Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/69.253.195.228

Outside View by Slimvirgin
I think this comment is not really appropriate to this particular RfC. As the RfC stated, it is a conduct dispute, not a content one. Whether or not you agree with Ekman's interpretation of policy and views on this article, take another look at his linked or other edits and please adress your comments to his conduct. I think he was very, very wrong about the content, but even being right does not excuse his conduct. If content is the issue, we need another RfC. Dsol 19:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree &mdash; the outside view does not address most of the issues of the RfC. It does seem to address points 6 and 7, from a content perspective.  But what is relevant is 69.253.195.228 behavior: he seems unwilling to recognize any limits to his editing rights.


 * SlimVirgin, you seem reasonable and I feel that with your help we can come to a nice, NPOV view of the article. I do not feel that way about 69.253.195.228, who has never backed down on any issue.  The RfC is not just to debate his view of verifiability or the content of the article, but to debate his history of blanking, edits without consensus, 3RR violation, and unwillingness to discuss civilly.  This is epitomized by his view that the eXile article is an extension of the journal.  I don't want that, I don't think anyone wants it. --Mgreenbe 10:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Mgreenbe, 69.253 believed he was being defamed, which is why he behaved as he did. Now that the offending passage has been removed, hopefully the reverting will stop. I'm surprise you couldn't just have done that in the first place, rather than see him blocked twice. The eXile can't be used as a source about anyone other than itself. I've already explained why a thousand times, so I won't repeat it here. See the relevant talk pages for more details.


 * It seems to me that it's Dsol and possibly Clarence Thomas/Ryan Utt who see WP as an extension of the eXile, so I'm glad we agree that it isn't. Just because something was published there doesn't mean we can repeat it here. But I've said this so often, it's pointless to repeat it. The article's looking a lot more factual now, and there are some third-party sources in it. Some citations are still needed, but other than that, it seems okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur the the previous opinions. It's clear that 69.253.195.228 is breaking the rules.  SlimVirgin is reluctant to condemn these violations, its seems, because she sympathizes with the user and she mistakenly believes that the eXile is somehow comparable to a Neo Nazi organization. Ryan Utt

Hauser's Comment
Thanks for contributing to this RfC. Please try to focus on conduct, not content, as that is the issue at hand. Regarding your comment, in accordance with what establsihed policy or protocol does the article contain "too much information for an encyclopedia?" Of course we don't need to do everything according to protocols, and it may be that conensus will be to shorten the article, but that is a slightly different case, I belive. Thanks again, Dsol 13:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't tell people what to focus on, Dsol. People are allowed to comment as they see fit. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Changed vote
After another user left a message on my talk page explaining what I had done wrong I checked and found I had signed on the wrong line. I then moved my signature to the correct line.-- Dak ota     t     e  ''' 21:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Read it again
Stuck out support. This article looks encyclopedic.-- Dak ota     t     e  ''' 17:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)