Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive/Mintguy: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:16, 27 August 2004

Latest revision as of 03:39, 25 September 2004

(12 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)

Line 17:

:Yes, I hope the implication is not that this is something wrong. RFC is not a survey, it is a community working document which is modified until such time as a consensus is reached. Some objections have been voiced, so I've adjusted as such by removing some items and adding additional statements. I welcome any objective input. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 12:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::Netholic is doing his job to keep this article up to date. I see he is administering the situation quite well. If nobody put forth an effort like his, then the issue would slide away unresolved. [[User:Kenneth Alan|Kenneth Alanson]] 01:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

==Mailing list==

Line 29 ⟶ 30:

:: On other occasions, user's contributions to other sections of *.wikipedia.com have been quoted when their actions are questionable. Since the mailing list is clearly devoted to the topic of en.wikipedia.org, and you identified yourself in the email as "Mintguy" and discussed this RFC yourself, I consider it completely valid for comment, and it will not be removed without the consensus of other users signing the "Statement of dispute" section. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 00:39, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:::Ahem, yes Mintguy, if you are so adamant about taking every occasion to slam Wikipedia editors, then I expect no whining from you when it happens right back by an account of your own words. Either stop the whining or stop the attacks and wars-or both, which would be best. [[User:Kenneth Alan|Kenneth Alanson]] 01:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

==Shows up one awkwardness of the RfC procedure==

Line 35 ⟶ 36:

There are two people supporting this RfC and somewhere between 7 and 16 who don't support it. RfC rules say that an RfC can stay longer than 48 hours if two people support it. If you exclude parties directly relating to a dispute, no-one supports it. What happens next? As it clear that the overwhelming majority are happy with Mintguy's actions, I vote we delete/shelve/whatever it. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 00:46, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:See my response above under "Moving Comments". [[User:Kenneth Alan|Kenneth Alanson]] 01:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::This is the part of RfC I don't understand. What good does it do to keep it? There are lots of pages just left lying around because 2 people signed them. Either it should be declared closed, and preferably deleted, or it should move on to some other stage (presumably [[Wikipedia:requests for arbitration|requests for arbitration]]). It shouldn't just be left as an RfC page. There has to be some stage it is meant to move onto. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 05:04, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

:::There is a time limit for the signing requirement (48 hours), but not any other stage. I would propose that pages remain for (x) weeks after the last signifigant edit by one of the Dispute signers. I know my plan with this is to update it as necessary and hopefully keep discussion going. If certain charges need to be removed to accomplish that, then that may happen. As the one(s) initiating the dispute, my responsibility is to get the RfC to the point where a majority of signers sign the disputed section. If I don't live up to that task (by updating the dispute section), then it should be removed. I'd propose a three week lag (to cover someone going out of town), with a message being left on the dispute signers Talk pages warning of pending removal one week before that time expires. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 05:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)