Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:29, 14 August 2005

diffs

I don't know the editors involved here on either side. This is just a comment about form. The "Evidence of disputed behavior" section has a lot of accusations and allegations, but very few diffs. It would help if when you allege an editor did "blah", that you include a diff showing him doing "blah". FuelWagon 14:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Evidence gathering is the most time-consuming and conflusterpating part of writing up an rfc. I'm not disagreeing with Noitall's summary, but before I sign on, I'll wait until the rfc is more complete. (Note: not every violation need be diffed, just a representative sample that demonstrates the veracity of each point. I'd help out with this, but I won't have time until sometime Sunday to do much editing.) Tomer 18:25, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Will do. I provided references, but I know I need to go through and get a bunch of links. My first RfC and hopefully my last. --Noitall 20:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Please note the following points

• Misplaced Pages:Consensus isn't a policy, and doesn't apply anyway, 1 person (Noitall) is not a consensus on their own
• Misplaced Pages:Negotiation isn't a policy, and isn't even a guideline, and Noitall clearly broke it by deciding not to continue discussion of the edits on the The Bible and history talk page.
• Misplaced Pages:Third opinion isn't a policy, and I can't break it as I'm not the 3rd party
• Misplaced Pages:Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point does not apply, no "point" is being illustrated here.
• Numerous behavior issues isn't a policy neither is it a guideline. Indeed it could be considered a personal attack. DO NOT MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS.
• Vandalism - There is a policy here, but that isn't it, that isn't even a link. Besides, I haven't committed vandalism - see the policy.
• Sockpuppetry - There is a policy here, but that isn't it, that isn't even a link. Besides, editing when you have not noticed you are logged out isn't considered sockpuppetry.
• Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy - I didn't seek to evade this, my IP simply wasn't blocked, and I wasn't aware of the block until I logged in (David Gerard will be able to confirm this if you don't believe me and wish to have evidence, although I doubt he will be bothered).
• Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule states that 3 reverts is not an entitlement, which begs the question "Why did Noitall keep reverting"?
• A statement to Wesley is NOT a request for mediation. Requests for mediation are made at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation. There wasn't one. And Wesley did not respond.
• Slimvirgin's attempt actually elicits response: , , , but then Noitall sabotages it by interfering in my discussion with Slimvirgin - "mediation" means that I am allowed to communicate with Slimvirgin without that communication being interfered with by Noitall, Slimvirgin does not continue the discussion subsequently
• Attempting to solve a dispute with Noitall does not include the entire history of my talk page. Disputes with other people are not disputes with Noitall. My entire talk page is NOT evidence of attempts to solve a dispute with Noitall.
• The single word "everyone" is NOT evidence.

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The Rfc qualifies as there is more than one person that agrees with the evidence of the Rfc. It appears many people have tried to negotiate with you on issues. You disrupted Misplaced Pages to make a point when you kept trying to insert counterargument with items completely unrelated to the article on George W. Bush. Noitail did not make reverts on this information, however, several other editors did and your insistance of the inclusion of the information against what was a small concensus resulted in your violation of WP:3RR. It is not uncommon that other editors will cease discussing issues when they see that no success is occurring when trying to inform others of Misplaced Pages policy as in the case of User:SlimVirgin. It appears you repeatedly delete talk on your talk page, citing it as your user space. That is not correct as the area commonly known as personal user space is your user page, not your talk pages, so it's hard to check if Noitali has conversed with you if you keep deleting his commentary. While the single word "everyone" is not evidence, I see little evidence of ANYONE in agreement with you.--MONGO 20:01, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

"The Rfc qualifies as there is more than one person that agrees with the evidence of the Rfc". As I point out, in that case, would someone undelete the RfC against Noitall, as my co-signing must thus be valid. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 02:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

As the person who originally filed the RfC in question, I oppose User:-Ril-'s request for undeletion of the RfC. The matter is done and past, and there is no need to bring it up again. To User:-Ril-: Stop trying to cause problems, you are only making this worse for yourself. I think in light of your actions, I will be changing a bit of my stance on the RfC page. Agriculture 02:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This point is moot. -Ril-'s certification of the basis of the dispute between you and Noitall was, as has been made very clear already, completely inappropriate, since he did not make so much as a single edit that would qualify as an attempt to resolve the dispute between you. I can assure you that, regardless of whether or not you want the RfC revived, the only reason it will be revived will be as evidence against -Ril-. I would, therefore, counsel him to drop any insistence thereupon, in his own best interest. Tomer 06:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I re-iterate my statement that of the signatories, the only one whose certification, bar Noitall, is valid in an RFC concerning my interaction with Noitall, is UninvitedCompany, and even then UninvitedCompany is clearly only involved in part of it. This certification is as valid as mine against Noitall in Noitall's RfC.

Therefore

• Either my certification of Noitall's RfC is valid, and the RfC should be undeleted
• Or no-one bar Noitall has validly certified this RfC and it should therefore be deleted as the 48 hours has now passed.

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

-Ril-, step back for a moment. Do you really think that your endless Wikilawyering over both this RfC, the UninvitedCompany RfC and the RfC you are complaining about above makes anyone take you more seriously? Do you really want people to read a comment from -Ril- and think, "oh yeah, he's just wikilawyering all over the place again"? Play nicely and you'll be listened to properly. -Splash 15:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

"Play nicely" applies to both sides. Either Noitall's RfC should be undeleted as being properly certified, or this one should be deleted as being improperly certified. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

User:-Ril-, you had no prior involvement with the RfC against User:Noitall. Your cert was invalid. The current RfC is about your continued disruption of Misplaced Pages. I have been both witness, and affected by your disruptive behavior. My cert, as well as the certs of others is perfectly valid. The RfC I filed against User:Noitall was specifically limited to his personal attacks on Talk:Lincoln. Not his behavior in general. Agriculture 18:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

-Ril- Splash is right. Get a grip. This is not a legal process - it's a community. To operate a community needs give and take – compromise – and a certain amount of humility from all. The wiki-community is broad, open, and tolerant– but to a point. We need to be able to work together. If you consistently piss off too may people, if you are out to score points and pick fights, if you are always aggressive when criticising and self-righteous when criticised, you will inevitably be ostracised or ejected. Where do you think this is all going to end? You have invested hundreds of hours on this project – do you really want kicked off? I’m beginning to think that may be your aim. Is wikipedia itself boring you? --Doc (?) 16:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)--Doc (?) 16:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Totally high

It was a simple enough 3RR case. I could have been high on crack (not that I know what that's like!). I stand by that decision, I would make the exact same call now (I explained it to -Ril- here), and of course would not hesitate to take any and all administrative actions while under narcotics — never will I spare all of you the pleasure (sadly, nothing further is planned, so you lose Misplaced Pages!). Anyway, I really don't know enough about this case, but I'm leaning toward endorsing it since I have noticed problematic trends. I'll try to study it more closely soon. I note that I, myself, don't recall ever encountering incivility from -Ril- directed against myself, nor been subject to any complications, for that matter. El_C 12:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)