Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alleged admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse

''I have moved some of the material from the main page to here as I think I dragged the discussion away from the topic at hand ... no information destroyed Courtland 18:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)''

''after here was on main page ... moved here Courtland 18:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)''
 * WHBT WHL WSHAND. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ? could you translate that, please ? Courtland 17:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * See: YHBT. -- Kim Bruning 18:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I take it that the sentence earlier in the page that follows in no way applies here then, yes? "The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial." Courtland 18:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Criticisms_of_communism. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wait, actually let's not. I was just informed that the arbcom is looking at the very article that the entire article is about. In that case the RFC should probably be considered superseded. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really, the article was being edited and yes, reverted while the arbcom on ultramarine was going on. Ryan Delaney came along and reverted to a version he preferred and then protected.  His revert is the violation the RfC is about, as is the failure of admins to correct his violation.  While the arbcom may result in some guidlines for that and another article or two, at least for the parties to the arbitration, the protection is really unrelated to it, except that Ryan Delaney assumed that ultramarine would lose apparently because he thought ultramarine was not reaching agreement with the others, and so he did not want to protect ultramarines version, so he reverted.   He shouldn't have done that, and has admitted he ignored policy on purpose and he tried to justify what he did. Ultramarine's version is perfectly good, and if one of the two is going to be picked it is going to be a judgement call, that Delaney presumed to prejudge.  None of this would be an issue if he had been willing to protect whatever version he found there.   --Silverback 01:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Radiant Kim Bruning 01:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The RfC is not about the content of the article. It is about Ryan Delaney's behavior, which occured indepently of any the RfC/ultramarine arbcom, which is not just about this article but others also.  If you check, you will see that Ryan Delaney is not one of the parties on the arbcom, and he is on the RfC, if we are interpreting this as an RfC/user.  Doesn't anybody really look at these things?  You might as well be concurring that the earth is flat, if you are going to concur with something incorrect.  If you don't make an "informed and considered" decision, then you are just trolling, which seems to be a term you like to throw around.--Silverback 01:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to Silverlback's looking out for me
Silverback, this relates to your statement "Courtland appeared to be relying upon that" on the main page in the context of my thanking Radiant! for restoring the page history. Please do not use your assumption of my naivete as a weapon in your disputes. Thank you. Courtland 01:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I thought you were thanking and accepting this part of his statement: "Please note that the majority of edits were to disagree with the RFC, or to accuse its originator of trolling". A simplistic characterization, that I disagree with. Again, apologies.--Silverback 09:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

continuing interest in the RfC
I note that there have been more than a dozen edits to the article since it was put up for deletion, so the community itself seems to find it worth commenting upon. Hopefully it will lead to progress.--Silverback 03:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)