Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Talrias

Comments on appropriateness of this RFC
This RfC is an appropriate use of the Requests for Comment system. Filing an RfC against yourself is illogical, and the subject of it doesn't seem to be something that needs to come here. There's also no evidence of an attempt to resolve this elsewhere, and really, this isn't the appropriate medium for something like this. I'm sure if you want comments on your own conduct, you can use other mediums than an RfC. Hedley 22:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree - no one's forcing people to comment on this page and I created this page in a good faith attempt to solicit feedback on my actions. I am requesting comments, a request for comments is absolutely the right place to do it. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Talrias is requesting comments in our section used for requesting comments. Sounds good to me. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But if you don't like it, why don't you request comments on it? :D Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Irony overload! El_C 13:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous statement in Rd232's "Inside view"
Rd232's "Inside view" states "One of them (FeloniousMonk) didn't participate in the discussion at any point, and the other had significant prior history with Marsden, which made the pre-emption of ongoing discussion even more frustrating." Reviewing the block log, I can only conclude that I must be the "other", and would like clarification as to what Rd232 regards as my "significant prior history with Marsden"... This statement casts my actions in doubt without addressing the concerns I raised both in my blocking statement and on WP:ANI. Tom e rtalk 22:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think he's referring to SlimVirgin; who does have a "history" with Marsden. Maybe you could ask him to clarify? Talrias (t | e | c) 22:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was referring to SlimVirgin. I've clarified this in my statement. Rd232 talk 23:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK thanks...as someone else who reinstated the indefinite block, I wasn't sure I wasn't being noted as "the other"... Tom e rtalk  04:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been more explicit (I did say "the same day" though, which didn't include you). Rd232 talk 10:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Some early comment
I have been away from wikipedia for about a month, but before then I have noticed/watched Marsdens interaction with a some of the other editors here since September. The problems started long before the Talk:British_Mandate_of_Palestine interaction. I will write a bit more later this evening, and possible more tomorrow. Now I will just say that I quite understand why some editors do not want formal arbitration: quite a lot of allegations have been made against Marsden which, as far as I know, cannot be substantsiated. The whole "episode" can in my view be summed up in one word: double-standards. More later. Huldra 15:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)