Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 4

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 4

Attack page/harassment. Not a good faith RfC and more grandstanding on OR's part --Jtrainor (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep The nomination is false - filing an RfC based on valid issues does not constitute harrassment. Nor it is an attack page, not in any real sense of the word. This MfD is more disruptive than the RfC. Let it go. Majorly talk 01:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You wanna wait till I finish filing the MfD first? Sheesh. Jtrainor (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really, because there's no policy based reason why the RfC should be deleted. Majorly talk 02:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the harassment and wikistalking policies arn't policies? Jtrainor (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned, there has been no harrassment. Majorly talk 02:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Inappropriate claims at MfD WQA on the above allegations made without proof nor willingness to provide proof. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete As per [[1]], this RfC clearly lacks merit and is nothing more than a fishing expedition. Ottava Rima has a history of harassing Bishonen and this is just more of the same. As such, this page should be nuked. Jtrainor (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting, because it highlights the fact Bishonen apparently aided an abusive sockpuppet account. Does this not trouble you, that an admin has done that? I find it troubling, and definitely something that should be discussed, not swept under the rug. Majorly talk 02:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Procedural keep. You may well be right; if you are, the RfC will remain unendorsed and will be deleted accordingly within a few days. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This MfD right now serves no purpose. If he is right, which I don't think he is, the RfC will be deleted. But if not, it won't be, so a nomination is unnecessary. Majorly talk 02:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - I have provided more diffs to show that the proper requirements have been met. There is no proof that I have a history of harassing the Bishonen, and unless there are diffs provided to back up the allegation, I think there is a severe breach of civility. The statements above make it clear that this MfD is retaliatory. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Disruptive in the extreme, and little more than an excuse for Ottava to take out his anger on Bishonen. UnitAnode 03:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of this anger. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Your anger is pretty self-evident. UnitAnode 04:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Inappropriate claims at MfD WQA on the above allegations made without proof nor willingness to provide proof. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Per Juliancolton. Additionally, there are diffs and an outside view (by Majorly) that agree with Ottava Rima, so clearly there must be something to discuss. If you feel Ottava is wrong, then say so at the RfC/U, but deleting something in the dispute resolution process that you don't agree with is simply ridiculous. NW (Talk) 04:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Procedural Conditional Future Speedy Delete as failed to reach endorsement in approx 36 hours unless someone endorses and demonstrates that they approached Bishonen about the same dispute that OR approached her about, 17 months ago. Hipocrite (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, John Carter already did. Your challenge wouldn't matter because you already posted on the page so you are not a neutral observer. Regardless, he clearly attempted to resolve the issue, as seen by the talk page, the ANI, and the WQA dealing with the Talk:William Melmoth incident. The RfC/U is official. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no diff posted of him addressing Bishonen at any point. If he can/will not provide a diff, then the RFC will be deleted in approx 36 hours. Hipocrite (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite is not an RfC clerk, nor are there any. RfC/U's requirement is more than enough met, and there is quite a bit of leniency, especially with a dispute that was long lasting with multiple forums used. The requirement is only to show that RfC was not the first step. Seeing as how ANI has been approached on the topic over 5 times, WQA multiple times, ArbCom, etc, that is more than enough to meet the standard. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It will be eligible for speedy deletion in another 36 hours. Hipocrite (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• There are specific requirements for certification. You're not close to meeting those. Hipocrite is exactly right. UnitAnode 04:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Per what? You? It is not consensus based. As long as they put it up and it shows the dispute and them involved, it is acceptable. You would have to dramatically change RfC/U to have it in the way you claim. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  Per the instructions that you should have read before starting this RfC. I'm not going to cut-and-paste for you that which you should have read prior to opening this disruptive RfC. UnitAnode 05:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I already quoted them and they agree with me. At no instance does it say anything else but trying to resolve the -dispute-, which does not mean that the person listed has to be directly addressed as long as the -dispute- is addressed. That is evident in JC giving Geogre warnings and then taking him to WQA and ANI over it. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  No, they don't agree with you. Unless you somehow misconstrue what "with this user" means, and what "same dispute" means, and what it means when it requires that other certifiers be examples of trying to solve the same dispute. You need to withdraw the disruptive RfC, and disengage from this battle mode you're currently in. UnitAnode 05:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Procedural keep - it'll probably be gone before the MfD ends anyway. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep attempts to remove a rfc before it closes strike me as a way almost certain to increase drama and a generally bad idea. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• Procedural keep - as it should expire before this MfD. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• Procedural keep. And lets not have Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 4 go blue, ok? Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)