Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/RJII

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve dispute
I am concerned that, as of now, this only consists of a "see above". Jkelly 21:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

SLRubinstein
I would agree that a "persistent pattern of personal attacks is not to be taken lightly." I'd like to see better evidence of that in thre case of RJII, though, then (and I'm referring to one of the very first examples entered at the top of this page, not an arbitrary choice of example), "talk to the hand"! That's a tad flippant, but not a personal attack. Heck, Mihnea once told me (after I had invoked Socrates in some connection or other) that he hoped I would be forced to drink hemlock soon. If such a remark had come from RJII, it would be on this page. But my skin is a tad thicker than some here, apparently, so I didn't start any such page as this. --Christofurio 13:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin
How would one attempt to resolve a "persistent pattern of personal attacks"? He has attacked me, as well as RD232 and BBlackmore, but that's more a matter for the RfAr than this RfC. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * When as RJII "attacked" you? You sure do throw accusations around loosely. If you want to be so liberal with terms, then you've been attacking me as well. RJII 22:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Display #1
Firebug created this template and placed it on an article RJII created because he doesn't like that the Afd for that article didn't go his way. He's been trying all sorts of desperate measures, including redirecting the article without consensus. He flatly refuses to abide by Wikipedia policy. Again, it appears that the fact that RJII created this article is one of the main reasons he filed the RFC. He can't get his way so he throws a tantrum. RJII 05:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems a reasonable approach to me. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What seems reasonable? That such a big ugly box be placed on top of every article that has survived Afd, or only those where firefly was on the side of deletion, or what? An 'approach' that singles out this article plainly isn't reasonable, since generalization is essential to human reason. Or are you saying something else? Maybe I'm missing your delicate ironies here. --Christofurio 20:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Let me check -- No, I guess it isn't appropriate. The "AfD" notes (probably more than one, although I only see one in that discussion article) probably should be moved to the top of the Talk page, but I don't want to do that, in case it violates some other Wikiguideline.  But surviving an AfD with a "no concensus" result does not mean future AfD's should be converted to a "Speedy Keep", even if no new evidence is presented.  Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy is if there is no consensus to delete an article, then an article stays. It's very simple. firebug knows the policy, he just doesn't want to abide by it. Since he hasn't been able to get away with redirecting the article without consensus, he wants to put a tag on it to give the false impression that is has a lower status than articles that haven't been voted on (or have a consensus to keep). This is the way firebug works; he couldn't care less about Wikipedia policy and will resort to unethical things to get his way and lash out against others that don't let him get his way (such as by starting RFC's). By the way if you think his template his reasonable, he could use your support; go vote on it --it hasn't had a "keep" vote yet. RJII 20:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * RJII: Wikipedia policy is if there is no consensus to delete an article, then an article stays.
 * That's just wrong. "Merge" and "Redirect" are considered a subset of "Keep" under the AfD guidelines. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't get it. If there is not a consensus, then nothing happens --whether it's merge, redirect, or delete. When there is no consensus to merge, redirect, or delete the article doesn't get merged, redirected, or deleted. RJII 21:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You just don't get it. If it required a consensus to edit, coercive monopoly would not have been created.  Only delete requires consensus.  Other edits can be made unless there consensus to the contrary. (See Be bold.)  And there was a consensus to "delete or merge/redirect", if the big ugly box was accurate.  Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you still don't get it. Redirecting an article without consensus is not accordance with Wikipedia policy. It's totally against the spirit of Wikipedia to do something that drastic knowing that you don't have consensus behind you. Of course you don't need consensus to make an edit (though you do need at least implicit consensus for your edit to remain), but redirecting an article is not editing an article. And, the "big ugly box" was inaccurate in claiming that there was a consensus of any kind in the vote is wrong. ...It doesn't take a consensus to create and article, but it does require a consensus to delete an article. That's just how Wikipedia policy goes ..the burden is on those who want to delete an article to come up with a consensus. RJII 23:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. I went back over it, and there was concensus that that article doesn't belong there, as Delete, Merge, and Redirect (and "replace by a stub and start over", which I've seen in another AfD, back when it was VfD) are all statements to that effect. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. There's was no consensus on anything. Just a mixture of keeps, deletes, redirects, and merges. RJII 22:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Any further comment would lead to a violation of WP:CIVIL from one of us. Much as I think you've violated it in the past, I have no intention of inducing a further violation. Suffice it to say that over 60% of the comments indicate the article should not be under that name with content.  60% may not indicate concensus, but....  Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * But what? There was not a consensus.  Period.  Accept that fact and move on.  By the way if you want to be "uncivil," bring it on --give it all you got. I can handle it. I won't even start a petty "Request for Comments." RJII 22:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you recall, I explicitly didn't support BBlackmoor's proposed RfC against you, in spite of clear violations of WP:CIVIL. Perhaps I was mistaken. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)