| Revision as of 19:22, 7 April 2010 editDelicious carbuncle (talk | contribs)21,054 editsm →This is an RfC on BLP, nothing more.: typo← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:49, 9 April 2010 edit undoAsh (talk | contribs)23,897 edits RelevanceNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Appropriate evidence to support this RFC/U== | |||
| The comment added by {{user|XinJeisan}} relate to edits I made in '''2006''' and '''2008'''. Considering that Delicious carbuncle's examples were from 2009, could anyone tempted to comment please note that I made over '''8,000''' edits in '''2010'''. In any dispute resolution process consideration should be given to editor's improving the nature of their contributions over time. Any evidence that is '''years''' out of date does not help the issue under discussion and is likely to be dismissed as irrelevant for this reason alone. ] (]) 08:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == This is an RfC on BLP, nothing more. == | == This is an RfC on BLP, nothing more. == | ||
| Per , it seems plain that there are more issues being addressed here than have been laid out in this RfC. If Dc would like to address more issues than Ash's BLP contributions, they should be processed through the proper dispute resolution channels (i.e.: spelled out clearly in this Rfc, to start). Otherwise, this can be perceived as WikiHounding. ] (]) 14:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC) | Per , it seems plain that there are more issues being addressed here than have been laid out in this RfC. If Dc would like to address more issues than Ash's BLP contributions, they should be processed through the proper dispute resolution channels (i.e.: spelled out clearly in this Rfc, to start). Otherwise, this can be perceived as WikiHounding. ] (]) 14:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 08:49, 9 April 2010
Appropriate evidence to support this RFC/U
The comment added by XinJeisan (talk · contribs) relate to edits I made in 2006 and 2008. Considering that Delicious carbuncle's examples were from 2009, could anyone tempted to comment please note that I made over 8,000 edits in 2010. In any dispute resolution process consideration should be given to editor's improving the nature of their contributions over time. Any evidence that is years out of date does not help the issue under discussion and is likely to be dismissed as irrelevant for this reason alone. Ash (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
This is an RfC on BLP, nothing more.
Per Delicious carbuncle's comments here, it seems plain that there are more issues being addressed here than have been laid out in this RfC. If Dc would like to address more issues than Ash's BLP contributions, they should be processed through the proper dispute resolution channels (i.e.: spelled out clearly in this Rfc, to start). Otherwise, this can be perceived as WikiHounding. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you can "perceive" in one hand...Bali ultimate (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- ...while giving the finger with the other? The outcome of this RfC will pertain to the issues addressed in the Statement of the Dispute, and nothing more. Should more changes be desired, they should be addressed directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.230.164 (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Other having a troll deliberately misrepresenting what I've written, I don't see any cause for concern here. This RFC is about Ash's misuse of citations. The fact that I expect that there will eventually be an ARBCOM discussion relating to the topic area of gay pron performers and editors involved in it -- including me -- is immaterial. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ash stated that you "accused (them) of being a fraud, liar and accusing others of homophobia. Characterizations such as "seeing Fred Phelps around every corner" are inflammatory, misrepresent my statements make me seem ridiculously hysterical."
- You replied: "For the record, you seem to be attributing to me comments I have not made, but all of it is better dealt with at the RFC." None of which is actually addressed in this RfC. Correct? Correct. So how, exactly, were you misrepresented? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ash's comment was much longer than what you quoted, hence the "all of it" in my reply. I'm tired of your trolling now and you show no signs of going away, so it is time for you to be sent on your way: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Rusty Trombone. Bye. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Other having a troll deliberately misrepresenting what I've written, I don't see any cause for concern here. This RFC is about Ash's misuse of citations. The fact that I expect that there will eventually be an ARBCOM discussion relating to the topic area of gay pron performers and editors involved in it -- including me -- is immaterial. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- ...while giving the finger with the other? The outcome of this RfC will pertain to the issues addressed in the Statement of the Dispute, and nothing more. Should more changes be desired, they should be addressed directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.230.164 (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Note moved from main page
- Note: Tarc's comment above is in no way an expression of endorsement of Bali's summary in any way and should appropriately be moved to the talk page of this project. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have moved the above from the main page to this. This IP anon has already pestered me on my talk page to move my initial comment (I declined, as it is specifically addressing points made in the section), and no sees fit to place comments under my own, which IMO is the sort of thing that actually does belong on this page. Tarc (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)