I'm afraid that after CoolCat's modifications this RfC still has formal and substantial shortcomings that may render it invalid. I suggest for administrators to consider the following in their decision to de-list or not:
- There is no evidence that this is about a single dispute. It seems to be an unconnected list of incidents of questionable behaviour by three unrelated people (whose only commonality is that they are all three Kurdish?) What is the status of the notice on top of the RfC template: "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users."?
- Because of the vague definition of the topic, it is unclear to me what status could possibly attach to any "evidence of trying and failing to resolve this dispute", or who could possibly be in a position to "certify" it.
- As of now (11:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)) ( [1]), there is still no evidence of "trying and failing..." with respect to two of the three persons in question.
- Despite its present time stamp of 23 March, this RfC was in fact created at 22:50, 21 March 2006. ( [2]). It has been listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct since the same time. [3]. It was brought into the proper form of an RfC page only at 14:49, 22 March ( [4]). Today, CoolCat moved the old page and re-created it, removing also this comment, but (as far as I can see) made only minor modifications to the RfC itself. So I don't really see how this should now count as a "new" RfC. As outlined above, even in this new form it may still not fulfill all the requirements. Under these circumstances, I'm not sure that the 48-hour period should indeed be allowed to be reset to the time of re-creation (23 Mar 2006 10:16).
Lukas (T.| @) 11:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The following was moved back here from the previous version of this page:
- Sorry for the trobble. The time of properly formatted rfc (real rfc) should be counted. As there was no activity prior. Sorry I just didnt file an RfC for ages. -- Cool Cat Talk| @ 09:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
He's right you know, it says it right there This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users.. I'm going to have to remove my endorsement. - FrancisTyers 11:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Fine, Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an RfC needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. -- Cool Cat Talk| @ 00:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that after CoolCat's modifications this RfC still has formal and substantial shortcomings that may render it invalid. I suggest for administrators to consider the following in their decision to de-list or not:
- There is no evidence that this is about a single dispute. It seems to be an unconnected list of incidents of questionable behaviour by three unrelated people (whose only commonality is that they are all three Kurdish?) What is the status of the notice on top of the RfC template: "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users."?
- Because of the vague definition of the topic, it is unclear to me what status could possibly attach to any "evidence of trying and failing to resolve this dispute", or who could possibly be in a position to "certify" it.
- As of now (11:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)) ( [1]), there is still no evidence of "trying and failing..." with respect to two of the three persons in question.
- Despite its present time stamp of 23 March, this RfC was in fact created at 22:50, 21 March 2006. ( [2]). It has been listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct since the same time. [3]. It was brought into the proper form of an RfC page only at 14:49, 22 March ( [4]). Today, CoolCat moved the old page and re-created it, removing also this comment, but (as far as I can see) made only minor modifications to the RfC itself. So I don't really see how this should now count as a "new" RfC. As outlined above, even in this new form it may still not fulfill all the requirements. Under these circumstances, I'm not sure that the 48-hour period should indeed be allowed to be reset to the time of re-creation (23 Mar 2006 10:16).
Lukas (T.| @) 11:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The following was moved back here from the previous version of this page:
- Sorry for the trobble. The time of properly formatted rfc (real rfc) should be counted. As there was no activity prior. Sorry I just didnt file an RfC for ages. -- Cool Cat Talk| @ 09:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
He's right you know, it says it right there This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users.. I'm going to have to remove my endorsement. - FrancisTyers 11:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Fine, Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an RfC needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. -- Cool Cat Talk| @ 00:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)