, followed by an attempt at refactoring, followed by being turned into a battleground?  Can some admin please archive the User:Aucaman RfC so that its certifiers and opponents can start over again?  Robert McClenon 12:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we can move it to a page such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aucaman/Original RFC and we can blank the page to restart the RFC. --Terence Ong 03:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support this. The page is now so cluttered that outsiders are extremely unlikely to even read through it all, let alone be able to make useful comments on the merits of the case. Which makes the whole thing miss its purpose. However, the instigators of the RfC are currently contemplating an Arbcom case already; there might need to be a decision whether a renewed, properly done RfC should be conducted before Arbcom (which, one way or other) seems almost unavoidable in the long run.) Lukas (T.|@) 12:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out-of-control RfC 

message: If you would check the article dispute sections, there are some sections that have lots of entries, and some that have very few. It would be good if they were redesigned according to needs. 
Fred-Chess 10:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article sections  

message: Can a user who posts a User-conduct RfC certify it?  I would think two other people have to certify it. Esquizombi 04:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The goal is to prevent frivolous RfCs where only one person has been involved in discussion with the user whom the RfC has been filed against. Increasing the requirement to three certifiers (none of whom can be the filer of the RfC) wouldn't do much, and this could be easily gamed anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 05:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure you understood my question, and I'm not sure I understand your answer.  I wasn't advocating three certifiers.  I'm questioning whether the person who makes the RfC can be one of the two. Esquizombi 06:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ack, ignore the stuff in brackets. I meant to say "Increasing the requirement to three certifiers (including the filer, who can't 'officially' certify it)..." Johnleemk | Talk 06:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that the RfC author is supposed to be one of the two certifiers?  If that's true, that would still only work in such cases where the author "contacted the [other] user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem." Esquizombi 06:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't have to, but in practice almost always is. Johnleemk | Talk 17:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To clarify: yes, you need two other uses certifying the basis of the dispute. / Fred-Chess 18:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What is this based on? In practice I haven't heard of this. The first sentence of all user RfCs says: "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed." It doesn't say "two people except the person filing this RfC". Johnleemk | Talk 18:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User-conduct RfC certification

message: When one authors an outside view e.g. ===Outside view by Esquizombi===, under "Users who endorse this summary" is it necessary for the author to endorse it there? Esquizombi 05:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Certification of Outside Views

message: I have doubts about the formal validity of this user-conduct RfC. Please see my comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Diyako, Heja helweda, Muhamed. Lukas (T.|@) 11:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Diyako, Heja helweda, Muhamed 

message: Excuse me, Admins. It seems you here are a good, fair, bunch of wikipedia adimins. These are hard to find. I would like you to please investigate the blocking of users Josh, leftwing voter and Fitzy Dubya P. It seems that they have been unfairly blocked, especially fitzy dubya p. Josh, leftwing voter seems to be blocked because he is 'godless'. There is not even a reason for the blocking of Fitzy dubya p. Please look into these blockings and please unblock these users.
Baxdogg 23:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unblock 

message: I suggest changing from a simple bulleted list to a definition list (with ; username : statement), since it's becoming difficult to navigate through the large number of entries. And wasn't there a guideline to not sign summaries on these listings? æle ✆ 2006-03-31t18:47z
: I agree, I'd really like to see this refactored, and wouldn't mind putting in the effort if I get a consensus. I'd like to see it more like out request pages, having a seperate section for each request so editing is easier. B.Mearns*, KSC 17:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple reformatting of individual entries 

message: April 3, 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision#Controversial_topic_warning...
Please read 30 Controversial topic warning..., 31 Debate with Jakew 
32, and Please help.
The current Circumcision article is not neutral.  The focus and depth is inappropriate.  In my opinion, two rogue editors maintain this article's slant and poor writing.
I promise you top notch work.TipPt 04:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're on the wrong page, and calling people "rogue editors" is a violation of Wikipedia's civility policy. Jayjg (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence was apropriate in context.  I will have a product worth editors interest before I bother them again.TipPt 22:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcision topic scope, depth, and neutrality 

message: An anon posted a relatively simple problem, which I've fixed.  I'm not sure how to note that or what to do with the request now. -- Vary | Talk 15:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proopiomelanocortin 

message: In which of the section would I put an RFC about an entry for a particular school? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Society?  Otherwise, perhaps you and I could just swap third opinions on our respective school disputes. Jkelly 22:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schools? 

message: It seems obvious that this is a bad thing, unhelpful and liable to add confusion and increase the work of anyone trying to read the RFC if they want to see what the person making each comment saw, and of course making it more difficult to simply read the RFC.  But... I can't find in the instructions one that says "don't do that".  Perhaps only a wikilawyer would do so, but here is an example.  It is a dispute over behaviour, perhaps trolling.   Comments? 
* first "holding response"  changed to 
* second "holding response"
* RFC 
Midgley 23:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responding to RFC by using a link rather than text; changing the link to another link 

message: A motion has been listed for over 48 hours on me at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Primetime, but no one has co-signed it, and only one person has discussed the issue with me on my talk page. The dispute seems to be about an issue, anyway, and not a user. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help.--Primetime 03:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone close this one? 

message: Could you please perhaps close my RFC?  I will withdraw my "account" from the active status on Wikipedia.  I am afraid that I am unable to work constructively with several editors on Wikipedia, and I do not wish to trouble them any further.
If you are not able to, could you please perhaps forward this to another person who can perform this action?
With great appreciation, I remain,
--SteveatWork 18:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please close the RFC 

message: Please excuse my ignorance; I've never had to inquire about mediation and am completely unfamiliar with the process.  Several of us editing the University of California, Riverside article are at loggerheads and emotions are beginning to fray (a wee bit of namecalling, accusations of smear campaigns, etc.).  There are multiple editors involved and an ongoing revert war.  Some of us have written quite a bit on the Talk page but haven't even come close to consensus.  Would it be appropriate to file an RFC to help resolve our dispute?  One editor has already expressed that he is unwilling to go through any form of mediation.  Please advise.  --ElKevbo 03:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate for RFC? 

message: I have been involved in an ongoing dispute over the  template. However, one user has brought this dispute over into other articles I have edited which have nothing to do with that subject, specifically with regard to reverting edits I have made, in spite of the fact that this user has never before shown up on the edit histories of any of these articles. It is my feeling that this behaviour constitutes some form of personal attack on me, and I would appreciate some guidance as to how I should proceed with an RfC, as in what category should it fall under? These articles include:
*British Army Infantry
*Royal Irish Rangers
*Royal Irish Regiment
*Royal Regiment of Fusiliers
*Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment
Please could someone respond ASAP? Thanks Hammersfan 15/05/06, 11.05 BST
: Ah, sorry about that.  As you know you forked off template:UKTOCs from template:British TOCs, to get around consensus on the talk page that NIR is not a TOC.  And since that was very naughty, I mass reverted your vandalism and obviously got caught a few wrong uns.  No harm done. — Dunc|☺ 10:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: There's a little trouble on the Jason Leopold page; a few random non-logged-in posters continue to add the following quote: 
<quote>
  On May 13th, 2006, Mr. Leopold famously proclaimed the indictment of Karl Rove had taken
 place. The incident made waves online when Will Pitt echoed the conjecture on a progressive website
 to thousands of raging partisans. However, it quickly became apparent that the story was fabricated.
</quote>
I believe a simple block on non-logged in users will suffice for now.
Thank you.
Craig3410 12:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for blocking unregistered members/Jason Leopold 

message: Per the above discussion "Confused about standard wording." I propose that we change the standard wording of ""This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries" to AvB's proposal "This is a summary written by a user not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute." As discussed there, as a matter of normal behavior people frequently write outside views and endorse other views including possibly views of the parties in question. Any thoughts, suggested other wordings and/or objections? JoshuaZ 16:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always thought the intent of the text was to discourage unordered discussion. Maybe we should keep something to this effect: "This is a summary written by a user not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Other participants should not edit this section except to endorse." Lukas (T.|@) 16:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help if someone provided a link to the actual text as it exists now or to one of the summaries in question. I'm not sure I've ever seen such a summary and it seems weird that people could edit other people's opinions. -Barry- 23:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're talking about the boilerplate text in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user, under "Outside view". It currently reads: "This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view." Lukas (T.|@) 11:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to change standard wording of RfC's 

message: This one is past the two-day period and lacks a formal endorsement by a second party.  User:DVdm is getting very uncomfortable with it, and I agree that it is time to take him off of the hook.  So will someone please remove this page?  Thank you much, --EMS | Talk 21:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DVdm]] 

message: Protection of this page is unhelpful as it prevents you from editing the individual sections without going back to the main Requests for Comment page (i.e. the edit section links to not appear). It would be nice if the protection could be removed. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All]] 

message: On the Spore (video game) page we have had a discussion involving the inclusion of  external links.  this shows all the parts.  Questions of Sporewiki.com has come up during the recent discussions of xspore.com.  I will not make any furthur comments to keep from being biased.  Thanks. Chris M. 19:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links details =