Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Neutrality 2

message: __TOC__
Sincere apologies to Neutrality for not taking the trouble to inform him of this RFC at this early stage. It had not even been certified until a few minutes ago, but I agree that I should have informed him prior to listing this on Schoolwatch. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

message: : I'd like to address the claim that simply listing a school article for deletion is "against policy."
Relax, nobody has claimed that simply listing a school article for deletion is "against policy". Oh now I see that  User:DS1953 expressed that opinion.  Well that's an outside view. The complainants acknowledge that the excessive posting on VfD (what is "excessive" is a matter of opinion and we can disagree politely on what it means) is not a breach of policy.
My position is that 30 a day is pretty unreasonable.  10 a day is probably okay, though in my opinion as an occasional VfD closer not advisable over sustained periods.
The complaint is over Neutrality's failure to respond to good faith attempts at dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One could argue that 30-something VfD nominations in one day is a little "excessive," and perhaps I'd agree to an extent. But where's the policy violation? 
See above. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to [[User:Szyslak|Szyslak]]

message: : I note that this RfC is about Neutrality's response to attempts at discussion, and not about the actions themselves that lead to this attempted discussion.
Bingo! You hit the nail on the head. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to [[User:Kappa]]

message: : nomination a large number of articles in a short period of time with no due diligence on the part of the nominator shows clear disrepect to other contributors. 
I would cautiously tend to agree with this statement.  See my earlier observation on the low proportion of Neutrality's listings that seem to be headed for deletion.  It may be that Neutrality has in fact carried out an intensive screening of schools articles and is only selecting what he considers to be no-hopers, but three or four days down the line it is becoming evident that his judgement does not command a consensus--indeed as an experienced VfD closer I would say that to me the number of clear keeps generated (rather than just "no consensus" cases) is quite extraordinarily high.  Neutrality should be taking notice of this and adapting his selection process accordingly, in the interests of reducing the load on VfD and maximising his credibility of his listings. He'd get a lot more support if there wasn't an "oh no another one of Neutrality's no hoper school listings" effect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to [[User:DS1953]]

message: You write "It strikes me that this RFC states that it objects to Neutrality's "over-use" of VfD, then proceeds to only list school nominations as examples."
The dispute arose over perceived over-use of VfD, specifically Neutrality's listing of nearly three score articles within the space of three days.  Those were school articles so the list necessarily comprised school articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to [[User:Radiant!]]

message: While there are disputes, it is not helpful to discuss them here in a personal RfC. The question of the pace and quantity of VfD nominations can be discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion, WP:POINT or elsewhere. Neutrality can be made aware of the discussion and decide whether to contribute or not. Attempts to reach consensus on the schools issue can continue at Wikipedia:Schools. Kappa 09:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Close