Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tlotz

Noitall: I've given evidence of how Tlotz has violated the personal attack policy. Please list the exact policies which I've violated, with diffs. Thanks. Rhobite 22:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * This RfC needs evidence that two users have tried, but failed, to resolve the same dispute, and currently it doesn't have that. Does that evidence exist? If not, the RfC is not properly certified. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:48, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * In fact, I have deleted it because the single diff that Rhobite gives as evidence of trying to resolve the dispute was timed just two hours before the RfC was posted, which didn't even given Tlotz time to respond. This was a regular content dispute, not grounds for an RfC. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Really, insulting other people's home state, calling them "you liberals" and insulting their age is a content dispute according to you? Rhobite 02:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, he was a POV warrior. But he was brand new and you had no right to take advantage of him.  You made no attempt at all to help him and immediately came to this page. And, ahhh, if "you liberals" and "old man" can become the basis for an RfC, then SlimVirgin and the other Admins are really going to have their work cut out for them.  Give me a break.  --Noitall 02:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

RFC deletion
This page does not meet the criteria for an RfC. Within 48 hours, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. 1 editor simply talking on the talk page with a brand new user does not meet the criteria. According to Wiki policy, this page must be deleted. --Noitall 23:19, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * I, JamesMLane, and Shem all attempted to discuss the issue with Tlotz. He responded with personal attacks. Since Tlotz appears to be gone I don't want to spend more of my time discussing this. But in case he returns, this RFC should stay. Rhobite 02:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Rhobite, it wasn't properly certified. You have to provide diffs showing two users tried to resolve the dispute (not have it, resolve it), and you have to do it within 48 hours, not whenever the others feel like posting. The rules are clear that this should be deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * You could have read Talk:Republican Party (United States) and seen for yourself that multiple users tried to resolve this issue. Or you could have asked me, Shem, or JamesMLane to provide additional evidence in the RFC. Nope, that wasn't good enough for you, you just unilaterally deleted an RFC with 4 certifications. Rhobite 02:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * You whiney crybabies (does that deserve an RfC?) did not try to state any problem edit, state any solutions, or try to attempt to resolve any problem with this new User. He was barely able to log on once or twice before you started an RfC. --Noitall 03:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * You may not agree with the personal attack policy, but it's there for a reason. I think this discussion is becoming a little hypothetical. Let's not discuss Tlotz's conduct any more unless he returns. Agreed? Rhobite 03:05, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is an absurd farce. The rules say you have to provide the diffs within 48 hours. You didn't do it. You want someone else to spoonfeed things to you, and now everyone's time has to be wasted helping you nail some new user who's disappeared anyway. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that's making good editors leave. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:11, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's the stupid diff, are you happy now? I'm sorry that I left a minute detail out of the RFC, I wasn't aware that Wikipedia had become a complete bureaucracy already. I suppose you have some sort of form for me to fill out now. Rhobite 03:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Or you had to do is supply it within 48 hours, together with evidence showing the attempt had failed (i.e. that the disputed behavior had continued, which you still haven't shown). I take your point about the bureaucracy aspect, but an RfC isn't something you should start lightly, and if you have to, you should do it properly. This was a new user. He'd only been editing for one day! That's taking the notion of Wikipedia qua bureaucracy much further than I have. You should let this drop, Rhobite. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Because an RfC should not be done so lightly or to intimidate, as it was in this case, if anything, it should be more bureaucratic. It should require some work and effort to get it right.  I know that I am ready to let it drop.  --Noitall 04:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite ready to let it drop. I wouldn't want anyone to think that silence in the face of Noitall's charges amounted to an admission from us "whiney crybabies" that those charges were true.  The diff cited by Rhobite rebuts the charge that we didn't try to resolve the problem.  This diff, by which Shem began the whole talk page thread, rebuts the charge that we didn't state any problem edit.  Other rebuttals could be cited if there were any reason to do so.


 * OK, now I'm ready to let it drop. JamesMLane 04:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * One day? One problem edit? Ok, it's dropped. --Noitall 04:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)