Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Ihatehighschoolmusical (talk · contribs) for example. Is using the word hate worthy of going straight to AIV? I want to know for future reference. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would only say usernames with the word hate in should go to AIV if they offend anyone, for instance User:IhateJews would be a clear infringement, the one you quoted up there isn't going to offend anyone, so shouldn't be reported. Not all usernames with hate in will be disallowed, it depends on the context RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The user name policy says that names implying hate are inappropriate, but it doesn't specify what the hate has to be directed towards. I suppose if this user started trolling the High School Musical page, it would be different. Leebo⁸⁶ 21:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh. Someone reported it to AIV and it has been indefinitely blocked. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounded rash to me and a definition of a knee-jerk reaction. But, if hte user wasn't really active, it doesn't hurt too much. They'll probably re-register with a different name.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This warning appeared on my talk page:

Hi Acalmari. Please read WP:U. In future, any entires made to WP:RFCN reporting user names where the guidelines are not followed will be removed. You made no attempt to ask the user to change his name, instead going straight to RFC. This is not fair to the user, please don't do it again. Neil (not Proto ►) 16:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded with I did tell the user. I was told to use the tags. What guideline am I not following now?

Why is it you only commented on Wwe raw smackdown fans and not any of the others? Also, why does everyone go on about me for not following policy, when Betacommand, who is an administrator, blocked a load of users the other week for having inflammmatory names, when in fact their names were fine. Why was nothing done about Betacommand? He didn't even inform the users: he just blocked them. I'm taking this to the RFC/U talk page.

Anyway, I did give Wwe raw smackdown fans the required tags. I have no idea why Neil is saying that I didn't. I have made sure that I've given the necessary tags to users (though I have accidentally missed one, I will admit). Also, I thought the point of RFC/U was to comment on a users name, not to block it outright.

You see, I thought it was necessary to go to RFC/U first if you're unsure about a username. What's the point in asking a user to change their name if their name might be okay? I thought that RFC/U was to clear issues like that up; so users at least got a chance to explain their names, and get to keep them. Acalamari 16:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• This has been resolved: there is no reason to respond to this message. Acalamari 19:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Maaparty (talk · contribs) uses the signature --God and religion are distinct. I've asked him to change it (and I'm about to block him for an unrelated offence), but if he refuses to change, can he be blocked under the User-name policy, or is there some other route? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

whats the prob with this name? God and religion are distinct -and widely seperated-in every occidental dictionary. Who argues the two are interchangeable? Hilarleo 08:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kittybrewster/VK_rfc

Well, that page is not ready.Hilarleo 08:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

On an article I'm watching, I am sure there was a content dispute, and the dispute is seemingly one that stem from the Japanese Wikipedia, and most of the participants, me excluded, were disputing in Japanese, a language that I don't know. I want to start a RfC, and I know their general opinion, but I doubt I can do the statement of editors part in the sample RfC, since they are disputing with Japanese... What should I do? --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 12:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

RfCs should not be conducted in Japanese, for that very reason. If you must start an RfC, get someone to translate or something. -Amarkov moo! 14:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Or something"? "whatever! This is my united states of" Wikiwhatever; and An automated translation of Japanese may do more harm than good in friendly arguments.

It remains the users' responsibility to provide the translations. First, ask them for translated statement for RfC. Then barring appropriate responses, and if you do KNOW what their arguments are, you could paraphrase them, noting the difficlty and your interpretation while linking to the originals- and proceed from there, noting that any further foreign language content is not allowed on the English Wiki, is fair game for wholesale deletion; and as such could even form a basis for eventually blocking of a user. That should cover most possibilities. Hilarleo 08:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I was thinking that it might be nice to log past article content RfCs on the article talk page, perhaps with a nice template. That would act as a reminder that a specific issue had already been taken to the community and of any consensus that was reached. This is not to forestall further discussion or a change of consensus, simply to alert the lone editor looking to repeat something that has already been discussed and to gently dissuade that editor from doing so without reopening a discussion and to make it easier for editors that undo such a non-consensus and repeated change to alert the lone editor that s/he needs to hold off and reopen discussion before making, and perhaps edit-warring over, the change. Comments, please. --Justanother 14:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. It wouldn't be hard to create a template based the other ones. Though, it would probably be good to do this for any content issue, the problem is it is so difficult to keep track of every issue discussed on a talk page and topic-indexed archives are extremely time-consuming to create and maintain. Though, RfCs would be the more contentious issues that shouldn't be repeatedly hashed out and they would be a subset, of those issues that someone thought was major enough to bring in outside opinions. —Centrx→talk • 16:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Many arguments are perennial if not evergreen. The more data in the unbroken trail of evidence in contentious areas the better. Hilarleo 09:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The guidance at the top of the page says "do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page", so I moved the discussion below from the project page to this talk page. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• BDORT. This article was recently Arbitrated and I was banned, after I initiated the arbitration, after many months of battling to get a NPOV article and get the defamatory misleading and POV/OR statements removed, after I called two rounds of Mediation. I am officially representing the subject, Dr Omura, that is, I have his permission and support to do so. The sole editor that remains, Crum375, who is recently made an Admin, spent many months defending a version that contained blatant BLP defamatory statements about the subject that had to be Admin deleted at my request after his refusal to cooperate [diffs available on request]. Before this happened real world harm was done to the subject by these statements that the subject had to defend in real life and state to be false. He was so disturbed by them that he made a public statement[1]. Some further background is here[2][3][4][5][6]. A previous mediator Che, expressed strong concerns over Crum375's good faith in this matter and described Crum375 as "continually resistant to mediation"[diffs available on request]. Crum375 has written the article now in what I think is easily seen as a subtle but very POV/OR way which I will describe and list main points succinctly if anyone will contact me re this on my talk page. It needs some truly neutral editors. Please note: the fact that I am considered a 'single issue editor' has been used in an attempt to, but does not change the facts, as I relate them here one bit. Thank you.Richardmalter 11:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• User:Richardmalter has taken this case to ArbCom, with essentially the same arguments, and lost. ArbCom unanimously ruled that he, along with his sock/meatpuppets, are to be indef-banned from all BDORT related pages. His bringing a closed case that was ruled upon just last month by ArbCom to this forum is inappropriate, IMO. Crum375 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Admin, SlimVirgin, noted the point that Arbcom ruled on 'behaviour', not content. Many professional people related to this entry attempted to stop the defamation - until it was finally remedied after much pressure - this is the 'behavior' the ArbCom ruled about. The content issues I mention above are not addressed at all. These content issues need to be addressed urgently. (As I have also noted repeatedly, despite what the approximate IP lookups found - I never used sockpuppets).Richardmalter 01:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• ArbCom ruled that you and your sock/meatpuppets edited BDORT "disruptively" and in an "aggressive, biased manner". They also noted that you are a single purpose account, practicing BDORT on patients. They therefore banned all of you from the BDORT related pages. As of now, the BDORT entry is well sourced, neutrally presented, and has even been modified to focus on the BDORT procedure, not its inventor, so as to eliminate WP:BLP-related issues. Any neutral editor is more than welcome to help improve it, of course, but you and your puppets may not participate on those pages, per the ArbCom ruling. Crum375 02:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Arbcom did rule this. However, that is not the whole story: they did not mention the fact that the version/article that was as they interpreted "aggressively" edited as well as many previous versions contained blatant BLP breaches and fictions (that is also a fact that you repeatedly pro-actively supported) that caused real world harm to a living person - that was Admin deleted as such at my request, and as such was determinedly edited by people trying to stop misrepresentation and harm in the real world. No one in WP has apologized which is of course the decent thing to do. This is indicative as well. As I have noted, you are being uncivil by suggesting I am lying when saying I never used sockpuppetry when I say I never did. Please be civil. IP searches can often give statistical, approximate information, not exact information. In this case it missed. Your beliefs don't change these facts and are merely wishful guesses.Richardmalter 04:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Your claims for NPOV and neutrality for the current version were also made by you to many previous versions - that had to have changes in them forced by Admins/mediators despite your and another editor's resistance to them, in order to remove uncited, inaccurate, OR, and BLP serious problems. This is currently a repeat situation - there are serious content issues. The history shows that you were greatly mistaken in the past re the OKness of the article. Real world harm was done as a result. Richardmalter 05:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have also contacted the WP Foundation directly in all this regard in detail. However, immediate intervention in the current version is necesaary.Richardmalter 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• ArbCom reviewed the entire case, including all your above complaints, and their only findings regarding any policy violation were related to disruptive, aggressive and biased editing by you and your sock/meatpuppets. After their unanimous decision banning you all from all related entries, we decided to further improve the BDORT entry by refocusing it on BDORT the procedure and not its inventor, to eliminate any possible BLP concern. As I noted above, although the entry is already in very good shape, any neutral editor is more than welcome to try to improve it even further. Crum375 11:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Richard, at this point it would be best to directly e-mail the Foundation. The volunteers who handle these complaints are generally very conscientious. Not only is your argument with Crum here counterproductive, but any users who made edits at your behest would run the risk of being banned from the article as well, for acting as the proxy of a banned user. I don't think any conclusion can be drawn one way or another from ArbCom's failure to act on the content of the article because ArbCom almost never rules on content. Thatcher131 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am currently involved in an RFC on including a website as an external link (see Talk:Newton_Falls,_Ohio#Request_for_Comment). The comments (five editors so far) have all agreed the website is not valid for inclusion, but the editor who disputes this remains adamant that the link is valid for inclusion. Looking at the instructions, #4 says "After all parties agree the issue has been resolved, strike it from the listing.". My question is what happens if the parties still don't agree? It does not appear all parties will ever agree on this question, so if the issue is unresolved I am not sure what to do next. Any direction or advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This instruction is just so people don't remove active, unresolved disputes (e.g. if someone involved in the dispute is cleverly happy about the way the discussion is going and wants to close off all outside comment that might help the minority). Discouraging that is more important than worrying about striking an item where it is usually obvious to someone responding if it is a closed resolved issue anyway. This particular dispute looks pretty closed and clear-cut at that, so you can strike it if you want. —Centrx→talk • 03:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much - the RFC was archived by another user today, so I will strike. Ruhrfisch 04:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We're thinking about starting an RFC process on Wikibooks, and I was hoping to point to this page as an example of "how to do it well", but it's really too much on the eyes now, and there doesn't seem to be a good template for user conduct RFCs any more. I guess the last time I was involved with Wikipedian RFCs was 6 months+ ago (I had at one point made a commitment to try to render an opinion on as many as I could), but got involved in other things, so haven't really looked around for a while.

It's all become very bureaucratic and scary now... not the best way to encourage people to comment (and this is supposed to be a request for comments, right?), and I wish you guys could go back to the simple. It wasn't broke, and in fixing it, you've ruined it. I don't know what else to say... I will not be watching this page, so if I need to clarify something, please say so on my talk. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

People who are interested in user conduct WP:RFC may wish to consider a new alternative in dispute resolution that can provide arbitration-like remedies without going through full arbitration. This is an experimental program. Durova^Charge! 15:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I would like people to comment on the Reference Desk Talk Page, but I don't see how can I ask for this, since the Reference Desk is neither a userpage nor an article (and what it is is the very thing we don't seem to know). A.Z. 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been 6 days now and I still do not know how to request comments on the Reference Desk. A.Z. 16:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A.Z., what exactly about that talk page do you want people to comment on? --Justanother 16:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a proper method to alert involved users to a user-conduct RFC? Is it okay to post a notice on the talk page(s) where the dispute(s) has taken place, or should one instead post on user talkpages? It'd be nice to have official advice on this here. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:CANVAS. Posting on public venues, i.e. article or project talk pages is best. Posting on user talk pages should be done minimally and preferably neutrally to both sides of any dispute. Tyrenius 02:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

However, if there is a user RfC where a specific user is commented on, either as the subject or as someone involved, that's probably one of the cases where you should notify on user talk, since people have a right to know if they're being commented on. -Amarkov moo! 03:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This would apply mostly to user conduct RFCs, I guess, but could be adapted to other versions, such as article.

One perennial complaint against the current RFC format/procedure is that it lacks teeth. There can be overwhelming consensus that Person X has done something wrong, a thousand users all sign a thousand outside views to that effect - and yet nothing gets done until things get significantly worse and/or the whole mess gets sent up to the ArbCom. Essentially, there is no resolution to RFCs: hence they tend to drag on forever, never get closed, clog up the RFC user conduct page, and nothing gets done. The whole thing can be a bit of a waste of words.

Given the current expansion in community bans and community sanctions of all sorts - recently, the community has topic-banned an editor from one set of articles, a decision later endorsed and affirmed by ArbCom, and just now banned another editor from a project he was disrupting, I think that a blend of these community sanctions with RfCs might work.

It would surely be possible to amend the RfC format so as to include a closing discussion for all concerned relating to possible compromises in hard-to-call cases, and what those bringing the RFC would consider an acceptable outcome that would kill off the problems raised with Person X's conduct. Once that is done, and some ideas thrashed out - such as limited topic/page bans, revert paroles, article probation, personal attack/civility paroles, etc - that discussion switches over to the community sanctions noticeboard. If the community endorses the suggested remedies, all well and good: if not, and there is no consensus, there remains the option of kicking it all upstairs for the Arbitrators to think about.

Doubtless there are some problems with this, but I think that the basic idea - of giving RFCs teeth by bringing potential community sanctions into play - is a good one. Thoughts? Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 14:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea to me, I definitely support it (for what it's worth). RJASE1 ^Talk 14:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Would we rename it to "Requests for decisions"? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to. The main point of RFCs would still be the comments: this extra addition would not be required. It doesn't have to be used unless people actually want to. Quite apart from anything else, several RFCs - Essjay's springs to mind here - were essentially requests for decisions anyway. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 14:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Concern: The current structure is set up around requesting comment. "I would like the community to express an opinion on the following events" is the form the conversation takes. I'm concerned that the suggested change, while useful sounding at first glance, might result in a chilling effect on RfCs (which suddenly become much more serious) and might, in effect, reduce the effectiveness of the process in gathering consensus. If people asplode or do objectionable things, it's rare that an RfC is required to club them into submission. Usually, it's the sanity check that gets the person to realize that the person asking them to knock something off isn't crazy, and it's only when the 'target' digs their feet in against the community that anything like arbcom ever happens. Usually misdeeds are clearly actionable already. With that in mind, I'm also concerned that this change would alter our current situation to one where ten wolves and a sheep vote on what to eat for dinner. To summarize:

1. If RfCs start to have "action items", then people may be less likely to use them.
2. It may make it easier for a mob to take someone apart, because "clearly, consensus has been reached that UserX is the devil", or a similar situation.

Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Response: I'm not entirely sure concern 1 is altogether justified. Usually when RfCs are filed Editor X is heartily sick of Editor Y after 6 months of disruption and wants something to be done, and is usually quite disappointed when they twig that nothing is. All their elaborate typing and presentation of evidence quite often just gets repeated at RFAR.

Re concern 2: while I know from my failed RFA that having the wolves vote on The Lamb of Wikipedia is not an altogether pleasant experience, that is why I have built in this safeguard of consensus at WP:CN, which is usually fairly rational and will throw out anything especially grotesque. Nothing can be enforced without broad community consent, which is why a "10 wolves + one sheep situation" shouldn't occur. Not to be reductive, but if broad community consensus is that User X is the devil, then usually User X is. That's the whole philosophy behind community bans, after all. Hopefully, though, this should not be about branding devils: this is about getting enforced/able sanctions into place with community consent that will end problems raised at RFCs. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 15:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sure this sort of thing has been discussed many times before. Don't like the idea much myself since the real idea here is to get people to get a range of input from the community for the benefit all parties concerned, enabling self improvement possibly from all sides, either through someone toning down/altering some behaviour and/or the other side being a little less sensitive/understanding of the general community view. The ability to resolve disputes with broad community input and without the threat is important. Starting such a discussion with an explicitly (or implicit) proposed remedy will tend to force the discussion to if that remedy is appropriate or not, rather than drawing out the bigger picture of all those involved. I can't see how the current format would support a sanctions based approach, who interprets the debate and determines if there is a sanction to be given out. If the proposed sanction appears to harsh do we then go around the same route again proposing something less harsh or could the closer determine something less than.
  
• The community can also be very reactive, issues are huge one second and forgotten the next. Witch hunts could be a result of such a basis. Realistically if someone's behaviour is so poor you could get a good consensus here for some sort of sanctions, a WP:RFAR should be a no-brainer anyway. I have to question if this wouldn't be used by those who know that arbcom are unlikely to act or may also scrutinise their own behaviour as a way of harassing other editors. --pgk 15:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see how this could have been discussed much before: the whole area of community sanctions is very new turf and is still expanding and developing. I suppose the real issue with RFAR - why people who have nothing to hide avoid it - is that it's so darn slow. Months of water torture is not a pleasant experience: I know, I've been there.
  • The major safeguard with this is that anything proposed or agreed upon by the majority at the RFC would have to be endorsed by the entire community at WP:CN. I suppose if two editors agreed a mutual civility parole or something like that that wouldn't need ratification as it's just between them, but that doesn't happen that often. The decisions of the community are usually fairly rational and, for that matter, consensus of the community is the bedrock on which everything at Wikipedia is built. If we can't trust community consensus to be applied to RFC...well, we've rather lost our reason for being. To the question: "who interprets the debate and determines if there is a sanction to be given out" the answer is "The usual. Everyone. Us." If there is a problem with the conduct of one of those bringing the RFC, there's nothing to stop the whole process being reversed, or someone uninvolved looking at it. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 15:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It certainly has been discussed before, I'll try and find some references. As to the speed of arbcom, for critical issues arbcom can deal with things quite quickly, but generally I'd rather see slow but measured responses than swift and misguided action.
    • Maybe my point wasn't entirely clear. If you go in assuming a consequence the focus and outcome of the debate are jarred by that. In the current setup with multiple outside views, some with considerable overlap not necessarily all positive or all negative to one or more of the participants. The who decides question is far more complex. Reading consensus into such a situation where one person may have endorsed multiple overlapping (even slightly contradictory) statements is more involved. If you really want to go down this route It would seem better to keep RFC exactly as it is, then after a reasonable time those involved (all "sides") haven't modified there own behaviour, then instigate a further discussion at WP:CN. Even that I'm still not convinced that this won't have it's problems of witch hunts, aggresive sanctions on "social aspects" rather than building the encyclopedia etc. Consider the case of someone like Carnildo with OrphanBot there are a lot of the community who would happily give out sanctions for that (image copyright issues = drama, for reason). --pgk 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• It's not a bad idea in principle, but we need to implement it in some way that prevents abuse by axe-grinders and moral panic - and I'm not at all sure that's possible. If we don't, it won't be long before people turn this into WP:RFDA. >Radiant< 15:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a sec, there's some good points here. Just writing up replies. Thanks to all for the feedback. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 15:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully community consensus at WP:CN would be sufficient to prevent axe-grinders: that would be needed if any suggested sanction is to be ratified. As regards moral panics...appeals to the ArbCom are always possible, ditto Jimbo. Incidentally, compromised accounts apart no one - as far as I know - has ever been desysopped per community consensus, and that should not change now. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 15:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better if an RFC refers a case to WP:CN, instead of duplicating the process of CN. It is a request for comments, not a place to make sanctions. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is what I was proposing. Discuss potential sanctions - what form, etc - at RFC maybe, but they must be discussed by the community at CN for them to be ratified. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 15:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always figured RfCs can be a useful way to gauge a general consensus regarding a controversial issue of the sort where threaded discussion hasn't necessarily been successful. It also enables you to go "on the record" about a particular problem or issue, and see what a number of people think about it. Being able to go to CN and say "We tried an RfC, and generally agreed Foo has been disruptive and needs to calm down, but Foo has completely ignored this and hasn't changed at all" might save some trouble. I frequently hear people complain that RfCs don't accomplish anything -- maybe I'm missing the point, and they're not entirely supposed to, but if they are, this seems like it. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Given the increasing flexibility of community sanctions options at WP:CN and the general swiftness of decisions there, along with the alternative WP:CEM option, it would be redundant to incorporate sanctions directly into WP:RFC. The problem with that idea has always been its decentralization: only the people who already know about a problem are likely to respond to user conduct complaints so that becomes highly gameable for wikilawyering attempts to railroad an unpopular editor. The site has a central location now where uninvolved people take a look after RFC closes. So I don't see how this proposal fills any gap and the existing remedy venues are better. Durova^Charge! 19:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Chairboy hit the nail on the head. A user that is the subject of an RFC can either listen to the comments or ignore them. A user violating policies can be blocked, period. The relation between the two is that if a user has been through an RFC in which problematic behavior was agreed to, they probably deserve less slack if they continue the same policy-violating problematic behavior in the future. As it stands RFC is a successful method of dispute resolution: adding sanctions that will be officially ruled on will turn RFC into a form of mob justice. Mangojuice^talk 17:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the assertion that "RFC is a succesful method". RFCs tend to either turn into a back-and-forth flamefest between the two (or more) parties into the dispute, or tend to be pretty much ignored by their subject who remains convinced he isn't doing anything wrong, or tend to become polarized by friends or fans of the subject who know WP is better off with him so therefore he may not be sanctioned or censured in any way whatsoever. >Radiant< 09:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• As a prime example of what Radiant is talking about, we have the current RfC on QuackGuru, which has been open for over ten days. The editor is clearly ignoring the RfC, having received notice of it and requests to comment-- which he subsequently deleted, continuing to make edits in the same problematic fashion. There's the sticky bit: effectively, if tendentious individuals simply ignore Wikipedians' opinions or consensus, on matters of behaviour or policy, they can game the system for quite a while, until (and if) the issue goes to ArbCom; and even after that, they can always recreate a persona, and start all over again. RfC only "works" if all parties actually care about Wikipedia, or their participation as part of it. It's not going to work for someone who arrives with a particular agenda outside improving the encyclopaedia. --Leflyman^Talk 06:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This honestly sounds like most discussions at WP:AN/I. Or really, like a community version of WP:RfAr. And how is taking something to the WP:CN going to do anything but essentially start a new RfC at that page? : ) - jc37 15:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Was Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 supposed to be deleted a while ago? Until a few hours ago, it only had one certifier. --NE2 07:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to be commented on so I can see what changes to my editing style and conduct, if any, I should make. Is RfC the proper method for that?

RogueNinja_talk 15:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor review may be better. Moreschi ^Talk 15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No it's probably not, an RfC is generally only if other editors believe you've behaved in a poor manor, it's a form of dispute resolution. Might I suggest Wikipedia:Editor Review? Ryan Postlethwaite 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I knew I saw what I wanted somewhere before, but I could not remember the name. Thanks! RogueNinja_talk 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Problem users should be histmerged into these archives, in my opinion. Wikipedia:Problem users was redirected to Wikipedia:Requests for comment a while back. YechielMan 01:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The proper place to merge is the page where it was moved to, Wikipedia talk:Conflicts between users. RFC was a new page and is not associated with that talk archive. —Centrx→talk • 16:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 16:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice the MONGO RfC remains a "candidate". Is this an oversight? Who moves a page from candidate status to approved status once the two-person threshold has been reached? --Thomas Basboll 12:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how User:Tyrenius did anything to resolve the dispute between myself and you...Tyrenius and myself had a prior disagreement...you knew this and went to him directly when you and I had a dispute, Tyrenius did not have a dispute regarding the same subject matter with me as you do and had not once made an atempt to resolve this dispute with me because we had no dispute in relation to the one you and I had.--MONGO 18:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not know (nor did Tyrenius, apparently, or he wouldn't have accepted my request). It is of course a technical question, and I am waiting for an adminstrator to decide. That said, I am aware that one possible outcome of this RfC is that I am completely alone (at least in terms of an available dispute resolution process). That, again, will let me know where I stand in relation to WP. So it's all good.--Thomas Basboll 07:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

When you create one of these what is the standard etiquette for notification? I'd like to notify people who have had the same specific trouble with the user but I don't want to seem like I'm stacking the table. The users in question have had the same exact problem with the user as I have had. Quadzilla99 00:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Following the drama at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4, and the deletion of the RfC for not being certified, is there a case for suggesting that uncertified RfCs that generate large amounts of community input should be moved to an appropriate location to preserve the discussion? I think the uncertified RfC bit was only meant to prevent obviously one-sided RfCs from hanging around, but cases like this are a bit different. Carcharoth 14:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• There might be a case; if they are I would suggest that they are indefinitely protected. --Iamunknown 01:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• One good reason for deleting them is the assumption that an uncertified dispute may contain statements which are simply not true. Untrue, unsubstantiated claims against a living person (a Wikipedian) are flatly in violation of core policy; the fact that they are in community space and not article space in no way reduces the obligation of Wikipedia not to publish defamation. Simply put, deleting uncertified RfCs is protection against using RfC as a vehicle for harassment. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes, I realise that. But you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. On other pages where there are libellous claims, you could ask an oversighter to remove those claims. Or just remove them so they only exist in the page history. Carcharoth 09:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is better to err on the side of caution. I see no need to retain uncertified RfCs. I simply fail to find any compelling reason to do so. Dispute resolution, RfA and other venues which increase scrutiny end up raking a lot of muck at times. This makes me believe there is a compelling reason to delete uncertified RfCs, which if left around could be mined for mud to fling in such cases. In essence, keeping invalid RfCs around only serve to feed the trolls. Just my opinion. You're more than welcome to some grains of salt with it. Vassyana 17:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs) twice removed a RFC which I sent concerning the use of the expression "New Orthodox Marxists" in the TSSI article. He also removed two other RFCs I wrote -- 1 concerned Pluralism in economics and the other was also about the TSSI article but concerned a different issue. Watchdog07 13:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my summarised page format as at 12.56 p.m. today. It is laid out in correct form with proper and direct references. It has been thrice reverted by User:Flozu who is pushing a false and vague claim on this page and has been disrupting it and other connected pages for some time now with a clearly non-neutral argument which is totally unsupported by any of the great scholars on this subject, right back to William Dugdale. We either have correct articles or we have articles packed with personal opinions and claims. Which is it to be? David Lauder 13:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to list Talk:ALF (disambiguation), but I can't figure out where. I'm guessing WP:RFC/LANG. Is this correct? —Viriditas | Talk 08:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is about a characterization of one of the articles, such as the television character, list it under the appropriate subject, such as the Society page. If the issue is about the style of disambiguation pages, list it on the Style page, and also mention it on the talk page of the Disambiguation style guide or similar. You can list it at a couple of places if the issue is ambiguous. —Centrx→talk • 02:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I opened an RFC for comments regarding the citing of my own material, and material from my magazine, on Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) here [7]. I summarized the RFC comments here [8], however User:David Lyons objects, and I feel he is misrepresenting the summary. I have some questions regarding policy:

• Isn't the purpose of an RFC to resolve disputes between involved parties? Isn't it misrepresenting the results of an RFC to include the comments of involved parties as results?

Mindful of potential COI issues, I have tried to resolve this issue through proper RFC channels and feel that David Lyons is disrupting the process. I don't think I should be in the absurd situation of having to ask for an RFC on the results of an RFC! I appreciate your comments. Sparkzilla 01:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a compromise to the issues in the Talk:Regina Neighbourhoods. It is my hope that this will lead to a solution over the disputed figures and edits. I also hope that this will eliminate future accusations as to my identity and/or relation to other banned users. I would appreciate that you read over the compromise and comment on it. I just want to find a solution, that will satisfy all parties.--207.81.56.49 07:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This page has been created to serve as RfC for issues of reliability of specific sources.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In which RfC category would you recommend a RfC for an article about education go? The article is Waldorf education, by the way; we'd like some independent comment about what needs to be done to make it fully balanced according to NPOV guidelines (or whether it is already so). Hgilbert 17:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would put it in History or Society or both. —Centrx→talk • 23:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there instructions anywhere on endorsement etiquette? Forgive me for asking, but this is the first time I've filed a User Confuct RfC, so I'm not entirely clear on procedure, and I've been getting conflicting advice. For example, if I'm one of the editors who has filed and certified an RfC, am I also allowed to endorse the various views that come in? Or should I stay out of it? Ditto with the individual who is being discussed in the RfC... Should they be endorsing views? Or just listening? Thanks, Elonka 17:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As a follow-up on this question, what are people's feelings about whether or not the subject of a User Conduct RfC, should or should not add their own endorsements to the RfC? --Elonka 15:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is unclear, then I would encourage the people who find it unclear to update the RFC instructions. Yes, the intent is that both the initiator and the subject of an RFC can and should endorse views that they agree with. Ideally, there will be some view that both parties can endorse (although in reality that doesn't happen all that often). However, if endorsing multiple views, one should try to avoid repeating oneself, e.g. by adding a lengthy explanation in the endorsement that's been said before - not because that's "forbidden" per se, but because it doesn't help anyone in resolving anything. Additionally, sections like "people who do not endorse this view" should be avoided at all times; one can "not endorse" a view simply by not endorsing it. >Radiant< 12:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Okay, how does this sound, to be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, after the "Uncertified RfCs" section.

==RfC guidelines==

Different RfCs have been run in different ways, and there are few hard and fast rules. As general practice though, these guidelines have been helpful:

* Anyone is allowed to post their own view, in a separate section with their name on it, such as ==View by <name>== It can be helpful to indicate the viewpoint of the particular editor, such as "Outside view" "Inside view" "Semi-involved view" etc.

* Other users can endorse a view, by adding their signature to the list after that view. Along with their signature, they may wish to offer a clarifying comment of one or two sentences, for example if they agree with all but one particular part of the view. Longer responses than that should probably go into their own "View" section.

* All signed comments and talk that are neither a view nor an endorsement should be directed to the discussion page.

* Any other types of discussion should be directed to the talkpage.

* Anyone can endorse any view, regardless of whether or not they are outside parties, inside parties, or even the subject of the RfC. Ideally, there will be some view(s) that both sides of the involved parties can endorse.

* You may endorse as many views as you wish. You may also endorse the original RfC statement, and/or the subject's response.

* Only endorse views with which you agree. Do not post "disagreement" endorsements. The lack of a signature is sufficient indication that there may be some disagreement with the statement.

For more information on how previous RfCs have been run, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive.

--Elonka 23:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature and media, Rhythmnation2004 (talk · contribs) has created a request for comment at La Toya Jackson (see this edit) that I believe violates the concept that the summary statement should "stat[e] briefly and neutrally what the debate is about." For full disclosure, I am the admin whose actions are being questioned. I have tried explaining to him at Talk:La Toya Jackson that statements on the listing page and on the RFC section of the article talk page need to be neutral, yet he continues statements like this. He argues "your actions aren't the issue, don't worry" yet this summary statement states its my edits and the first 6 words of the RFC statement on the article talk are "Metros continues to abuse admin powers." Can someone talk to him and explain this issue to him because he refuses to take it from me. Metros 20:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The subheadings "Candidage pages" and "Approved pages" don't really make much sense. Is the case automatically approved when two users file a RFC for a user? It doesn't seem right... — Alex^(U|C|E) 05:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. If there's only one user arguing against someone, there's no reason for an RFC. >Radiant< 12:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Can something be added to the lead section directing those wanting comments on their contributions to instead go to WP:Editor review? LaraLove^T/_C 17:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Where should a request comment on article about sport be placed? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As no one has come back to me and there does not seem to be an obvious area for RrC on articles for sport. I have created a "Request comment on articles": "issues by topic area": "Sport" --Philip Baird Shearer 08:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Depending on the situation, it would go under "Society..." or "History...". The topic areas may warrant some re-organization, but splitting out more topic areas results in fewer potential commenters seeing them. Many see RfCs to comment on when they themselves are posting an RfC or happen to be looking at a similar topic area, so someone interested or knowledgeable about society, pop culture, etc. would be more likely to notice and comment on a sports-related article too. —Centrx→talk • 18:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put it under "society" for now, because that'd probably make more people see the RFC. >Radiant< 10:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened with my Emir Arven RfC?

It's both deleted and gone from here. --PaxEquilibrium 14:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone knows? --PaxEquilibrium 11:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Emir Arven? —Centrx→talk • 18:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

But why has it been removed? --PaxEquilibrium 14:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to have a RfC for several users at one time? 216.60.70.152 23:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, although it may be more productive to focus on the issue in that case rather than the participants. >Radiant< 07:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfC on User:Mongo was deleted without warning or explanation. Can someone tell me who deleted it and why? Thanks. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 21:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Isarig (talk · contribs) has begun an edit war (actually, his friend Armon (talk · contribs) started it, but Isarig is the one who has actually been warring over it) changing the language of the request for comment on the MEMRI page. Instead of reverting him yet again I made changes to the language to compromise -- hopefully he will not see that as an act of aggression and will leave it be. This page really should not be the focus of edit wars like that -- if you don't like the way a dispute is characterized, explain yourself on the talk page of the disputed page. Obviously we have differences over this or it never would have come to RfC in the first place; it is immature to continue the dispute here rather than expressing your views on the talk page. In particular, Isarig wants to characterize this as a dispute over whether the largest Muslim newspaper in California is a WP:RS, but in my estimation the question is whether a professor at Georgetown and a former CIA officer are notable sources of criticism (the question of what newspaper published their comments appears to be secondary). It is unfair (and again immature) of Isarig to make his case in the RfC page rather than on the article talk page (where he has refused to participate meaningfully in the dialogue). csloat 22:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We all make mistakes (some of us make a lot of them). I've done edits that were badly thought out, didn't match the text of my references and so forth. However, I try to edit with integrity. I will never enter something into WP I know to be false, and, if I ever battle to keep a "fact" out of the text, it'll be for some good reason (it's trivial, nasty, BLP etc). But does integrity actually matter in an editor?

Think about it - have a look at this case - User:Amoruso is attempting to conceal who sank the ship Patria on November 25, 1940. It was sunk by the Haganah, everyone knows that (it's even already in the body of the article!). Yet it was repeatedly reverted from the lead.

• 16:32, 13 May 2007 - (to Tarc)
• 07:38, 7 August 2007 - (rv to stable version)
• 08:25, 8 August 2007 - (expand)

I don't know if this kind of behaviour is even against policy, let alone whether it should be a matter for censure. What does everyone else think? PalestineRemembered 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to conceal it. Actually, it's PalestineRemembered (previously banned for eternity for many violations (including making Fraudulent citations :) ) from editing wikipedia - [9] who is being dishonest. Of course Haganah sunk the ship. But it is misleading to say that without clarification - (which I added here [10]) ) - it sunk the ship accidentally trying to save Jewish refugees from the Holocaust. Palestineremembered tried to manipulate the reader and didn't mention that in purpose, yet he thought it was important to mention one fact without the context. Perhaps he misses his eternal ban. Amoruso 21:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Integrity is such a vague term that it really can't be considered a "key attribute". "Lack of integrity", as you show, all too often means the same thing as "disagrees with me". -Amarkov moo! 00:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That makes sense, since I would consider "agrees with me" to be a key attribute that every editor should have. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Amoruso lacked integrity there himself if he wasn't being sarcastic. Sarcasm is not helpful. The community decided that PalestineRemembered never should have been blocked indefinitely and wasn't banned. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. GRBerry 21:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In my role as a member of the arbitration committee, I am trying to find ways to be sure there is community input into our decisions. One of the things I am doing is making greater insistence that RfCs be filed before cases are brought to arbitration. In that light, I am concerned about the "certification" requirement for RfCs.

The RfC page evolved out of Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship. Earlier in the project, there was greater tolerance for, well, trolls. There was a problem with people who, when in any dispute with an admin, would utilize any available forum to criticize that admin. The certification requirement was originally adopted to deal with this and to deny a means for individual trolls to abuse process.

I believe that this is less of a problem now, and RfC has evolved to the point where ill-considered RfCs tend to backfire. Therefore, I believe that the "certification" requirement has outlived its purpose, and is now nothing more than a burdensome remnant of the past.

I would like to encourage the "regulars" at this page to consider either removing the certification requirement altogether or modifying it to broaden the time period or relax the requirement that the two users certifying be involved in the same dispute.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with this. If one person has seriously tried and failed to resolve the dispute, they shouldn't have to get someone else to do the same thing if they ever want it resolved. -Amarkov moo! 04:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with that as well. That also takes out the awkwardness of having to go get someone else to certify RfCs. I've generally seen RfC of recent be pretty fair, and those filed to be vindictive or petty backfire on those who file them. On an unrelated subject, though, sometimes RfC before arbitration seems much to me like process for process' sake, especially when there have already been a significant number of people trying to intervene and it hasn't helped. When someone's already been told six times their behavior isn't acceptable, saying it once more doesn't tend to have much more effect. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Two of the perennial complaints about the arbitration process are that there isn't enough community input, and the rationale for decisions issued by the committee is not always clear. We've tried "workshop" pages during arbitration but I myself am unconvinced that this extra step helps much. I would like to strengthen community-based mechanisms like RfC rather than create competing mechanisms specific to arbitration. Having an RfC as an expected step before arbitration allows the committee to see the community feedback -- both supporting and opposing -- in a format that has proven more effective and less divisive than that workshop pages. If RfC as a prelude to arbitration becomes more commonplace, I would expect that disputants would consider RfC more gravely which in some cases may remove the need for the committee to become involved, which is a win for everyone. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • As an ArbComm watcher, and occasional statement/evidence/workshop chimer iner, I'll point out that there isn't a lot of evidence that the Workshop pages are read by most of ArbComm. Probably, if I looked hard enough, I could find diffs where most or all of the individual members referenced the workshop page in discussing some case or another. But the general case has only one or two members active on the Workshop, and all too often a proposed decision page that seems totally disconnected from the Workshop. I think the ArbComm has to do some of its deliberating privately, and that this will necessarily produce the appearance of a disconnect. I think if you want to avoid the appearance of a disconnect, there needs to be more visible engagement with the workshop page.
      • The value of RfC isn't in giving ArbComm community input. It is in solving a (hopefully high) percentage of problems without letting them get to ArbComm. GRBerry 21:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• As to amending the certification requirement, that will only work if admins don't delete RfCs where they feel there was insufficient evidence of attempting to resolve, even when two people do certify. I've seen that a few times in the last week or so, so I don't have a lot of faith in it actually happening. GRBerry 21:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Contrary to the above, I don't recall having ever seen a User RFC that was at all useful in resolving anything, other than by letting off steam. That is perhaps an exaggeration, but as near as I can tell a very substantial amount of RFCs are filed out of spite, or attempts to discredit some editor by piling on the nastyness, or otherwise Really Not Helpful. I am very much in favor of deleting pointless or overly negative RFCs, for some plausible definition thereof. >Radiant< 12:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That isn't a terrible idea by itself. But will that actually happen, or will people assume that any RfC deleted is deleted because it was groundless, and not because it was unproductive? -Amarkov moo! 04:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The instructions say to add new RFCs at the top of the list, which makes the most sense to me. However, the bot is alphabetizing. Is this the desired behavior? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 18:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The templates need some improvement:

1) Too many people are simply adding RFC tags without the modifiers, meaning that the RFC page is absent of info, and getting blizzarded with empty requests.

2) The template code simply alphabetizes RFC requests. They should likely be sorted by date. I don't know which RFCs are new, and which are stale.

3) My watchlist doesn't notify me any more when a new RFC is made. So I never learn about them, and thus participate in them less often.

4) There needs to be a bot that removes old RFC tags automatically, or the page is going to become an unworkable list of stale tags. THF 00:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• The answer to #3 is to watchlist {{RFCbio list}} instead. #4 is planned, Betacommand said he's working on that (note that in the past RFC was cleaned out manually as well, having a bot for it has long been on my wishlist). #1 and #2 are good points. I suggest we fix the templates to display a warning if they don't include a reason. >Radiant< 08:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to remove a few tags manually[11]. It doesn't show up on the main RFC page, though. Puzzlement. Hornplease 03:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does, but please give the bot an hour or so to run the update. >Radiant< 12:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed it's OK.Hornplease 23:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to add an RfC, but when I click 'edit', there's just a list of three templates. Oh, I should add that it's the 'bio' section I'm trying to add to. Anchoress 11:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• You're supposed to add {{RFCbio}} to the talk page you're requesting comments on; a bot will then list it here. HTH! >Radiant< 08:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. The RfC/Bio page still says 'place new entries at the top'. And you'll notice that they aren't in date order, is that because of a mixture of old manually-entered ones and bot-entered ones? Anchoress 08:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's fix the page. I've asked Betacommand to tweak the bot to list things chronologically instead of alphabetically. >Radiant< 09:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be good, also, if it were made clearer that you need to add , so people don't assume, as I initially did, that the bot would pick up the initial statement of the dispute. Another good thing would be to make it clearer that the section tag _should_ be included, so that the link goes directly to the discussion.--SarekOfVulcan 15:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't write the bot though, that's User:Betacommand's work. I think the template needs some fixing, like a big warning sign if you omit a parameter. >Radiant< 16:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I went in and tweaked the wording on the instructions: hope that's ok.--SarekOfVulcan 17:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Certainly. >Radiant< 10:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In step 2, it says you are supposed to "Make sure you link to the section you created in the previous step, and supply a reason, which will display on the RFC page" - I don't know what I'm supposed to link to the section I just created, or where I am supposed to supply a reason. If the template should be filled out with pipes (i.e. {{RFCwhatever|link|reason}}), it's not clear in the instructions. Is my Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)#Request for Comment: Influence of Objectivism in other areas RFC fine, or does it need more work? WLU 21:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it. --Quiddity 23:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'd made a basic instruction set at {{RFCbio}}, but I'm not happy with its clarity. The instructions at {{RFCbio list}} are no clearer. Could someone adept at technical writing please improve those instructions, and then propagate them to the rest of the (currently instruction-less) RFC templates? ({{RFCecon}}, {{RFChist}}, etc, and their associated list pages). Thanks. --Quiddity 23:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume I'm coming across the same problem as others here. This sentence is poorly written, ungrammatical, and the end seems to contradict the beginning:

"To tag a specific section, write {{RFCreli|section name|optional reason here ~~~~~}} add !!reason= and explain why its being listed if your not linking to a section"

If someone explains what this is supposed to mean, I could go and change the wording. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a correctly formatted example:

It links to the talkpage subsection "#Request For Comment: External link section". See result at {{RFCbio list}} or WP:RFC/BIO.

Hope that helps. --Quiddity 23:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Could the template be modified? What if all you did was place the filled out tag on the page and it automatically created a section with the included heading and added the neutral statement to the appropriate RFC page? Here's what I'm thinking:

and it produces the following on the article's talk page:

• Should the individual's date of birth be included if it has not been verified by a reliable source? 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

---

In academia at least, not recommended without some kind of strong qualification (eg. ..."although the exact dates are debatable...").Tamrhind 23:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

and the following on the RFCbio page

---

• Talk:Bob Bobson Should the individual's date of birth be included if it has not been verified by a relaible source? 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

---

I know the Prod template can create sections and this one seems to automagically create text on the RFC page too.

I had a go at re-writing the text that's there now, hopefully it's clearer. WLU 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Anybody want to help a stupid girl out...is this right? Or is this RfC just swirling around in the ether?

Request for comment - Covenant College#Accreditation non-compliance warnings and restoration

closed Flowanda | Talk 04:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks....I seriously cannot figure this template/procedure/process/page out. Flowanda | Talk 01:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's not that hard :) you stick the template on the page you are requesting comment on, not here. Other than that you're fine. >Radiant< 11:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. My frustration got the best of me that night, and I was convinced the templates were conspiring against me. It's still kind of hard to assume good intentions when you think all the bots are laughing at you.Flowanda | Talk 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Flo, it helps if you add the reason parameter to the template: the bot will pick it up and put it in the RFC list as well.--SarekOfVulcan 13:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again.It was my first experience with filing an RfC, but I thought the process would be the same as a 3PO, which it's not. I added what I considered to be just a short title of the issues, instead of including a neutral description with info/links/history to give uninvolved and current editors a starting point. My main concern was that if the RfC was incorrect, editors would judge/dismiss the issue based on my comments/inexperience, or ignore it until I corrected the template or completed the info requirements to make the info easier to sift through.There has been additional discussion on the talk page (I've been offline for two days), so I will check the talk page before adding info to the template. Flowanda | Talk 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if there's problems with my template (I have tried repeatedly to muck it up even more) or a backlog, but there has been no outside participation on the discussion at Talk:Covenant College#Request for Comment, and discussion has stalled. I would appreciate others' perspectives. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Try WP:3O. Of course, notifying people does not guarantee that they'll come in and comment. >Radiant< 10:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would rather not have filed anything at all, or have to ask for help over the contents of a paragraph, or have an edit history of six consecutive failed attempts (I won't admit to any more) to fix a simple template. And I am definitely not "notifying" anyone. I asked for help. I asked again. And I asked again. If I should just close my tattered Rfc, I will; documenation of this ongoing issue is enough for me. So look, don't look, respond, don't respond, help, don't help. I just want to be clear that even if I didn't get it right, I asked for help. Flowanda | Talk 01:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I started a user RFC, but didn't add it to the main page until I had gotten enough data put together. Does the clock start from when I created the page, or when I listed it? If I read the instructions literally, I lost 24 hours that I would have had if I had thought to userfy it first...--SarekOfVulcan 13:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I posted the RfC Talk:Twinkie defense#Request for comment: Twinkie defense content dispute using the {{RFCsoc}} template at 01:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC) & it has yet to show up on the {{RFCsoc list}}. I've doublechecked my coding a couple dozen times -- what am I missing? --Yksin 17:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither {{RFCpolicy list}} nor Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies are getting the pages tagged with {{RFCpolicy}}. I don't know what's going on here. Halp!

(and I added instructions to all the RFC templates, see {{RFC/doc}} to tweak) --Quiddity 18:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

See comments above, and add to them Talk:EJ Wells and Samantha Brady Pairadox 03:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I found the problem (after hours of investigating). Template:RFCart doesn't cause tagged articles to appear on Template:RFCmedia list. Whether this is because RFCart is a redirect or because the bot isn't programmed to look for links there I don't know. As a short-term solution I've changed the RFC instructions back to Template:RFCmedia and edited all of the articles linked to RFCart to point to RFCmedia instead. Pairadox 08:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright. In the meantime, I'll make it so that RFCart transclusions work. MessedRocker (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the intended result or not but if there is a space between the | and Section title of an RFC request, i.e., {{RFCsci | Section title | Rationale}}, the link ends up as Talk:XXX#_Section_title, when it should have been Talk:XXX#Section_title. The only reason why I put a space there was because all examples of how to fill out the template include the space. (If it matters, I have only used RFCsci.) panda 15:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Verklempt was never properly posted. Verklempt is asking that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Verklempt be deleted. No one is commenting at the MfD, probably because they are unsure of what to do in this situation. Please comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FVerklempt. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. >Radiant< 14:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I put up an RfC on Talk:Anti-Americanism. After several hours, it still hadn't appeared on either list of requests for comment on politics (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics or Template:RFCpol list), so I rechecked everything. The message pasted in the template image said to write everything with bangs instead of bars, so I replaced the appropriate bars with two bangs each. It still hasn't worked. A quick look shows that the bot has not updated the former list since at least August 19th, and it shows the exact same entries on both lists. I strongly suggest that people determine the correct instructions for RfC tags, and correct the bad instructions. I also suggest that people find out why the RfC bot has not updated the appropriate lists. Jacob Haller 19:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The bot does not update the WP:RFC subpages. Those are only supposed to transclude the appropriate RFC templates. Also, it wasn't working because you forgot the "time=" before the time. MessedRocker (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay... why doesn't the default "fill in the blanks" setup correspond with the proper setup for the template? Jacob Haller 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The instructions clearly say to enter time=~~~~~ MessedRocker (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

One set of instructions state:

Place the template at the top of the new section. Fill out the template as follows: {{RFCpol | section=section title | reason=neutral statement ~~~~~}} using the section title selected in step two and a brief neutral statement that will appear on the appropriate RFC page (example). Sign with five tildes, to present a timestamp but no signature. Do not use "subst".

Note that these clearly use the verticle bars, not bangs, and do not include "time=" in the text. Moreover they state:

This has recently changed!

Alerting readers not to use the other, correct, set of instructions, the one appended to the template. Jacob Haller 02:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

These instructions are outdated. Thank you for letting me know. MessedRocker (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry about the hassle. Is there any way to track down "dud" RfCs like the one I'd written? Jacob Haller 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have confirmed with Betacommand that he is writing a patch which will report malformed RFCs to a web page. It will be around in a few days. MessedRocker (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

After a bit of investigation, I've learned that the problem of the bot not updating the lists may come from pages with bad syntax. I created a list of pages that transcluded the template and were not listed. I went through many of them, however I don't have the energy to do them all. Please go through this list (remove as you go along) and make sure they adhere to this format: {{templatename | section=section name !! reason=short summary !! time=~~~~~ }} (note the spacing). MessedRocker (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The long-awaited patch is now available. A list of malformed RFCs will be generated here. MessedRocker (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I recently added a RfC on a user, John Foxe. It has been certified and moved to the approved list. I'm a little unclear as to what happens now.

1. Should I continue to edit the RfC, adding more evidence, and / or clarifying existing evidence?

2. Should I invite editors who have had a problem with John Foxe in the past to comment?

3. Or, should I just leave it alone and wait for editors with no past involvement to look over the evidence, look at edit history, or whatever?

My desired outcome includes evaluation and comments by editors not previously involved with John Foxe. I assume that is part of the normal process. If there is something else I need to do, I just want to make sure that I know what it is so I can do it. Or, if I'm just supposed to be patient, I need to know that. After spending the time and effort to submit the RfC I don't want it to fail because I didn't dot the I's or cross the T's. Thanks in advance for your assistance. 74s181 13:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this has been brought up before, but in line with the notion that administrators are not special - or, as is inferred in the heading of the section Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges, "privileged" - should this section be renamed "Use of administrator tools"? Deiz talk 06:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone help me get am RFC listed for Satanic ritual abuse. The bot isnt working. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

User:John Foxe wrote a response on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/John_Foxe in which he attempts to redirect the discussion away from his behavior. I wrote a response to his response and placed it on the talk page. I added a link to it at the bottom underneath the 'Discusion' heading. John Foxe reverted this. How ironic. 74s181 20:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, my question. Is there an appropriate place on the main page of the John Foxe RfC to let people know that there is a response to John Foxe's comments? I thought about putting a link directly under his comments, but after reading the policy that doesn't sound right either. So, where does it go, or should I just assume that everyone will check the talk page for additional comments? 74s181 20:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just tried listing Talk:Hebrew Wikipedia on RFCsoc. It's not showing up on the list. Did I do something wrong, or is this a bot problem? What do I do now? Can someone please look into this? Thanks. --woggly 22:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sm565 complain for Adam Cuerden. Dear Administrator

This complain concerns Adam Cuerden ‘s behavior in the talk page of Homeopathy. Adam Cuerden has been rude to me and other users and recently hided my new suggestion for a change in encyclopedia sentence clearly because he has a different point of view.

If you read the short discussion we had here you don’t need my comments. [44] [45]

However, I will highlight some facts. I was arguing politely to change a sentence trying to modify the old one in an acceptable way from all the editors, to be more precise and to reflect a NPOV according to the wikipidia ’s policy.

I came up with a new suggestion and summarizing my old arguments and adding new data, I posted it.

Adam Cuerden told me that I could not understand what a scientific consensus is. I replied that we could use exactly the words of one of his cited references and if he thinks that his cited references are inaccurate or POV. It was a rhetorical question of course and he immediately hided my comments arguing that I have repeated the same arguments a dozen times. After I informed him that I would report his unacceptable behavior I asked where exactly I have repeated them. He did not reply so far 10/7/2007 2:15:54 AM (New York time).

Some other users also complained about him.

Some days ago he blocked my account for trying to add a POV tag. Typically he was right since I did not follow the 3-edit rule. Other users who agree with him reverted the edits, which we had agreed upon in the talk page with the main editor of the article. Their behavior was totally uncivil and I tried to protest about it, maybe not so elegantly. No action was taken to prevent this behavior of the other users. I reported the evidence to Tim Vickers describing all these. It is worth reading it to realize the situation. [46] Tim Vickers wrote him this message. [47]

Adam Cuerden has a poor record moderating discussions with other users; as well here are some examples.

Our science of the very small gets into the subject of quantum chromodynamics, molecular theory is inadequate. Whig 09:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's complete bollocks and original research. Quantum mechanics, funnily enough, is defined by a series of mathematical equations that calculate probabilities. It doesn't just automatically justify whatever stupidity you want it to. Adam Cuerden talk 16:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you asserting that the references given do not reject the efficacy of homeopathy, or that the authors (NIH, NHS, AMA) are not representative of the scientific community? --Art Carlson 09:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC) He's asserting that all criticism should be removed. Adam Cuerden talk 16:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Adam you realize -of course- you might discredit yourself with this kind of statements.How will you argue that you views are objective and you are qualified to moderate a discussion misrepresenting the others people opinion? I wrote many times that mainstream criticism should be included and even extended………. Best wishes.--Sm565 18:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Another one: Please take this as my suggestion that you read the Organon of Medicine by Samuel Hahnemann in order to comment properly upon what it says. Let us make this a serious article, shall we? I'm still reading it myself. Whig 20:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC) I read big pieces of it. It is crap. So what?--Filll 22:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Thank you for your most insightful and encyclopedic commentary. Whig 22:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Adam_Cuerden deleted the above comment. I have restored it -- now twice. It is not a personal attack. Whig 19:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC

After he hided my comments he wrote:

There's no point continuing discussion until you can actually bring something new to the table, instead of shoving productive discussions off the talk page by repeating the same points over and over. Has someone put a message on a homeopathy forum canvassing people again? Adam Cuerden talk 04:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC) You don't have to continue discussion if you don't want to. Whig 04:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

He also has a poor record in other controversial articles. G.Vithoulkas [48] colleagues (a world wide respected homeopath ) accused him for having forged his views. [49] [50] I cannot assert that whatever they accuse for it is true but to be blamed by a serious scientists is not the best sign and it does not warranty that Adam can moderate a discussion in a controversial subject effectivelly.

I don’t intend to attack personally anyone I m just stating the facts :

After the last incident it is clear that this kind of behavior seriously contributes to a pathological and unproductive atmosphere and discredit wikipedia. Please restore my comments in the talk page.

Finally I would ask you to consider that a protected (under dispute) sign to be added in the article. There is a long dispute with serious arguments from both sides on the article which many editors refuse to accept. Whatever attempt to put under dispute sign is reverted by some editors including Adam Cuerden . It is fair to be there protected until a consensus is reached. I think it is the only fair option for a such controversial topic and it represents the reality. Lets be honest and not hide it. Best wishes

Thanks for your time.

--Sm565 08:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Sm565

I'm mad about user-conduct RfCs. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Let's get rid of the user conduct RfCs because they're inefficient stupid wastes of time. Please tell me what you think. ScienceApologist 19:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add the article on pro-pedophile activism to the list of requests for comment on society, but it wasn't added. Here's the section on the talk page. A.Z. 00:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. It has been added already :-) A.Z. 00:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, when commenting as an uninvolved user on an Rfc, is it allowable to claim the user who's edits/conduct are being discussed is a troll ? Or will this be considered a personal attack ? I would provide what seems like evidence to me, not just a baseless accusations. I ask because I have seen users be blocked for trolling, so I'm guessing it is also OK to accuse them ? Or is this considered bad form ? Thanks. Jackaranga 23:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

this is a bit late, but calling them a troll would be poor form. highlighting "unconstructive commentary" or "edits that do not improve the encyclopedia" and "an attitude dismissive of others concerns" or some such would be better. Point out the problematic edits, because, in reality, nobody cares if I'm under a bridge on a wireless connection or in an office so long as the encycopedia is better. --Rocksanddirt 15:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This comes from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problem with a project's editors. I was told I should go here, but how do I make an RFC on a complicated issue based on the use of a word in many articles? --NE2 22:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Either (a) create the RfC in the discussion page of one of the articles, querying the use of the word, and immediately after the rfc template and reason, add a paragraph with links to related artciles, or (b) if the articles are all part of a project, create the RfC in a discussion page attached to the project. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please check or explain this? [12] There is no evidence of trying to resolve the dispute, there are no messages on Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s talk page relating to the complaints made, and the complainants walked out on mediation, so where is the evidence of the attempt to resolve this difference? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have entered my concerns at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony1; I believe this request should be closed and not certified. I request that an uninvolved party review this situation and close the RfC/U. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As somebody mistakenly filed a RFC on my person for what was a content dispute and 1 the dispute has been solved, 2 nobody appears to be discussing the dispute since over a month I wonder if the RFC needs to remain listed. RespectfullyNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Where should one list a request for comment on say a template or help page? There seem areas that are not covered, which leaves one little option but to use an inappropriate template or avoid placing a request at all. Richard001 04:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- perhaps a miscellaneous category is called for, though we should talk with... who is it that maintains the helper bot? — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For Help pages it should go in the Wikipedia-related "General policy and convention issues", the titles and explanation of which might warrant changing; or at least, that is the general section where a specific "Help" RFC category would belong if there is enough volume, not a miscellaneous category.

For templates: if there is a subject-related dispute, it should go in the page for that subject; if there is a technical question, it should go to Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) or Wikipedia:Help desk or some other page. —Centrx→talk • 19:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How do RFCs terminate? Automatically by date? (This information should appear on WP:RFC.) The RFCreli on Calvinism, for instance, has received some input, and we seem to have reached consensus now. Can it be removed? --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The RFC ends when some consensus is reached. There does not need to be any set time period. In the past, they were manually de-listed after about a month, but they could be re-listed or bumped up at any time; I don't know what the bot does now. —Centrx→talk • 19:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the bot doesn't ever mark them ended. If consensus has been stable for a few days, feel free to remove the talk page tag by hand. I've seen some users note what the request parameter was, I myself just remove the whole thing. GRBerry (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Having looked again, the bot will remove the tag after 30 days. If the RfC needs to be extended, the tag will need to be placed by hand again. GRBerry 15:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Over at WP:EAR, an editor has asked if it's appropriate to place two tags for the same RfC on a talk page? He has put {{RFCsci}} and {{RFCsoc}} on the same page. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize if this is not the appropriate place to post this question, I didn't think the template talk was the appropriate place. Could you have a look at Talk:2007_Georgian_demonstrations. I recently added a Request for comment and I want to make it as clear as possible for the 3rd party trying to look at both sides, however the other side (user:Kober and user:Papa Carlo) seems to keep wanting to add irrelevant information to that request regarding a checkuser request I made recently. What is the protocol for dealing with something like this? I wouldn't want the RFC to get cluttered such that it becomes unreadable with complaints totally unrelated to the content of the article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, all. Having just noticed this MfD from a week or so back, I thought I'd take a crack at designing a new template for User Conduct RfCs. You can see it at Template:RfC2. My hope is to encourage more of a discussion, and less speech making, by reformating the certified and response sections and adding Q/A sections. I didn't remove Outside views (altho I did rename it to "Additional views"), although I'm strongly tempted to. I did add a section called Proposed solutions, modeled after the arbcom workshop pages somewhat. My hope is to encourage more discussion with those certifying or responding to an RfC, as well as provide an area where all can look at and discuss solutions.

Please take a look, and let's talk about it. If you like or dislike the whole idea, let's keep that here. If you want to discuss changes to the template, let's do it on the template's talk page. If this idea gains support, I'll suggest adding it to the main RfC page as an alternate to the traditional template. Let people try it out, see how it goes. If it doesn't gain any support here, we'll tot it off to TfD in a month or so. --InkSplotch (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No one has made any comments on the new template, so as mentioned I've modified the instructions for creating a User Conduct RFC to include it. Note: I did not remove the original form, and do not plan to myself. I've just added it as an alternative and I hope folks will give it a try. If it works out, and consensus supports it, perhaps someday a permanent change may take place. But if you see my changes and came here to find out why, please give the new form a chance to be used once or twice before saying that no change is necessary. Thanks.. --InkSplotch (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC tag not working @ Talk:Yamashita's_gold#RFC:_Urban_Legend_or_Historical_Fact Jim (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this the right area to report this problem? Thanks, Jim (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I followed the instructions and put an RFC in for the Björk talk page, but it isn't showing up on the list. Can someone please help? Asarelah (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette alerts#User:Eusebeus is not listed in {{RFCpol list}}. Did I tag it wrong somehow? Taric25 (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Nevermind; it's working now. Taric25 (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This one is tricky, because it involves two areas: politics and science.

The Politicization of science article has been locked, but I can't tell whether it's because I am a POV-pusher (and don't know it) or because I'm trying in vain to make a neutral article in spite of the combined forces of other, actual POV pushers.

I want to start with clear, undisputed historical instances of church and government politicization: Galileo and Lysenko, for example. I also (initially) wanted to skip ID because it's still hotly disputed. Now I'm not sure.

Anyway, I would hope that the point of the article is to explain what it means to politicize an issue, i.e., to "use" or "abuse" science to further some ideological, political, religious goal while ignoring or distorting the findings of science to justify one's intended aims. The clearer the example, the better, I thought.

Obviously this talk page is the wrong place to open the discussion. I only came here to ask where and how to open the discussion. {{RFCpol}} maybe? Or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be good to put some kind of separator like a dash or colon between the page name and the reason there's an RFC, when it is displayed on one of the RFC lists. For example, on the RFC Media list, the template should be modified so it displays:

• Talk:Rage Against the Machine — There is a debate...
  

instead of:

• Talk:Rage Against the Machine There is a debate...

I would do this myself, but I don't know how. Help? -- Reaper X 04:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Still no response after 2 and a half months, so I'm throwing this at the bottom again. Can we get a separator put in? -- Reaper X 05:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have self-appointed myself to a RFCsci clerk, in that I have been removing RfC tags from discussions I believe are dead and providing comments about inappropriate RfC listing (since I find such dead discussions in the list annoying). My question is whether there is a guideline for when the remove the tags, and if there are other such “clerks” either self-appointed or more formally appointed. Thanks. Labongo (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't already know, there's a bot that removes RFC listings after 30 days. See #Ending RFCs. –panda (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm attempting to use RfC. This is the first time I've attempted this process. The documentation is a little difficult to follow; I ended up just copying the RfC template from "Wikipedia:RFC#Example use of RFCxxx Template". The resulting heading has a statement "This tag will automatically place the page on the RFCsci list". However, clicking the link takes me to a list, and the RfC I thought I'd just added (Objections to evolution#RfC:_RfC:_gravity_can.27t_be_disproved_by_evidence.3F) isn't there. What am I doing wrong here? --Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you did it right to me. The list is maintained by a 'bot', a piece of automated code which runs on some sort of schedule. I don't know what schedule that is, could be minutes, hours or daily. So it might take some time to show up. If you fear it's taking too long, check out User:RFC_bot for details on the bot and perhaps there's a link on a live person to contact for help. --InkSplotch (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been 15 hours so far, so either it's an awfully slow bot, or it was misformatted somehow. The User:RFC_bot page tells me that there's a page that lists mis-formatted RFC requests, but it links to a nonexistent page-- the error page only gets updated at UTC midnight, though, so that doesn't tell me anything. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

-One day later, and I see that the page of mis-formatted RFC requests is back and doesn't include the RFC, but the RFCsci list has not been updated. The 'bot seems to be having some problem. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

-A bit over two days later, eventually the RFC did make it onto the page. Guess the 'bot was just slow! Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The RFC tag is still on the talk page but I don't see this article in the RFC media list. Can anyone clarify?The Relativist (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an actual information, but I am beginning to think that the RFC_bot is down. I notice on the Template:RFCsci list, history shows no activity by the bot in the last 35 hours, and the activity before that was very odd-- first all of the items on the list were deleted, then they were all put back. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

from request at WP:3RR, moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents by - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps}
Originally, the questions revolved around the creation of a single-purpose account. Financialmodel appears to be an editor who has an abiding interest in proving the Eurofighter Typhoon is better than the F-22 Raptor as all of his edits seem to revolve around introducting contentious or controversial data regarding the capabilities of the two aircraft types. Can admins please look at the two articles and determine whether this is a case of fandom or something more of a sock issue. FWIW, he has already been involved in a 3R issue. Bzuk (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

I have to agree with BZUK. Financialmodel also refuses to abide by the consensus of the group. In fact his newer additions are even less relevant than his original entry that got reverted some time ago.Downtrip (talk)

After quickly looking into it, it seems to be a content dispute, where Financialmodel can't await the outcome of the discussion and repeatedly inserts the disputed paragraph, whereas Downtrip removes this every time. Both users have reverted 5 times in the last 24 hours if I count correctly. From the facts provided I see neither a violation of WP:SOCK here (sock of whom?) nor an abusive use of a single purpose account. Many people with expertise in a specific area quite reasonably make contributions within that area alone, please AGF. My proposal is:

• request a comment as the discussion is ongoing for some time without a result
• protect the article if necessary to allow the discussion

--Oxymoron⁸³ 10:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and I will follow up with a request. The reason for the query to an admin board was that the pattern of discussion resembles that of a former banned editor, (Wikizilla) who has appeared on the talk page and article previously with sock/meat puppets. How can that possibility be determined/eliminated? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

I added the RfC template to the talk page but this does not seem to been copied though to the main page - is the Bot broken?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a link onto the talk page to redirect to here but more seriously, the latest comments in the discussion "string" continue a series of personal attacks. Please have an admin look at this. FWIW Bzuk (talk)

The removal of the sources is not just by Downtrip, but also Bzuk and several other users, where the common factor seems to be they are all American. I have seen them remove these sources several times, all on their personal believes that the top US stealth fighter, the F-22, is invissible, for which reason "a radar lock on the F22 at a suprisingly long rate", must be a lie/romour. Both BBC world and International Air Power Review have reported on it, but socalled wiki admins here claim it must be based on same sources, which they see as lies, but they have no sources that support these views. Their modus operandi is to delete these sources, something they have managed to do for 2 years, they then suggest agreement on these supject, which can only happen if you agree with them it should not be there, in short a deletion and lock on any sources reporting on this. Now when i have refused to let this patriotic bias go on anymore, and we have a conflict, which has only resusulted in yet another succesfull deletion of these sources. I suggest you go read their comments, and try to locate their former comments in the archives about what they think about AIPR source. The fact that i now see Bzuk try to discredit me and link me to some other Wikizilla, show that this is a fight they have had before, where Bzuk, and his American patriots seem to have come out on top. This patriotic vandalism by socalled wiki users, should be looked into, sooner than later. --Financialmodel (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You just have to love the "It's all those evil Americans" theory of yours Financialmodel. Well I like a good conspiracy as much as the next chap so I decided to do a bit of research. This is from Bill Zuk's talk page "A member of the Manitoba Writers' Guild, he is the author of several childrens’ and adult books" "Working primarily as a teacher/librarian for several Manitoba school divisions, Bill also taught Art, Language Arts, Science and Social Studies. He created new libraries in three different school divisions and developed systems and programing for libraries as well as integrating a computer curriculum. For three years, he served as the Chair of the Professional Development Committee for the Manitoba School Library Association." From Bzuk (talk)Downtrip (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Your modus operandi is shamefull Bzuk, instead of discussing this, you try to get me banned behind my back by implying i am some former banned user. Bzuk said: "the pattern of discussion resembles that of a former banned editor, (Wikizilla) who has appeared on the talk page and article previously with sock/meat puppets". How did you get him banned and censored? You did same trick as here behind his back, implying he was some former banned editor? Just because he also refused to allow your patriotic vandalism and deletion of established sources. You only have your own personal oppinion to discredit these sources, and it has worked out pretty well for you for now--Financialmodel (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Here is the informaton in question, the information they have deleted in a period of 2 years soon, with no mention of it what so ever:

Controversial engagements between the Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-22:

In 2006 the aerospace/air force magazine "internatinal AIR POWER REVIEW" (internatinal AIR POWER REVIEW" - year 2006, issue 20, page 45. - ISNB: 1-880588-91-9 (casebound) or ISBN: 1473-9917.) (IAPR) reported two RAF typhoons had been deployed to USA for OEU trials (Operational Evaluation Unit), and that these Typhoons had been flying against the F-22 at NAS China lake (NAWS China Lake). The magazine reported the Eurofigter Typhoon had performed better than was expected against the US top stealth fighter, the F-22. The magazine wrote that it was no surprise the Typhoon had dominated "Within Visual Range" flight, but the Typhoon had surprised by getting a radar lock on the F-22 at a surprisingly long rate. According to IAPR the F-22’s cried off, claiming they were “unstealthed”, and after this the USAF cancelled the next day’s scheduled two vs. two BWR engagements (Beyond Visual Range).

This report has created a lot of controversy. Critics claim the Typhoon have never been near the F-22’s, but before this, on 27 September 2005, Eurofighter GmbH reported that the Typhoons had made their first transatlantic deployment in 2005, as part of 'Exercise High Rider'link. Eurofighter GmbH wrote: "Exercise High Rider 10 took place at the United States Naval Air Weapons Range China Lake in California", which is where IAPR said the engagements had taken place.

On 18 August 2006, the BBC NEWS reported: reports suggest that RAF's Eurofighters have flown highly successful missions against the F-22 during recent exercises in the US"Q&A: link?, but critics claim BBC World just repeats the AIPR source, which they see as a lie in the first place.

Critics argue there is no way the Typhoons could have been able to track the F-22’s in the first place, since the F-22's have been shaped to reduce their radar cross-section, but such problems have already been described by BBC World on December 22 1997:

“The aircraft is also equipped with an infra-red search and track system (IRST) which will enable pilots to spot the enemy by detecting minute differences in temperature between the target and its background, making "stealth" aircraft visible. link

Hardcore critics still argue whether the engagements between the Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-22 have ever happened, but on 24 April 2007 Flightglobal (Flight International) also reported that RAF’s 17 Sqn OEU routinely has deployed two aircraft and around 30 personnel to the USA to operate along US fighters including the F-22link. Air Vice Marshal David Walker, air officer commanding 1 Group, which oversees operations of the RAF's strike aircraft fleets, said: “The vast majority of this work is about making sure that the integration of the two platforms is working". Asked how the fighters compare, walker says: "If you want to say that stealth is a determining factor then Typhoon stands second to the F-22. But I think that as we do more work, the Typhoon will more than hold its own. It's the balance of how you use it, rather than what it is”. And to this BAE Typhoon project test pilot Mark Bowman said: "The F-22 is three times the cost, but you would struggle to see any advantage in the cockpit design - the cost is there to maintain stealth, Typhoon is most likely equivalent, if not better.”>[13] --Financialmodel (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, real life has prevented me from having much to do with Wikipedia these last few weeks – a situation that’s not likely to change before Christmas – or I would already have dropped in on this mess. (“This mess” affects three articles: Eurofighter Typhoon, F-22 Raptor, and Fourth generation jet fighter.) If FinancialModel’s research had extended to the archives of the F-22 Talk Page, he would be aware that the issue of the IAPR story has already been researched – and found wanting: Findings regarding the IAPR report of Typhoon-F-22 engagement. As I observed in September, all we have is a documented report of a rumor on an unidentified web forum (“frequented by RAF pilots”) about a claim posted by an anonymous individual – quite apparently without first-hand knowledge or professional experience – who doesn’t even mention a source for the rumor. WP:Verifiability points out, “Exceptional claims require exceptional sources” – and the fact that the BBC or other news sources have picked up unspecified “reports” of these rumors from unidentified source (which only ever seem to track back to the IAPR article) doesn't quite make the grade. Nor, for that matter, do recent joint operations "prove" a rumor of an earlier event. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It really is too bad Financialmodel that you keep spending so much effort on this subject. It is evident that you can write fairly well and do some research. Why don't you use your talents to address some of the less controversial areas of the entry such as weapons carriage or expand and improve on the PIRATE IRST section that I started. It seems to me that this is all so disruptive and time consuming for everyone involved and you said it yourself that the entry needs to be updated. Go ahead and do it. I would suggest you wire it in the talk page first and then have an admin add it if there is no objection.Downtrip (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Early this morning, I added an RFCstyle tag to the talk page at Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, in the section having to do with Poster v DVD art. Looking through the rest of this page, all I'm seeing is many failed attempts at RFC on multiple levels. Can I get someone to MANUALLY add this RFC to the queue? Not that I wish other RFCs to be skipped, by all means add those as well! However, we DO have a GA-class article that is awaiting comments on the issue at hand, so any help that can be rendered would be GREATLY appreciated! Edit Centric (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I added a RFCsoc RfC to the Physical attractiveness talk page and it hasn't appeared on the Template:RFCsoc list. In fact, nothing seems to be happening. Help, please.--Loodog (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to use the template for to requests for comment here but they have not shown up on the respective RfC pages. This means either that I filled out the template incorrectly, or the bot is not working. As I am inexperienced in both matters, I would be very grateful if someone would check this for me and fix any error. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You had improper template use. I fixed that. β^_command 01:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been experiencing the same problems. I added Asian fetish and So Far from the Bamboo Grove for RfC (the latter added weeks ago) but no results or comments to resolve the dispute. миражinred 22:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Both those appear on the list. β^_command 01:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Waterboarding/Definition appears to be not showing up. Lawrence Cohen 20:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed your improper template. β^_command 01:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm highlighting a problem that doesn't exist, but could or should the RFC templates here correspond with the main headings at Portal:Contents/Lists of topics to make it more straightforward to apply a template to what otherwise might appear to be an ambiguous article in relation to the current list on this page? Mighty Antar (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)