User:Bakasuprman/Rfcopy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 16:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
- Bakasuprman (talk • contribs • logs)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Contents |
[edit] Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
- The user regards every differing statement as personal attack and issues irrelevant warnings and engages in personal attacks against every differing individual.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5].{subst:unsigned|Holywarrior}16:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Description
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}
[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
[edit] Other users who endorse this summary
[edit] Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Diff 1 was resolved (I took time off from those pages), Diff 2 does not concern me, Diff 3 was a response to a personal attack, Diff 4 does not concern Holywarrior, and Diff 5 was a response to harrassment by Holywarrior. Holywarrior in fact, has been trying to stick something on me, including calling my friend who only edits videogame articles a "sockpuppet" [6]and colluding with another user to get me blocked without notifying me [7]. }
Users who endorse this summary:
[edit] Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Honestly, why is this even created? This is bordering on harassment for someone who has differing views. The user who created this RFC extremely biased against certain ideas. He angered by the fact that some users disagreed with him on an AFD. I think this RFC should be removed at once.
Users who endorse this summary:
- --D-Boy 21:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- --Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- --RF 12:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- --Bakaman Bakatalk 15:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Readers can visit my talk page at User_talk:Blnguyen for some more detail than is currently placed here by Holywarrior. To cut a long story short, there seems to have been a lot of bad blood here, and I would advise that it would be best if both parties called a ceasefire, rather than go through this RfC, as there have been many instances of inflammatory religious debate across Wikipedia involving the two parties, for example see Talk:Californian Hindu textbook controversy and a whole bunch of deletion debates including the two notorious lists. I should probably write this in more proper detail, but since I've already spent three hours today reading the lengthy documentation of shenanigans involved and replied to them on my talk page, I'd just like to say that it would be best if both parties slowed down, as there is probably a lot of unpleasant posts on both sides that still have not been fully documented yet. But anyway, have a look at my talk page, and I'll put more here if there isn't a ceasfire in the next 24 hours.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
- Blnguyen | rant-line 05:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- GizzaChat © 07:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- --RF 12:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
