Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Durin

WP:NLT
Is it just me or does accuseing someone of slander break WP:NLT? It's a tricky one since I don't know Kelly Martin's language codes.Geni 16:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no intention of suing Durin. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Then stop useing the term slander.Geni 17:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? Technically it's a libel, but I see no reason why I cannot refer to a defamatory falsehood as a "slander" without it being a threat to sue. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * because it is unnecessary and inflammatory.Geni 19:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, based upon the links provided in this RFC, there is no slander or libel taking place. Stop accusing Durin of crimes he is not committing, please.  Silensor 19:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Minor nitpick - slander is a tort, not a crime. BD2412  T 00:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think when Durin refused to amend his public post after I pointed out to him the glaring inaccuracy in his reporting he crossed the line of simply making a mistake. I find it amusing Silensor, that you as so quick to describe Kelly as vengeful when Durin himself was motivated to make such a detailed look at Kelly's contribs based on his interaction before involving mediation. And Geni, tisk tisk, WP:NLT? You should know better. Kelly called a spade a spade, you don't need to agree but it's not a legal threat! --Gmaxwell 20:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It depends on the langauge codes being used. To me accussing someone of slander means that the person wants me to at least consider the legal raminfications of what I am saying. Particularly since there are so many other words that could be used that don't pack the same thread. Of course kelly martin and I live in very differnt worlds so we probably use different language codes.Geni 21:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Regardless of legal threats if any, Durin's remarks are neither defamatory, nor false (or if you think they are, prove it). Calling them such is not very civil, to say the least. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The response to his claims which you requested and that Kelly provided did a pretty good job of showing the incorrectness of the majority of his claims, and gave a good crack at another valid perspective on the rest. Also on his talk page before he blanked it I provided information of the misleadingness of his edit summary counts. --Gmaxwell 01:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that I did prove that his statements were false, and it is quite clear that they are defamatory. Perhaps you should read the RfC... again. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that some of the issues can have multiple perspectives. However, that by definition makes it a matter of opinion and makes accusations of falsehood, libel and slander wildly out of bounds. Also, it is far from clear that Durin's statements were infamatory, as most people who opposed the RFB did do so for other reasons. You did discount them as "people who dislike you" but that was entirely the wrong thing to do. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Question for Kelly
I would like to ask a question; Kelly, what is it you seek to have happen as a result of this RfC? Do you want my adminship removed? Do you want me to apologize for my actions (and what in particular do you want me to apologize for)? Not have me vote on your RfB? Clear your name? I think it is quite clear that we disagree on our respective positions. You have adamantly stated your position above. Within the next day or two, I may be able to craft as lengthy and detailed a response. But, I'm rather uncertain that would achieve what we would like to achieve. So, I ask...what do you want to achieve? --Durin 18:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * While it is quite irregular for one party to ask a direct question in an1 RfC in this manner, and the question asked above is largely already answered in my "additional comment" above, I will state for the record that I would like for Durin to:
 * cease accusing myself and others (such as Eloquence, see ) of violating WP:AGF for making comments critical of Durin's conduct, policies, practices, or expressed opinions;
 * cease being hypocritical by demanding everyone else to assume his good faith while not extending the same privilege to others;
 * cease presenting himself as a "superior" Wikipedian whose actions are apparently beyond reproach or even comment;
 * admit that he is not perfect and that other editors on Wikipedia are entitled to suggest that his actions are inappropriate, ill-advised, poorly considered, damaging, or otherwise less than absolutely ideal;
 * apologize to myself, to Nicholas, and to all other editors whom he has unfairly accused of violating WP:AGF for making good-faith, well-intentioned suggestions on how he can improve his conduct within Wikipedia;
 * adjust his actions to be consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia policy, even though this may at times mean not following the letter of Wikipedia policy; and
 * participate henceforth in Wikipedia as a true peer among equals, or, if he is unable or unwilling to do so, leave Wikipedia forever.
 * You did ask. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thus, if I do not follow all the above you will seek to have me leave Wikipedia forever? --Durin 19:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I will not do any such thing. You asked me what I desired.  I would prefer that you agree to participate as a true peer among equals.  I have no intention of attempting to use force to accomplish any of these goals; not only do I lack the authority to do so, but to do so would be wrong.  It's up to you to agree to participate in Wikipedia as a Wikipedian, something which you have (in my opinion) not succeeded in doing so far to date.  Kelly Martin (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Does predicating something with (in my opinion) make your comment any less of a personal attack? Durin has done nothing but participate in Wikipedia as an exemplary role model.  He has not been hypocritical, has not acted "superior" towards others, has not done anything inconsistent with policy, and so on.  This RFC is an outrage.  Silensor 20:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Commentary on someones behavior simply isn't a personal attack, qualifying comments or not. On superiority .. I don't agree, to me it seems quite clear that Durin considers himself to be some kind of ultimate example of good behavior, he has pretty much claimed as much, and he appears quite upset by anyone who suggests that he isn't. In particular I find his holyer-than-thou tone on his multi-kiloword essays on what it takes to be good enough to gain his adminship approval to be offensive, especially coming from a user with a reasonably short tenure here and an absolutely short tenure as an administrator. --Gmaxwell 20:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Putting this question on the RfC, not the discussion page, was a good faith attempt at trying to find a way to resolve this dispute. It is upsetting to me that it was removed to the discussion page, where I feel it will be viewed by far less parties to the discussion. I am beginning to feel that I can not proceed forward in this RfC. The process is being managed by Kelly. I don't think this is right. How upset would you be if I removed your questions from your portion of the RfC? I find your questions to be polarizing and biased. They are not the only legitimate questions to ask. Pushing my question out of the process while retaining yours seems improper. --Durin 20:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe Kelly should take her own advice to heart; see the main page for an explanation. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate fewer claims that Kelly has accused Durin of slandering her, but has not provided evidence. This was addressed very well in the RfB, where Kelly presented a link to her response to numerous false, misleading and damaging statements (strictly speaking, libels) by Durin. You yourself asked for her to do this and said you would like to see her address the issues raised. --Tony Sidaway Talk 01:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * (The following should not be interpreted as agreeing with Durin's analysis, as his commentary on her intentions as opposed to her actions was not well advised.) There are fourteen points there. By my reading, on eleven of them she agrees with the statements of fact, but offers an alternate reading of the circumstances or does not dispute.  On only three points (blocking Jeff Merkey, "Yeah Right" as an attack, and edit summaries) are the facts disputed.  This isn't libel she's accusing him of, it's bad judgement of the merits of her actions, and to call it defamation clouds the issue.  It's not precise or disspassionate, and raises secondary questions that distract from the actual issues.  Hell, I'm doing it now. (On a side note, while I did point out that libel was written defamation within minutes of this being filed, I must agree that "slanderous" does sound better.  It's the essesss...)  brenneman (t) (c)  02:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * While I could discourse on "false light libel" (which is when a libelant makes a nominally true statement in a manner which causes a reasonable person to draw a false and defamatory conclusion about the libelee), doing so would merely further support Durin's paranoia that I somehow believe that I have an actionable claim against him which I am merely voluntarily declining to pursue. In my not entirely inexpert opinion, I have no actionable claim for libel against him.  Not only can I not quantify damages against him (a requirement for an actionable case since his defamations are not "defamations per se"), but I certainly cannot prove actual malice as is constitutionally required.  All that aside, I simply cannot see what possible purpose would be served by suing him.  It would destroy my reputation at Wikipedia far worse than anything I have done to date, cost me a ridiculous amount of money, and occupy hundreds of hours of my time which I would rather spend doing almost anything else.  I have repeatedly said that I have no intention of suing him.  The entire notion that I somehow meant some legal threat by using the term "slander" was completely foreign to my thought while composing the RfC.  If it will somehow help, I will gladly replace all occurences of the term "slander" in my prior comments with "injurious falsehood", and you may gloss the word in that manner if it pleases you. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hee. I like the use of the word "gloss" in this context.  I think, though, that all this nonsense about "libel" which we've commited on each other does serve to make a point.  We're all simply deepening the smog here, getting further and further away from root cause, further and further away from moving towards a solution.  Isn't there some way we can shake ourselves out of this lemming-like march towards more acrimony? In the end, we all just want to contribute in our own way to something grand.   brenneman (t) (c)  05:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it'd be a good idea to replace "slander" with "injurious falsehood" or some synonym, and that people in general should not use the words "slander" and "libel" on Wikipedia. They're too laden terms. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Late to this discussion on the talk page, but I'll point out again that defamation charges in every US jurisdiction I know requires either actual malice or recklessness in making untrue statements. It matters not simply whether Durin said untrue things (and that is debatable, for I find his account more accurate), but whether he said untrue things in reasonable good-faith that they were true.  Mere mistakes are not defamatory in most circumstances.  On a related note, I've always wondered whether, since the Internet promotes a "speaking" metaphor (with discussion pages and chat rooms and such), the use of slander, while legally inexact, isn't more appropriate in Net jargon?  BD, this is your line? Xoloz 04:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The reason libel is deemed the greater offense is because things in writing tend to be more permanent, seen by more people, and more likely to be believed (because you can mis-hear something, but if it's in print you can go back and check). That being said, there's not a colorable case of any sort of defamation here. It's all opinion, and it would be well nigh impossible for any party involved to show actual pecuniary damages (which are required where the libel is to something other than unchasity, having a loathesome disease, having been convicted of a crime, or being incompetant/deceitful in their profession). BD2412  T 06:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Question about MedCab
There seems to be much made of whether or not Durin was a "member" of the MedCab. I'm wondering why WP:MC has this notice if involving oneself is such a transgression?
 * Note to aspiring cabalists: Simply put this page on your watchlist by clicking the "watch" tab at the top of this page, and help out with anything that interests you.

If there are such recriminations and repercussions for one who attempts to help in a situation and possibly makes a mistake, I think perhaps the page ought to carry some sort of warning instead. --Tabor 22:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh, had Durin actually been trying to help mediate you might have a point, but it sure doesn't look like thats what he was doing... If you read carefully no one is claiming that hes for simply being involved, but rather for completely disrupting mediation. ... and if he admitted to making a mistake in his actions then we wouldn't have this RFC. No one thinks people should be burned for mistakes, but we must comment when someone's actions are harmful but they insist they are in the right.--23:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The issue, as far as I saw it as Team Leader of the Mediation Cabal, was not that he was not a member (indeed, I think Durin raised the matter initially as an explanation for the issue, not I) but rather that what he was doing was a bit questionable. Indeed, you will notice from my messages to him that in no way did I tell him he couldn't participate in mediation; what I told him is that he shouldn't try to interfere with people seeking mediation. Regards, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion
I'd like to second Durin's request that this not be deleted. I know it's a bit irregular, as it's no longer properly certified, but it's a record of a dispute and the community's reactions to that dispute. Those who would forget history are doomed to repeat it, and all that. Friday (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If not deleted, it should be closed for comment, with a header and footer requesting that no further edits be made. As an RfC, it's over. BD2412  T 15:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see that further comment is neccessary either. However, I would not wish to prevent someone who wanted to comment further from doing so.  I don't see why RFCs should always need to follow an exactly defined process.  Friday (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Durin agreed with me and Nicholas (via email) to allow the RfC to be decertified and deleted as part of a mutual promise not to discuss the matter again. He is now breaking that promise.  Kelly Martin (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage has suggested that Durin userfy the discussion if he wants it kept. Would that be acceptable? It would no longer exist in "Wikipedia" space (and the resulting redirect could be immediately deleted). BD2412  T 16:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would interpret that as a violation of our agreement. He agreed to allow it to be deleted.  Kelly Martin (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I object to that. Regardless of what you two have agreed upon, it is not proper to delete a discussion that several third-party Wikipedians contributed to. If a dispute is resolved, record of the dispute is nevertheless archived. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 16:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I second that. Your personal agreements are strictly between the two of you.  Removing evidence that this dispute ever existed is a disservice to us all.  Friday (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no complaint to either of you objecting to it. Durin objecting to it is a breach of the agreement (which he now denies ever existed). Kelly Martin (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly object to deleting this. From WP:RFC: '''The RfC you file may itself turn into an RfC against you, if most of those voting and commenting are critical of you. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste.''' Now that this has, in fact, turned against those who filed this in haste, they want to delete this. CDThieme 16:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * According to Requests for comment/User conduct:
 * ===Archives===
 * Old discussions are kept in Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive'.''
 * So, it's not what they agreed to do but what WP policy says should be done. --hydnjo talk 16:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) I agree with Radiant! and Friday - others who participated have a right to have their contributions to the discussion preserved. However, moving it to user space would accomplish this just as well. As for WP policy, perhaps the applicable policy is WP:IAR. BD2412  T 16:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not to treat this like any other RFC. Putting it in userspace gives the impression that it's somehow less legitimate. One property of the Wiki is that one can never hide or undo one's words. One can only apologize and strive not to repeat them. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt;  17:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to make it clear that I did not feel that there had been a promised agreement; there was ongoing negotiation that had not concluded. I have placed a proposal before KM, NT, and TS regarding the dispute. The terms of that agreement I am treating as confidential with one exception pertinent to this discussion. Part of the agreement is that this RfC should be deleted. In so doing, it will still remain possible for it to be undeleted at any point in the future if that becomes necessary. While policy may demand that we do not delete this RfC, I don't feel that policies restrict us from taking actions in situations not entirely forseen by policy. WP:IAR applies in this case. Respectfully, --Durin 18:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Evidence should not be deleted until there is sufficient evidence the users have changed their behavior. No Account 18:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Change their behavior to what? There is no ideal Wikipedian. All of our differences is one of the things that make us strong. Each of us will eventually run into someone with whom we simply can not agree. There are too many of us here to reasonably conclude we'll like everyone, nor will everyone like us. What we are trying to do here is build an encyclopedia, not a community. Things that get in the way of that are contrary to the mission we've set before ourselves. Not deleting this RfC is in my opinion against the mission. We can not reasonably expect that my behaviors or that of any other parties to this dispute will change to conform to some notional standard in part because there is no such standard and in part because there are simply too many differences for that to happen. I am willing to have this matter put in the past. Deleting the RfC is part of that. --Durin 18:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * During, I'm confused...I thought you were the one that wanted this thing kept for future use!! Babajobu 18:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Durin, please :) I understand your confusion. There are things happening outside the area of Wikipedia. Please be patient and (please, anyone) do not jump to conclusions. The further proceedings are taking place right now. --Durin 18:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Whatever happens in the smoke-filled rooms, let this evidence be preserved here unless there is an agreement here. CDThieme 19:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Whereas If all of the principals have agreed agree to deletion, I withdwaw will withdraw my objection to delete. --hydnjo talk 18:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * We haven't all agreed just yet. It's still pending, but that is the proposal, yes. If it's not agreed upon (or some version of it that includes deletion of the RfC), then it is to remain. --Durin 19:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I also strongly object to the deletion of this RfC under any circumstances. It is a record for the community. Xoloz 19:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have temporarily userified this RFC page (and talk), and also maintained a private copy. Xoloz 19:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have strong feelings one way or another as to whether this page should be kept. However, I don't think that the page is any more the possession of the participants than of the commenters or just the people who've read it. I think the only fair way to handle it would be to put it up for AfD, but that would just draw even more attention to it. Probably just better to let it languish unnoticed like other closed RfCs than to have a ruckus over efforts to delete it. Just my thoughts. Babajobu 19:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems that the participants have come to their senses and realized that this RfC was a bad idea, and decided to try and have it deleted. However, while there may or may not be a private interest between Kelly Martin and Durin to have this deleted, there is a community interest among Wikipedians at large to have this preserved. If nothing else, the sheer histrionics this escalated to should be preserved as historical record in order to reflect on those involved. I've mishandled Wikipedia disputes in the past too, but I'm willing to own up to them instead of burying them under an agreement to delete the evidence. — Phil Welch 21:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

 As per the general consensus on this page I have protected and archived this RFC Jtkiefer  T - 21:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If Durin or anyone else would like this deleted they are encourged to put it up for deletion at Miscellany for deletion as per policy. Jtkiefer  T - 21:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Do not delete this. This "settlement agreement" does not agree with me, and it is not up to Kelly Martin (or Durin, for that matter) to delete this comments page which so many of us have invested time into.  Silensor 22:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well it's the person's right to put it up for a vote if they want, that being said that doesn't mean that the vote will be to delete it. Jtkiefer  T - 22:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In every other respect with regards to my actions towards Anittas, I have no regrets. I acted in an appropriate manner to warn a user that they were potentially violating the 3RR ruling. For this, I am held by Kelly in contempt; yet she herself feels 1RR is the appropriate policy (see User:Kelly_Martin and she acts upon that. I politely asked Anittas to observe WP:CIVIL and did not become angered by his comments. I further coached him to continue the debate on the previously mentioned talk page. The debate did move there and there has been some improvement in the dispute; this seems to affirm it was a good move (you can follow that at [Talk:Moldovan_language#My_source_on_Grigore_Ureche_is_being_refused]). Prior to this, the dispute had not been discussed among the parties except through a revert war. For my recommendation that Anittas follow Wikipedia policy, I was told I was "appalling" and "officious". Does nobody see this as wrong? Therein lies the core of this debate. I suggested Anittas follow policy with regards to 3RR, WP:CIVIL, and WP:DR. For this, I was attacked by two different admins. Later, when I voted in good faith on Kelly's RfB, I was accused (and still am in the RfC and this talk page) of slander and/or libel. Kelly explicitly blames ME for her RfB failing. Yet, before I voted on her RfB she already had 8 oppose votes, 3 of which were based on incivility which I also raised, but which she isolates me for and summarily blames her failing RfB for. Yet, she would have needed 72 votes to overcome the original 8 votes before I ever touched her RfB; a mark which at the closing of the RfB she was still ~20 shy of. Yet, I...I...am blamed for her failing RfB. This, not to mention the later votes which may have had nothing to do with my vote at all. Kelly refuses to accept any responsibility for her actions in this matter, blames me for the failure at RfB, and has used RfC as a bludgeon against me. For this people have found me to be nuts, out of my mind, a problem admin, and God knows what other hate-filled rhetoric spewed everywhere. I will no longer be reading this talk page. This is not because I want to have the last word. The last word has yet to be spoken; I'm quite sure an RfAr will be filed against me shortly. I simply refuse to be party to this dispute any more. There has been so much acrimony developed by all parties over it that there is no reasonable way by which an amicable solution can be reached. In closing, I would like to note that I think WP:TINMC has some work to do; it appears that they hold themselves above Wikipedia policy as WP:DR is less important to dispute resolution tan WP:TINMC. Somebody external to this dispute and TINMC needs to take a look at their actions and see if they are indeed in the best spirit of Wikipedia. Thank you, and good night. --Durin 23:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The point on deletion or not of this RfC is moot. The negotiations between Kelly, Nicholas, Tony, and myself have utterly broken down. For the record, I made no promise to Kelly, Tony, or Nicholas to not bring this RfC up again. Kelly's assertions at the top of the now protected RfC are therefore false. We were in the middle of negotiations; Nicholas suggested this to me and I said it would be a good first step. I did not say it was the only step nor did I make any promises. Negotiations were ongoing and had yet to be resolved. I made a counter offer in the negotiation, an offer that was made in good faith which required compromise on the part of all parties. The negotiation has now utterly broken down. I expect an RfAr to be filed against me shortly. I have suggested to Kelly that she use it as a forum to destroy me, and I have consented in e-mail to do whatever it takes to ensure the RfAr goes active and is considered. I have pre-emptively chosen not to defend myself in the RfAr. I do not have the time, energy, or willpower to develop the lengthy wiki-litigation that it would take to properly defend myself. I therefore prostrate myself before the will of RfAr and have asked appropriate parties that if I lose the RfAr that I be blocked for a month. I feel this may be the only way in which Kelly will be satisifed. Indeed, it appears Kelly's original demands to me stand; either do exactly as she says or leave Wikipedia. Since I now refuse to leave Wikipedia under these outrageous demands, Kelly will have to take the next step against me to have me removed from Wikipedia. I would like to note for the record that I believe Kelly's RfC against me was brought in bad faith. WP:RFC policy makes it clear that RFCs should not be brought to subdue someone. Yet, from the outset is clear that Kelly had this very intention. Her (previously cited) demands make it blatantly obvious that RfC was intended to be used to bludgeon me into submission. Further, I believe the RfC was brought in bad faith because I voted oppose to her RfB . I would also like to make it clear that at no time did I ever endeavour to prevent User:Anittas from gaining or seeking mediation. He was not finding any mediation channel responsive. Even after his posting at WP:TINMC, 40 minutes went by without anyone responding. As it turns out, in forums that I do not have access too (either e-mail, IRC, or some other forum), Anittas was in dicussion with Kelly. I had no way of knowing this yet Kelly has roundly castigated me for it. I responded to Anittas and attempted to aid him because of this. I stepped into a place that I now wish I had never gone; WP:TINMC. Had I not done so, none of this would have happened. That is apparently hallowed ground that non-mediators are forbidden from editing. I directed him to first take the dispute Moldovan language talk page, which had NOT been done (contrary to statements by others). This was the appropriate first step in dispute resolution (see Resolving_disputes which clearly states what the first step is). If the first step in any dispute were to take the dispute to multiple mediation assistance people and groups, Wikipedia mediation would be hopelessly bogged down and incapable of handling anything. What I did was right, proper, and I have no regrets about it. I acted in good faith to help a user. For this, I was described by Kelly as being "appalling" and Nicholas Turnbull as "officious"...BEFORE ANY EXPLANATION WAS ASKED OF ME AS TO WHAT I WAS DOING AND WHY. What I regret:
 * My words being poorly written/misinterpreted by Anittas, Kelly, and Nicholas
 * Vigorously defending myself against Kelly's and Nicholas' claims. I should have been more patient, but I have to admit that when I am told I am "appalling" and "officious" it is not entirely unreasonable to get defensive.
 * Posting on WP:TINMC. In October, I suggested as a resolution that I would not post there. This was apparently not enough.
 * Speaking the word "slanderous" with respect to a contribution Kelly made. This was utterly wrong, and not conducive to compromise and discussion as it set a stage for wikiwar. The comment has now been removed (though User:Demi tried to undo that remove; I've explained to Demi why I did and I hope it stays removed. If anyone really wants to see it, it's in the edit history; I'm hiding nothing; I was just trying to reduce rhetoric) I note that Kelly has taken no action to remove "slander" and "libel" with respect to me in her comments on the RfC and this talk page.
 * Durin, this is going too far. It is entirely beyond anybody's authority (save that of Jimbo or an ArbCom decision) to demand that any user in good standing comply with something or else leave the Wikipedia. I would advise both parties against bringing this matter to arbitration. You and Kelly are both good users that have trouble interacting with one another. Fine. So don't interact - it's a big wiki. I appreciate the fact that both sides tried to talk it over, but since this doesn't work now I think both sides would prefer doing something unrelated to the dispute and to each other. That way, I believe everybody'd be happier. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have reprotected the page, I agree that originally protecting it while archiving was probably a mistake but since Durin decided to edit it after archiving I have reverted back to NicholasTurnbull's version which has the correct archive tag and relock it. Jtkiefer T - 06:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And why should the subject of an RFC be forbidden to edit it? I can understand that people wish to drop this issue (indeed, so do I) but since discussion is still ongoing, archiving it is doubtful and protecting it is simply inappropriate. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As I stated on your talk page, this RFC has been officially closed, it has been delisted due to insufficent certification and is being kept due to a consensus based on the fact that this RFC should be kept for historical and possible future purposes, therefore it should not be edited anymore since it is a page archive. Jtkiefer  T - 10:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)