Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive/Mintguy

Your comment on the RfC page included "inactivity in performing sysop duties" nobody sysop can be required to perform sysop duties. That's bogus and should be deleted immediately from the RfC page. As to the speedy deletes, a lot of those look like speedy delete candidates to me. You're looking for excuses to cause trouble for Mintguy, and it doesn't wash. RickK 07:57, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Heh, heh. It's not often I can say I agree with Rick, but here I heartily do. Which of the things listed damaged Wikipedia? Pcb21| Pete 09:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is not pertinent to the "charges" listed against me, so I don't feel it necessary to mention this on the RFC page itself, but it is perhaps worth me pointing out that in my opinion, this RFC is entirely spurious and is prompted by a disagreement with User:Netoholic on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) Mintguy (T)

moving comments
So everyone knows, I spoke to RickK about moving his comments. Take a look at his talk page. I pointed out that he was responding in the wrong section. It was done to preserve the formatting of the dispute only. Specifically, only users agreeing with the dispute should post in the "Statement of the dispute" section" There is no "wrong doing" or bias on my part. -- Netoholic (Talk) 16:57, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * RickK saw fit to comment about me deleting his comments, and then removed proof of my good faith from his Talk page. See this edit where I directly explain the reason, and also welcome his comments on the page. -- Netoholic (Talk) 19:41, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Deleting my comments from Outside view was done in good faith? Hardly.  Please note that I didn't just delete your comments from my Talk page, I was deleting most comments because the page had grown too large.  RickK 19:53, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Good faith yes, in the sense that I was leaving messages for you regarding those changes moments after I made them, and invited you to put them back. I couldn't just move them down, because they wouldn't be "in your words". Please be fair. -- Netoholic (Talk) 20:19, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Be careful to not be persuaded by the wikicabal in the opposition and outside parties, they stick together and rarely stick their neck out for those other than their clique. Kenneth Alanson 04:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Modifying the page
Netoholic has modified the page since many of the votes were made. I doubt that this would change anyone's vote, but it's worth noting. RickK 07:52, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I hope the implication is not that this is something wrong. RFC is not a survey, it is a community working document which is modified until such time as a consensus is reached. Some objections have been voiced, so I've adjusted as such by removing some items and adding additional statements. I welcome any objective input. -- Netoholic @ 12:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Netholic is doing his job to keep this article up to date. I see he is administering the situation quite well.  If nobody put forth an effort like his, then the issue would slide away unresolved.  Kenneth Alanson 01:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mailing list
My comments on the mailing list have been posted to this page. Why? Mintguy (T) 22:36, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps just a link to the mailing list would have been more appropriate. Comments placed here out of context don't really seem fair. Angela. 23:27, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * A simple link is not sufficient in this case. Without quoting relevant portions, one cannot easily tie the separate admissions to the violations in a context that makes sense. The facts are relevant, and presented without undue bias. Each quotation is directly linked to the source, so the reader can make their own determination. Comments on this wiki's mailing list are just as open for discussion as wiki edits. -- Netoholic @ 00:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I chose to make a statement on the mailing list. Portions of that statement have been taken out of context and placed on this page. If I'd have made this statement on a blog page I would not expect them to have been added to this page and I do not feel that it is right to do so with regards to the mailing list. The comments I have placed on this page are the only comments regarding this whole affair that I wish to to make in this forum. Mintguy (T) 00:14, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * On other occasions, user's contributions to other sections of *.wikipedia.com have been quoted when their actions are questionable. Since the mailing list is clearly devoted to the topic of en.wikipedia.org, and you identified yourself in the email as "Mintguy" and discussed this RFC yourself, I consider it completely valid for comment, and it will not be removed without the consensus of other users signing the "Statement of dispute" section. -- Netoholic @ 00:39, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Ahem, yes Mintguy, if you are so adamant about taking every occasion to slam Wikipedia editors, then I expect no whining from you when it happens right back by an account of your own words. Either stop the whining or stop the attacks and wars-or both, which would be best.  Kenneth Alanson 01:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Shows up one awkwardness of the RfC procedure
There are two people supporting this RfC and somewhere between 7 and 16 who don't support it. RfC rules say that an RfC can stay longer than 48 hours if two people support it. If you exclude parties directly relating to a dispute, no-one supports it. What happens next? As it clear that the overwhelming majority are happy with Mintguy's actions, I vote we delete/shelve/whatever it. Pcb21| Pete 00:46, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * See my response above under "Moving Comments". Kenneth Alanson 01:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * This is the part of RfC I don't understand. What good does it do to keep it? There are lots of pages just left lying around because 2 people signed them. Either it should be declared closed, and preferably deleted, or it should move on to some other stage (presumably requests for arbitration). It shouldn't just be left as an RfC page. There has to be some stage it is meant to move onto. Angela. 05:04, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * There is a time limit for the signing requirement (48 hours), but not any other stage. I would propose that pages remain for (x) weeks after the last signifigant edit by one of the Dispute signers. I know my plan with this is to update it as necessary and hopefully keep discussion going. If certain charges need to be removed to accomplish that, then that may happen. As the one(s) initiating the dispute, my responsibility is to get the RfC to the point where a majority of signers sign the disputed section. If I don't live up to that task (by updating the dispute section), then it should be removed.  I'd propose a three week lag (to cover someone going out of town), with a message being left on the dispute signers Talk pages warning of pending removal one week before that time expires. -- Netoholic @ 05:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)