Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MarshalN20




 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  '''Nominator voted keep... I guess that means he's withdrawing. NAC''' Gigs (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment/MarshalN20
This page is nothing more than a bunch of insults and other things going back and forth between the users involved. To make matters worse, the page is being "upheld" by highly questionable means; particularly the "certification" by a user named "RBCM" that has not really done anything in Wikipedia and seems to be either a sock-puppet or a single-purpose account that really should not be used as a foundation to continue with this RfC article (If it were not for "RBCM," the article would have already been deleted weeks ago based on the Wikipedia standards for keeping user RfCs). This is a more elaborate message regarding the matter that I composed to administrator User:BozMo: I will now post the most relevant secions that I wrote to BozMo:

My concern stands in the form that the "law" or "standard" for this article to remain without being deleted is the following:

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, '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 MarshalN20  | T a l k 22:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC). If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 08:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted.''

The article is being upheld by "two" users:

''Users certifying the basis for this dispute However, the user "RBCM" (who does not have a talk page or user page), has barely made any actual contributions to Wikipedia beyond simply adding his name: Here is a list of his 2 contributions (On the same article).
 * --Erebedhel (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * --RBCM (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC) 17:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)''

As such, this user apparently never really did anything or truly "existed" in Wikipedia. In fact, it could almost be said that "RBCM" is nothing more than a sock-puppet. Therefore, I consider it highly unfair for this "Request for Comment" article to still be in existance if the whole thing is in reality gaming the system and violating its original "law" of having 2 editors certify the dispute. No 2 editors are truly certifying the matter for, as I demonstrated above, "RBCM" is nothing more than a random contributor who has high chances of merely being a sock-puppet of "Erebedel" (the other user certifying the RfC).

Cordially,

MarshalN20

Well, now I leave the rest of the matter and the final decision to the discussion groups here at the MfD.

MarshalN20 -- MarshalN20 | T a l k 00:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * speedy keep I'm afraid MarshalN20 that the page does not meet any of the reasons for deletion perhaps you can find more information in WP:ATP in the third paragraph. However RfCs are closed by the bot after thirty days or when one of the three possible outcomes listed in closing and archiving occur.--  Erebedhel  -  Talk  04:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're part of the problem at hand, and yet you have the guts to vote?-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 13:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, according to the WP:ATP source you provided, it clearly states: "Attack pages eligible for speedy deletion may be inside or outside the main namespace. However, this policy is not usually meant to apply to requests for comment, requests for mediation and similar processes (although these processes have their own guidelines for deletion of requests that are invalid or in bad faith). On the other hand, keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. Bear in mind that the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody." The RfC being mentioned here is a list of "dirt" (Most of it made-up dirt) and is a "list of everything bad user:XXX did" (Once again, most of it made-up; though I do have to say that certain things are true, but I wouldn't go count beyond 5); if the RfC is apparently going to go nowhere (which is also what apparently the user "Erebel" proposes based on his stating on how the RfC "Closes" and "archives" itself), what is the point of keeping it "close and archived"? It's like keeping trash in box, when it could very well have already been thrown in the dumpster and done away with.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 13:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Just let the process be followed. If fake support has to be gathered it will not stand the test of consensus. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been waiting for someone or something to come in and give their final say in the matter, but nothing comes up. In the end, the whole page is still a bunch of insults against my person. For instance, look at this particular (and honestly really stupid) claim made against me by Erebel (The person who just posted the "speedy keep"): " admin shopping and defamation." I mean, how is asking an Administrator for advice "Admin shopping"? Much less do I see any "defamation." Oh, and to top things off, here's the latest one: " Pretending to delete this same page without trying to follow the regular procedures." I don't know whether this user is being serious or is posting silly things on purpose. Such an article should really not be allowed to stay in Wikipedia at all, hence also another reason for presenting it here at the Speedy Deletion. However, like I stated in my first post in here, I won't contest your decision.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k


 * Comment It's is a shame that it has come to this. When I mediated that small issue on the War of the Pacific article, everyone was more or less working together.  I urge you all to try to reconsile the differences with everyone involved there civilly, so that you can return to developing the article in a NPOV manner.  As far as this MfD goes, it would be pretty unusual to delete a RFC this way, and I wouldn't recommend doing it this way.  Gigs (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What does the War of the Pacific article have to do with this? Keysanger's comment on the matter in this RfC in question is pointless and without back-up. User Erebel has nothing to do with the War of the Pacific article (Had he been, he probably wouldn't even be accusing me of being "anti-Bolivian"). And, as far as it concerns me, I am no longer involved in the discussion related to the War of the Pacific article. So, I urge you to read the RfC before making comments about the RfC. Moreover, yes, I agree with you that this would a rather unusual way to delete an RfC, but what other way is there? The RfC is being upheld by what holds all signs to be a fake or non-existant user ("RBCM") and it has become into nothing more than a list of "dirt" that is for the most part made-up or twisted to fit particular POVs. It serves no purpose for Wikipedia, and therefore it needs to be deleted.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 21:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Many of the diffs reference edits made to that article. I assumed it was merely an extension of that dispute. Gigs (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's really a different problem (I'm beginning to figure out that I do have a tendency to carry along arguments from one place to the other; however, I must say that to this point my contributions are all good, and that the only reason these users get pissed off at me is due to their anger at me posting things that they don't agree with or consider false...which really is not so much as my fault as my role is simply that of a link between the true authors which can be found in the references). But it's all good. It would be nice if you or anybody else could already review the idiotic RfC already.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 01:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Graeme Bartlett. Also this is not the way to deal with an RfC that the subject doesn't like. Crafty (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Explain to me who is User:RBCM, and how his two sole contributions make for a reliable vote (For, without his vote, the RfC should have already been deleted). This RfC is a joke to Wikipedia, and an insult to my username.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes bad things happen to good people, kid. Crafty (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bad things happen to everyone; unless a person lives in some sort of mountain by himself (which, under certain perspectives, would still be bad). The RfC is nothing but a joke, but apparently the joke is good enough for it to stay in WP archives (because I don't see it going anywhere from where it stands). Anyhow, I'll keep following BozMo's take on the matter, "Meanwhile rest assured that transparency on Wikipedia is total and don't worry too much." The "RBCM" person is a fake, more than half of the information in the RfC is twisted and/or exaggerated, and there are no real proposed solutions to the alleged problem (besides my proposal). If that is what Wikipedia wants to keep, then go ahead and render unto Wikipedia the things which are of Wikipedia (Crap you want, then crap you'll get). Best regards bub.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 22:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you tried WP:SPI? Gigs (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * lol. I didn't even know that existed. I'll give it a shot. Thanks Gigs.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 10:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It does sound a bit extreme, though. It's not really my intention to permanently ban anybody. However, if Erebel truly has sock puppet accounts, it might as well be seen at this point and time.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 10:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No actually that's what I meant by "regular procedures" I always thought that if there is a legitimate reason to doubt about my conduct it should be addressed in the proper way (instead of discussing it as we have been doing). I have already wrote an email about your concerns to the arbitration committee and put myself under their supervision and scrutiny. However I really hope that the Mediation Cabal can give us some help and avoid further problems, I don't know why is taking so long though. Meanwhile I'll still be seeking advice and trying to collaborate in the best way I can. --  Erebedhel  -  Talk  18:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to say that it was you who started this whole "Sock-Puppet" problem when you accused me of holding a sock-puppet (and later a meat-puppet or canvassing) in users Unknown_Lupus, Arafael, and even admin BozMo. However, it has been found that you are not RBCM, and it has been cleared that RBCM is in fact the IP Addresses (which helps clear up things in a nicer manner); and my formal apologies have already been sent directly to you. However, this doesn't take away the fact that RBCM (and his IPs) are single-purpose accounts that have neither tried to resolve the conflict (which is one of the rules marked for users that certify the dispute) or proposed a solution (In fact, RBCM and his IPs have been part of the problem); and, of course, it still doesn't take away that more than half of the things you post in there are highly exaggerated.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 22:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Medcab is severely understaffed, I would not wait on your medcab case being picked up before trying to work this out. Gigs (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Yes, there are several wikiprojects that truly are quite understaffed (and some others that have way too many people on it). As far as it goes, I think that this MfD is going to be a keep; so I'll vote on keep as well (especially since I originally believed that RBCM was a sock-puppet, which now it has been shown that he is not). I'm not going to put much worry to the RfC, though. As I believe I told admin BozMo, now that I look back on things I can tell that my comments regarding my political views and some of my jokes were not the most appropiate for the moment; however, I never personally attacked a user (I was warned about that in the past, and I have not done it again ever since), neither did I hold sock-puppets or use IP Addresses to involve myself in the situation (Which is what "RBCM" did), and much less did I "canvass" or work in partnership with another editor, and even much less do I "hate" Bolivians. Nonetheless, all of these things will eventually be argued upon their own time and place.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.