Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cambios

Clarification on purpose of this RFC and RFCs in General

 * The first paragraph of the RfC says: "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 action section for certifying says: Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

My first question is, what is the SPECIFIC DISPUTE that is up for discussion here. There needs to be a specific disupte, because the RfC instructions are clear on that.

My second question is, why are there people certifying the dispute who never tried to resolve ANY dispute with me? The only situation that might have been an attempt to resolve a dispute was definitely resolved successfully.

I will address them one at a time.

1) User:Patton123 - To my knowledge, Patton has never tried to resolve any dispute with me. He appears to have some sort of relationship with Mendaliv (barnstars, updating him about administrative discussions that don't involve him), but the only interaction he appears to have had with me is posting on my talk page that this RfC exists. He also posted about this RfC on Mendaliv's talk page, which strikes me as unusual and unnecessary.

2) User:Stifle - Stifle gave me some advice ("Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.") to which I responded very amicably. I asked him to direct me to any examples where I acted to the contrary, so I could remove them. I'm not sure if that counts as resolving a dispute, and I certainly do not know if he was talking about whatever SPECIFIC dispute this RfC is about, but either way that is certainly a successful resolution (not a failure).

3) User:Seicer - Again, at the time of his posting to this RfC (Jan 7, 19:57) I do not know of any dispute he tried to resolve with me. So again, no failure to resolve something that never happened.

4) User:Themfromspace - This user has never tried to resolve a dispute with me. What he has done, however, is make retaliatory edits against Top Mud Sites (removed a link to that site when its owner voted KEEP in the Threshold AfD). He also repeatedly reverted the addition of an extremely valid and legitimate link to the Threshold article - namely, a link to an article by Dr. Richard Bartle (the foremost world renown expert on online gaming) about Threshold. He refused to discuss it on the Talk page, and reverted the link addition after 3 or 4 different editors added it. Other than that, we have had no interaction, and he definitely never tried to resolve any dispute with me. If anything, he failed to even respond to an attempt by 3-4 different editors to resolve a dispute with him.

5) User:Noian - This is another editor with whom I have had no interaction other than disagreeing about the dispensation of the AfD on Threshold. He has never tried to resolve a dispute with me. I have no idea why he would be certifying this RfC when he does not fit the requirement.

6) User:Crossmr - Same situation. I have had no interaction with this user other than his 50+ comments on the Threshold AfD, and many more on the Threshold DRV. He has never tried to resolve a dispute with me, so once again it is inappropriate for him to "certify" this dispute.

I waited a while before posting this because I hoped either the RfC would be removed or someone might explain. There has been no statement of what the specific dispute is. If I read it right, the RfC was proposed by User:Patton123, and thus it would be his responsibility to provide this fact. Furthermore, nobody has come forward as an actual person who tried (and failed) to resolve ANY dispute, much less whichever one this RfC is about. To my knowledge, every dispute I have been involved in on Wikipedia has been resolved. Thank you. Cambios (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Protonk by Patton123
You said you think an RFC is unlikely to resolve the issue, however it has already started to improve Cambios's behaviour. He hasn't been incivil since the opneing and has apologised for presious incivility. However he hasn't admitted to using socks or recruiting meatpuppets, yet we are sure he is doing one, if not both of them.-- Patton t / c 16:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I just popped back in and saw all that was going down. At any rate, I agree somewhat with you Patton- there seems to be a great ignoring of details in the edit warring that occurred at the Threshold article. You'll note that, which resolves to http://www.primordiax.com (and is thus obviously related to or controlled by Cambios) was given a warning prior to Cambios' block for WP:3RR. Within 8 hours of this, Nizevyn, a new account, suddenly appeared and began carrying on Cambios' edit warring. It's also noteworthy that  appears to have been made exclusively for reverting edits to Threshold. While we don't have proof of recruitment for edit warring, the behavioral patterns certainly resemble sock or meatpuppetry.
 * However, I think there may be extenuating circumstances in this case. Depending on how interested you are in a subject, Wikipedia can have a very steep learning curve. One could argue that Cambios felt it was absolutely necessary to edit war and engage in canvassing or meatpuppetry to save "his" article. While I'm not Cambios and don't personally know him, I believe it's not difficult to understand the position he felt he was in. One thing I hear frequently is that re-blocks are cheap; in this case meaning that it costs the community very little to give Cambios another chance. What strings are attached to that chance are up to the community, but I think it may be appropriate for a chance to be given, especially in light of the sudden willingness to reform that he has shown.
 * P.S. if this would have been more appropriate as a view on the main RFC page, I ask for someone to move it there. I'm not familiar with the RFC process, and am not sure if it is appropriate for deeply involved users to post their views. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was already going through and striking or removing aggressive statements before this RfC. Though I appreciate you recognizing that I have made concerned efforts to do so. My only concern with this RfC is the fact that it does not seem to follow the rules of an RfC. It seems to be more "Cambios is a bad guy - cut it out" rather than dealing with one specific incident that at least 2 people failed to resolve. Cambios (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As to the validity of the RfC, honestly I have no clue as I'm not familiar with the process myself. I don't think the general idea is castigation, and I sincerely hope it doesn't devolve into that. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of talk page comments
In the interests of transparency for those looking to provide true outside views on this subject, I think the comments at Talk:Threshold (online game) (now deleted) should be at least temporarily restored to the userfied version of the article now in Cambios' userspace. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cambios blocked
It should be noted that has been blocked for one week for excessive disruptive editing/civility/etc. This RFC is now all but moot, unless it continues post-block. Just a heads up... seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  05:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)