Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Whig 3

Diffs
Do you have any diffs supporting the WP:HARASS charge? Table Manners C·U·T 17:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise, I didn't check enough of the harassment page to find the disambiguation to other, better policies. Gaming the system and WP:POINT would be better. Adam Cuerden talk 18:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I personally found this user to be mildly annoying after recent encounters, but I am sure he feels likewise about me.  I am still trying to soak up this Rfc--I'll keep reading it and try to comment as a mostly outsider who has only had recent run ins.  Table Manners C·U·T 07:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible problem?
Why is Requests for comment/Adam Cuerden 2 showing up as a non-existant Rfc? Table Manners C·U·T 07:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, it looks like part of this is an extended quote, but it is difficult to tell where the quote ends and the present Rfc begins. Table Manners C·U·T 07:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was deleted by Ryan Postlethwaite yesterday. I can't seem to find a diff of it at all.  Baegis (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I found a cached version of it on Google. | Here is the link to the RFC.  I'm not sure how long it will stay there, but could it be subbed in where the previous version was located?  Baegis (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The cache is the talk page. I think it was probably improperly deleted, becuase it was certified by two users. RyanP did not explain why he thought that it wasn't certified even though links were supplied. Abridged talk 19:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Improperly deleted? You showed no previous methods by which you tried to solve the dispute (which is a huge prerequisite for filing an RfC), you were using RfC to get an appology and that's not what RfC is for. It is standard practice to delete RfC's that are not certified properly by two users. It would be wrong to undelete a user conduct RfC that didn't get certified because otherwise there would be a lasting mark against a user, however, I'm happy to do it for a short time period (say 7 days?) if that's what people want. Please be aware, this would still be closed and archived and no changes would be allowed to the page.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I linked to discussions on Adam's talk page where I asked him to delete personal attacks and he said he would not. That is evidence of previously trying to resolve the dispute.  Whig had also asked him to strike his remarks and he would not.  I linked to Whigs participation.  This is evidence of a second person trying to resolve the same dispute.  I thought (and still think) that this was a breach of wp:npa, a policy on Wikipedia, and I started an RFC.  It may have been overkill and frivilous and was certainly ill-timed; I did not realize that at the time. My RFC was not part of a plot to bring anyone down, as Felonious Monk has hypothesized elsewhere.  It was just me saying, hey man, stop calling me names to discredit my opinion and don't offer misleading statements that support your right to insult me.  Abridged talk 21:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would also like to be able to review the deleted rfc, talk page, and history as well if possible. Please advise where to find it.  Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ryan, why not undelete but protect the page, and put a comment at the top that it is closed but preserved for context on other disputes? —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a good idea - I'm not going to leave it up indef however. I think 7-14 days is enough to get enough information from it.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool (: —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Restored and protected.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Link here --> Requests for comment/Adam Cuerden 2

Wanderer57 (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Whig is aware of this case
I would like to refer to the discussion between Adam and Whig at Whig's talk page, where he indicates that is choosing not to respond (at least, at this time). I just think the lack of response on his part is not because he is unaware of this proceeding, but results from a considered choice on Whig's part. EdChem (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Further diffs
I think it would be best if someone else commented on Whig before I do. Adam Cuerden talk 01:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was trying to find some history to support this Rfc, but could not. Sorry.  I do find Whig mildly annoying, but have not had enough run ins with him to truly understand the reason for this Rfc.  At this time I think I will end up not participating here.  Table Manners C·U·T 02:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Procedural note
It appears that this RfC was never listed at WP:RFCC. The RfC has received no edits in over a month and has been superseded by subsequent developments (see WP:AN topic ban discussion), so I'll go ahead and archive this RfC at the user conduct archive. --Muchness (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)