Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Neutrality (2)

This RfC is broken

This RfC is completely broken, most of the responses are about whether Neutrality's listing of schools is justified, when the actual case is simply that he refused to discuss the pace of his nominations. Kappa 08:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And that, of course, isn't justification for an RfC. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is. The dispute resolution policy is part of Wikipedia policy by which we are all bound. If you have a dispute with someone and the person you're politely and respectfully complaining to refuses to respond, the next step is RfC. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you need grounds other than "he won't listen to me!" to file a personal RfC. Chris talk back 11:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Failure to respond to two good faith, polite attempts at dispute resolution, in the circumstances pertaining (editor has gone through the alphabet and made nearly sixty schools deletion listings inside three days), is sufficient grounds. An RfC is just a way of getting third party opinions. Neutrality now knows that nine editors think his campaign is misguided. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DS1953's external view

My response was apparently beyond the scope of the RfC, and I apologize to anyone who had to read it. I still believe, however, that both the words and the principles of the deletion policy contemplate that the nominator has an obligation to make a determination that deletion is appropriate by looking at the subject. So when people say that no policy was violated, I feel the need to speak up. I see now that the forum may have been the wrong choice, even though it appears to me that Neutrality, in good faith, violated the policy as I see it. Since I am not proposing (or even endorsing) the RfC, perhaps a talk page somewhere would be a better choice.

I thought your summary was just fine, because it addressed the actual roots of the dispute - David Gerard 20:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I came across a stub the other day for an early governor of a state that said simply "XXX was an American politician," with a notice that it was a stub and needed expanding. The person himself was clearly notable but based on the spectacularly poor stub, he could have been a city councilman in a small town. If someone goes through political stubs doing what Neutrality did with schools, I suspect that there are a lot of notable politicians that the nominator would not recognize. The same can be said for actors, musicians and many other categories I have come across. A stub with potential appears, under the deletion policy, to be an improper subject of a VfD. The problem, then, is that perhaps there should be a different procedure for dealing with poor quality stubs. For example, a user could post a "Stub Deletion Notice" on any stub which is more than 90 days old that says the stub is subject to deletion by an administrator unless it is expanded within 30 or 60 days. No vote, either it gets expanded or deleted. The deletion would be without prejudice in that a user could post a real article at any time. Even if a school (politician, actor, musician, etc...) is notable, a one line stub that hangs around forever does not further the goals of Wikipedia. However, the five day time frame that is good for deleting vanity pages or pages which clearly have no potential to become encyclopedic is much too short when the goal is to expand stubs into real articles (which can then be more easily evaluated for their encyclopedic potential). DS1953 15:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. How long does it take to expand a stub, typically? I'm sure there are numbers on this - David Gerard 20:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]