User talk:Fabartus/TS RFC matter

This is As of BedTime:

3rd update

 * This is third of three posts in inverse order (LIFO) over 11 hours:
 * As of now, no Admin has responded to my request for assistance on this matter. (see below) I surmise the use of your name may have made them shy away? Or my unorthodox method? Mel left me an unsigned note that there was no process to close a RFC. In any event, I'm going to bed and laying this in your lap with this forwarning: The complaintant links I gave are now suspect or broken, as they've archieved their talk page(s) (User:Cmapm at least). You may take that as vindication of my decision to act so boldly (She's ashamed in a word). The bottom of my talk has most of the rest This matter top down Fra nkB


 * Enthusiasm for 'duly documenting the RFC'(below) has wayned precipitously, but if you deem it necessary as I shouldered that responsibility, I will do so, given a decision as to what you need. Ms. Cmapm's archieved talk is the best quick reference as it's chronological and comprehensive. (She copies back posts from anothers talk with some rigorous dilegence). For the most part that is what I'd thought to use to annotate the RFC before it was archieved or whatever happens to them. Fra nkB 07:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

2nd update/Bold Action
21:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Time having expired the complaintants want this matter to stop cluttering their talk pages, which I will duly document in the RFC I am about to act boldly to Kill. In sum, the matter is dead, but feel free to satisfy your curiosity. If you want to censor me. I have a clear concsience. Fra nkB


 * I generated the above note, then killed the RFC and left this which has drawn no attention, or at least no contact. (where you came in this morning, I presume ) Fra nkB  07:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Initial Contact (revised by correction)
Hi Tony:
 * I've been mediating the silliest dispute and think we've got a willingness to bury the hachett re:Requests_for_comment/Mel_Ettis, for which we need enough horsepower. Leaning on Mel for an apology might help as well. He, like you and I, can come off curt and rude as text exchanges frequently do. Shrug. I've spent hours pouring oil OTW, so if you, or someone you can suggest with the power can verify the below stated intentions that this should 'Go Away', I can go out and use the sunny day God blessed me with!  I'll await your response as to what further I can do, or that you are taking the matter in hand directly or by delegation. Thanks! User: fabartus, email: fabartus@comcast.net (Gets Audible alarm)


 * Thread1 main offended party.
 * Thread2 The co-complainent.
 * now fixed to point the Archieved Page. Fra nkB 08:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There're other miscellaneous discussions of course, but this second thread has the most significant statements in chronological order. Both complaintants are newbies of 2 and 3 months respectively.
 * Correction, second party has more edits AND time than I. (Just can't figure why she...) Fra nkB  20:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All three now want an end to it. I've suggested that the alledged 'attack page' be embedded in the RFC, satisfying the first party, which is actually just a chronological record as Mel was probably trying to figure what triggered the exchange in the first place. Certainly not the typical attack page!


 * An aside - has there ever been an attempt to have some form of instant messaging within and solely limited to wiki editors? No reason I can see technically that the thread (file reference, s.a. dif. numbers in history/version&mdash; the systems storage method) couldn't be saved by session as an autopost by the system onto each users talk page. Could do the same with a chat room. Just a radom bit of thought!
 * If you've not gotten back to me in 47 minutes (I've got 3:13 pm EDST), I'll refer to someone else that appears active. Fra nkB 20:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Forty-seven minutes? Good grief! --Tony Sidaway 07:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, I suspect that the reason nobody is showing enthusiasm is that you're just shoveling piles of unreadable nonsense onto their talk pages.

Please answer each of these questions, if possible in ten words or less:

1) You want to close an RfC, yes or no?

2) If so, which RfC? Provide a direct link to the RfC and don't waffle.

3) In ten words or preferably much, much less, what is the reason the RfC should be closed?

Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 07:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the above, why didn't you post my talk! Duhhh... Hello. It flashes a banner! RING THE DAMN PHONE! I was sitting here waiting and watching.
 * Don't get short with me when the data is given as a link above. For point 1, the second and third links hit the consensus text. For the RFC, the first link says that plainly. I was returning to patch the link above and then I saw this SHIT your ego feels satisfied with as 'good enough'. C-R-A-P, CRAP!

btw, tough on the 47 minutes... I'd seen you were active, and I had other deadlines and had promised to deal with it. But you were too good to ring the phone? Grow up! Fra</B> nkB 08:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

edit war and vandalism on Basij
Well sourced material is being repeatedly removed. All material on human rights issues is either a direct quote or a paraphrase of sourced material. As the editor even took to vandalizing the talk page, I don't feel it's fruitful to engage in edit war or discussion. Could you please restore these pages? --tickle me 23:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've warned him against further vandalism. Feel free to restore the information. I will be watching and he knows I will block him if he persists. --Tony Sidaway 07:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Initial Contact (revised by correction)
Hi Tony:
 * I've been mediating the silliest dispute and think we've got a willingness to bury the hachett

re:Requests_for_comment/Mel_Ettis, for which we need enough horsepower. Leaning on Mel for an apology

might help as well. He, like you and I, can come off curt and rude as text exchanges frequently do. Shrug. I've spent

hours pouring oil OTW, so if you, or someone you can suggest with the power can verify the below stated intentions

that this should 'Go Away', I can go out and use the sunny day God blessed me with! I'll await your response as to

what further I can do, or that you are taking the matter in hand directly or by delegation. Thanks! [[User:

fabartus]], email: fabartus@comcast.net (Gets Audible alarm)


 * Thread1 main offended party.
 * Thread2 The co-complainent.
 * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cmapm/Archive2#Crossing_Posts_on_MS_v._ME now fixed to point the Archieved

Page]. <B>Fra</B> nkB 08:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC) There're other miscellaneous discussions of course, but this second thread has the most significant statements in

chronological order. Both complaintants are newbies of 2 and 3 months respectively.
 * Correction, second party has more edits AND time than I. (Just can't figure why she...)

<B>Fra</B> nkB 20:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All three now want an end to it. I've suggested that the alledged 'attack page' be embedded in the RFC, satisfying

the first party, which is actually just a chronological record as Mel was probably trying to figure what triggered the

exchange in the first place. Certainly not the typical attack page!


 * An aside - has there ever been an attempt to have some form of instant messaging within and solely limited to wiki

editors? No reason I can see technically that the thread (file reference, s.a. dif. numbers in

history/version&mdash; the systems storage method) couldn't be saved by session as an autopost by the system onto

each users talk page. Could do the same with a chat room. Just a radom bit of thought!
 * If you've not gotten back to me in 47 minutes (I've got 3:13 pm EDST), I'll refer to someone else that appears

active. <B>Fra</B> nkB 20:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Forty-seven minutes? Good grief! --Tony Sidaway 07:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, I suspect that the reason nobody is showing enthusiasm is that you're just shoveling piles of unreadable

nonsense onto their talk pages.

Please answer each of these questions, if possible in ten words or less:

1) You want to close an RfC, yes or no?

2) If so, which RfC? Provide a direct link to the RfC and don't waffle.

3) In ten words or preferably much, much less, what is the reason the RfC should be closed?

Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 07:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the above, why didn't you post my talk! Duhhh... Hello. It flashes a banner! RING THE DAMN PHONE! I

was sitting here waiting and watching.
 * Don't get short with me when the data is given as a link above. For point 1, the second and third links hit the

consensus text. For the RFC, the first link says that plainly. I was returning to patch the link above and then I saw

this SHIT your ego feels satisfied with as 'good enough'. C-R-A-P, CRAP!

btw, tough on the 47 minutes... I'd seen you were active, and I had other deadlines and had promised to deal with it.

But you were too good to ring the phone? Grow up! <B>Fra</B> [[User

talk:Fabartus|nkB]] 08:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've had enough.
 * Firstly I was otherwise occupied when you left your message (remember that people you're trying to contact may have

lives outside Wikipedia and may well live on a different continent from your own).
 * My last contribution to Wikipedia prior to your message had been at 16:51 UTC.
 * As it happens, I was asleep by 20:13 UTC when you left your first message.
 * Why I was asleep at that time in the evening is none of your business, but since I hadn't been active on the wiki

for over three hours you could hardly have had any serious expectation of a reply within 47 minutes.
 * Secondly when I did wake up this morning you may see that my first priority was to pursue an ongoing arbitration

case in which the continuing activities of one user are considered by the Arbitration Committee to be a serious abuse

of Wikipedia. My second priority was to fulful some of my tasks as a clerk on Wikipedia. Only after some time did I

notice that there were any messages on my talk page. I responded to them in order of comprehensibility.
 * Third, I don't normally respond on other people's talk pages. If you want me to do something for you, please check

for my response here.
 * Finally, I still have absolutely no idea what you wanted me to do. You have not made yourself understood. And now

when I ask for a clear and concise description of what you want done, you descend to personal insults.


 * That's enough. Go and find someone else to do whatever it is you wanted done. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony

Sidaway]] 10:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)