Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Worldedixor

Summary
User:P123ct1 has indicated to me that their certification of this RFC/U is contingent on the Summary not being further altered. From this point on I will only add to the evidence section.~Technophant (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I confirm that I have certified on the basis that the general summary of the problem is not changed. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * P123ct1 From reading other RFC/U's I found that it has been helpful to have a short summary of the problem. I've added the line "The heart of this complaint is Worldedixor's problematic manner in handling disputes." at the beginning of the summary. I hope this is satisfactory.~Technophant (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree. It is not his work that is being questioned. Editors will not always agree, but his handling of disagreements I am afraid is problematical. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Remark from Worldedixor
follow up: This is not a discussion. Those are questions to certifying users. Your answers and actions are shattering your credibility and the credibility of this Rfc. You seem to use bytes without being responsive, and your excuse not to be timely and responsive fails as this page is still at 25KB strike that... 20KB... There is something fishy about this Rfc, I reserve my rights per policy, and I ask for 100% transparency and full disclosure. Otherwise, I ask for a fair and just admin (who has never attacked me before) to delete this Rfc and escalate this matter to thoroughly investigate this tragedy of justice. Something just doesn't add up. Worldedixor (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Worldedixor Relax. This RFC/U hasn't been certified yet. Until it is there's no need for you to respond.~Technophant (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Resolving one single edit with Thnidu
@Thnidu: I am a just person. With you, I will only address communication made directly between you and me. I will also assume that you are a just and objective party in this Rfc, and I will assume that you simply misconstrued my intent in good faith. First, there was no hostile attack nor shouting. That was certainly not my intent in my communication with you. I previously used boldface for emphasis but not for shouting. I have hade one or more situations where editors fabricated non-exiting rules (like editors telling me that WP does not permit non-English WP:RS). But, when I found out firsthand that boldface is indeed permitted by policy but with restrictions, I switched to using Italic for emphasis afterwards, and my record shows it. Please feel free to verify.

Now, isn't true that I only had direct interaction with you on only one edit? Also, isn't true that I reverted your edit only once and did not re-revert it when it was re-reverted in order to avoid an edit war like I always do? That being, even when I am convinced of the accuracy of my edit and explained it elaborately later. Assertive discussion and logical arguments are not an edit war, nor a personal attack. If you want, will be glad to discuss that one edit with you further on the Article talk page.

Now, in my first statement to you I simply meant to guide and explain how I do things, and hoped it will help... Then I did not revert what was very obvious to me, to give you the courtesy to revert it yourself, which you misunderstood for perceived incivility (incivility is not a personal attack). I meant to guide and explain. I did not mean to be uncivil with you. However, after looking at your user page, I may have chosen different words. In any case, afterwards, isn't true that I ended my first statement to you with "Hope this helps. I "Have a good day, mate".

For the record, this is what I said:
 * To Thnidu: Do you understand the legal definition of  an unauthorized organization in Israeli law? Before rushing to revert another editor's contribution in a few hours and without consensus, remember WP:ROWN. It may be a good habit to take a couple of seconds to verify what you are reverting, keeping WP:ROWN in mind.  I can read more than English, and in a couple of seconds, I was able to verify that even the Israeli mfa and mod official sites designate the Islamic State as terrorists   .  Although I can revert your revert, I will give you the courtesy to do a search yourself and revert your own revert, and hopefully learn a good lesson in the process. Hope this helps. Have a good day, mate.  Small text

THEN isn't it true that I provided you, in good faith, with an Arabic reliable source and also translated into English? I also ended my second statement to you with "Hope this helps.


 * I took a few more seconds to help you find an Arabic reliable source and, since Google Translate is completely unreliable, I will help you with the translation of "صادقت وزارة الدفاع الإسرائيلية على اعتبار (داعش) حركة إرهابية" which basically translates to "The Israeli Ministry of Defense approves the designation of Daa3esh as a terrorist movement".  Hope this helps.

Afterwards, the responses mainly by others changed the dynamics, and I will leave it at that because it is between me and them.

In any case, to resolve this matter of one edit interaction with you, I will revise my statements to you on the Talk page and remove the boldface so that my intent is not misconstrued. Please let me know if you think it's a fair resolution. Worldedixor (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a civil and sensible approach, but as the hour is late (almost midnight where I am), I will try to answer this tomorrow. Thnidu (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You wrote:
 * Before rushing to revert another editor's contribution in a few hours and without consensus, remember WP:ROWN. It may be a good habit to take a couple of seconds to verify what you are reverting, keeping WP:ROWN in mind.
 * To the best of my knowledge, reverting an edit that is not adequately referenced does not require discussion and consensus. WP:ROWN says
 * Whenever you believe that the author of an edit was simply misinformed, or didn't think an edit through, go ahead and revert.
 * and that is what I did. You came back with:
 * Do you understand the legal definition of an unauthorized organization in Israeli law?


 * Beginning an utterance with "Do you understand ...?" in a loud tone of voice (I accept that you didn't mean that with the boldface, but that's how it came across) is usually taken as aggressive and condescending, not unlike "Can you read?". You say
 * Afterwards, the responses mainly by others changed the dynamics, and I will leave it at that because it is between me and them
 * but for me, it was your first response to me that set the dynamic. After that, your "Hope this helps. Have a good day, mate" seemed sarcastic rather than genuine.


 * Then you suggested that I
 * take a couple of seconds to verify what [I was] reverting, keeping WP:ROWN in mind.
 * followed immediately by your admission that the verification you were able to find "in a couple of seconds" was not in English —and therefore not accessible to the bulk of Wikipedians.
 * I, too, can read more than English; but French, Spanish, German, Latin, Russian, and the other languages I know some of were not useful here. "Take a couple of seconds", my aunt's frying pan! I could not have found the documents you did, as you were aware, and I was not willing to insert those references on a stranger's word that they were relevant— especially a stranger who was coming across [vide suprā] as hostile. So I replied, as to an attacker,
 * ...But I do not understand why, having found an appropriate reference, you decided it was my responsibility to edit it in. Do you understand that each editor is responsible for the verifiability of their own posts, rather than leaving it to the reader to research (including in other languages) the subtleties of foreign legal codes and translated terminology?...


 * It is not enough to assert your good faith and that you are "a just person". I urge you to try to put yourself in the other person's shoes and consider the effect of your words before hitting SEND. --Thnidu (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Since July this year until very recently I have been under sustained personal attack from Worldedixor. I have never been able to understand why, as although we have had our disagreements over edits I have always been civil.  Hence one reason for this RFC/U.  A glance through the archived ISIS Talk pages in particular will verify this. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this RFC/U is getting off track
From what I understand about the dispute resolution process, this RFC/U is a chance for other users to comment on Worldedixor's behaviors which gives this user a change to reply and make an offer to voluntarily change these behaviors. So far I've seen no positive attempt at addressing the issues presented so far.~Technophant (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. I came here following a post on Anna Frodesiak's talk page, and I have to say I'm not only concerned that this RfC/U is getting off track, but that is continuously snapping at others during it. World - this RfC/U is about you and your behavior. Obviously there's a concern by a handful of editors who work with you on a daily basis. I would rather see you answering those concerns rather than deflecting the concerns and trying to point fingers at everyone else. I agree with every single post under the concern section and every single policy that's been referenced by those who have brought you here - and I've never met you. Let's get this RfC/U over with so everyone can go back to doing what we're supposed to be here to do.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 14:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. All the concerns are legitimate and Worldedixor isn't showing any signs of understanding that his constant haughty and nasty way of dealing with others isn't good. It creates a poisonous atmosphere. He's very aggressive. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If he continues, perhaps it'll be better to look at a Topic Ban or block per WP:CIR.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 17:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So far there has been only one question from Worldedixor relevant to the issues raised by this RFC/U and this concerns me. There has been no proper attempt to address any of them.  He seems intent on derailing the RFC/U on the grounds that it is some sort of conspiracy against him, when it is no such thing. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Brangifer. A short block of one week was tried in October of 2013 and didn't seem to change much. I think a WP:CBAN is more appropriate. I took a look at Worldedixor's top edit pages (here). They mostly consist of issues regarding Lebanese people. Besides the rude remark here over seven years ago and the dispute on Talk:Aida_Nikolaychuk which lead to a block I don't see evidence of wide-spread disruption. Perhaps there can be some canvassing on WP Lebanon, WP Mil History, WP Iraq, WP Arab World, and or WP Syria to see if there's other problems not addressed here. For now I think a topic ban should apply to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and related activities broadly construed.~Technophant (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support a topic ban if Worldedixor persists in being uncooperative with the RfC/U. My only fear is that he will move to other areas in Wikipedia and continue with the same behaviour, as he has so far evinced no sign of being willing to change it.  --P123ct1 (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If a topic ban fails to change his behavior, then a site ban would follow. So be it. It's his decision. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a topic ban is necessary, but his nasty attitude, often manifested on his talk page, is still reprehensible. The personal attacks, haughty comments, ownership issues, deletion of negative content, describing anything negative as hounding or attacks, etc. is very destructive. He doesn't have a collaborative attitude and doesn't work well with editors who don't share his POV. This is not his encyclopedia, and he doesn't own his talk page. He needs to learn that. He's either a very immature young person or someone with a huge ego (see Dunning–Kruger effect ), and I'm not sure that we can resolve those types of issues.

One cannot force someone else to learn humility and gain maturity. People tend to take one of two approaches when everyone else is criticizing them: they get extremely defensive and entrenched, or they accept that maybe something really is wrong with their attitude and actions. Only he can wise up and do something about it.

"And would some Power the small gift give us, to see ourselves as others see us." - Robert Burns in To a Louse -- Brangifer (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Brangifer et al., so what is the next step? How much time should the user be given to change course? It's been a week and the user is requesting "urgent help from an admin". I think this should this be referred to WP:AN. (BTW: I did some research, it's preferred to put CBAN discussions on AN, not AN/I).~Technophant (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Brangifer, @P123ct1, @User:Dusti, @User:Dougweller and @User:Anna Frodesiak - hasn't contributed since 16 September and this discussion hasn't had any comments since 23 September. I've made a request at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure to have this RFC/U closed. I'm concerned that he may come back (perhaps as a sockpuppet) and without a TBAN there won't be anything that can be done about it.~Technophant (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So, I guess would could have a quick call for consensus in absentia on a topic ban. Another choice would be to just close this as is. Then, if he returns and continues in an objectionable fashion (and his style ought to make him easy to spot), we could cite this closed thread in a new post somewhere asking for an immediate topic ban. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If he's counting on his absence to excuse his past behavior, he's mistaken. A topic ban should be imposed so that any return to improper behavior can be sanctioned by referring to the topic ban. Then we can close this. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Brangifer. This needs to go to AN for a topic ban (propose Syrian Civil War/ISIL indef.) and this RFC/U can be left open so he has a chance to address behaviour in the future. Or it can just be closed and reopened by his own request (unlikely). He hasn't been subjected to anything more than a one week block. Perhaps with a CBAN he will know that there are real repercussions to his behavior.~Technophant (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I propose that if Worldedixor wants to appeal his topic ban he MUST reopen this RFC/U and address the issues contained therein.~Technophant (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. If he doesn't, then we'll reopen it as a condition for his return. He should not be allowed to use silence to avoid the issue, and then sneak back on the playing field without confronting the issues, recognizing his misdeeds, and resolving them. His haughty attitude is really obnoxious. (I'm not sure about his caste status, but in upper-caste people, this tends to be a common trait. Here we are all equal.) His userpage contains statements about his perceived enemies which actually describe himself quite accurately, so we're seeing massive narcissistic psychological projection here. He doesn't receive criticism or guidance well at all, and considers them personal attacks and harassment, so a bit of paranoia and persecution complex are also in the mix. His false accusations and general distrust of others also frequently accompany his paranoia. The projection is thus his defence mechanism against his perceived persecutors. That attitude really creates poor working relationships, and, because we are a collaborative community, he is not allowed to work solo here. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Brangifer has described him pretty accurately. His relentless personal attacks on me for a month and a half – which I have never quite been able to understand – nearly drove me away from Wikipedia editing and I am not sure other editors would have lasted so long. I agree with closing the RfC/U now, going for a topic ban and then if he wants to appeal it, that this RfC/U should be reopened for him to address the issues raised by it properly.  --P123ct1 (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * All this is a pretext to attack me mercilessly. What Brangifer is saying is the farthest away from who I am... It is not unusual that those who "falsely label" people are looking into their own mirror and describing themslves!... "Local" consensus by who? The (very) small number of people who actually drove me away from editing this article? I have not edited Wikipedia for over a month, and ALL my previous edits to the "article" were supported by reliable sources without violating policy not once. I also fixed problems that no one else knew how to fix.  Anyway, I will not be sucked into this matter once again... Now, they're doing the same to Gregkaye, a good editor. I am no longer interested in editing Wikipedia at all!... Worldedixor (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a classic answer, right out of a psych textbook, and it confirms the opinions of others. You can persist in believing everyone else is wrong, and only you are right, but you won't get far that way. You totally lack humility. I'm not a psychiatrist, but the diagnosis is pretty obvious to anyone who has studied it, and I've done that more than once. Your self-perception and how others perceive you are obviously at odds. If you lived alone on a desert island, there would be no problem, but with your attitude and lack of ability "to see yourself as others see you", you're in for a rough ride throughout life. I feel sorry for you, but there isn't much more we can do for you. Here we AGF and collaborate with those who hold opposing POV, and you don't do that very well. C'est la vie. You will not be missed.
 * I'll leave you with this bit of wisdom from Leonard Cohen's song "Anthem": "There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in." That which is perfect, as you view yourself, cannot admit light, because it has no "crack". Therein lies hope for you. At some point in the future, after you have, again and again, had problems in your interpersonal relationships, you may come to the end of your rope, and your denial be broken (cracked). It will be rough, but that may be the only way you will ever be able to really understand what we've been trying to tell you. That will be your opportunity to repent and change course. Until you are "cracked", the "light" can't "get in" to you. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Brangifer, @P123ct1, @User:Dusti, @User:Dougweller and @User:Anna Frodesiak - This RFC/U was closed "due to inactivity" and archived by admin User:Bbb23 here. I don't know if this means that this talk page is closed or not. Anyway, it was suggested that if a WP:CBAN is desired then it must be taken to WP:AN. The request there doesn't need much evidence, just a link to this page. Question, should we do? It seems that it is indicated that we should. If so, who's going to post it there? I'm feel exhausted after recently starting an AN/I on another user and I've been warned against taking users to the noticeboards as part of my topic ban fiasco in July. Can somebody please just pull the trigger on this so we can get this over with? I would suggest indef. with appeal possible in 6 months.~Technophant (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think a block is in order. Worldedixor says he is no longer interested in Wikipedia. That means that there may not be a problem any longer. I suggest no action until or unless further action is required. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Brangifer, Anna Frodesiak, Dougweller, Bbb23, @User:Dusti: Worldedixor may not be interested in editing, but he has been attacking Technophant and I relentlessly since the AN/I Technophant opened a few days ago on another editor on the ISIS page. Worldedixor has attacked us on the ISIS Talk page, and at length that editor's Talk page and in the ANI discussions. The motives are transparent. I don't know what can be done about this. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * P123ct1, I have commented on the ANI just like you did. You do not see me forum shopping and canvassing WP:CANVASS with "selective notification" WP:Votestacking to silence you or influence the ANI consensus. That would be against policy. I want you to have your say at the ANI where it belongs. This is not an attack nor a grudge but you need to allow the ANI to take its normal course without silencing those who oppose the ANI. From WP:FORUMSHOP, "Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus". I completely lost interest in editing the ISIL article, even though you keep telling me "you" need my skills,  because I no longer want to be sucked again into time consuming tit for tat every time I make a well sourced edit. I didn't take my decision out of weakness. So peace out.Worldedixor (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There was no canvassing. There was no silencing.  There was no "keep telling" you your skills were needed.  You distort everything I do or say and selectively pick what suits your WP:PAs.  Canvassing:  after that WP:PA on the AN/I  I described what really happened giving the relevant link.  My opening comment in the AN/I describes how it started, which you conveniently overlooked.  This is the same pattern of  WP:PA WP:HOUND behaviour outlined in this RfC/U, only it is worse this time.  There is a legal term for this behaviour and luckily for you WP is not real life.    --P123ct1 (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I commented on the ANI, like you did. I am not violating policy. This is your most recent edit on the ANI and it is a reflection of your conduct (not mine) that is inconsistent with policy. It has since been removed by an ANI admin. Please cease and desist already and please respect policy.Worldedixor (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * An editor removed one of those comments, but not the other one - also removed but where is the diff - that editor is not on WP's List of Current Admins, and you would do well to respect policy on WP:PA WP:HOUND. This aggression has to stop. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Brangifer, @P123ct1, @User:Dusti, @User:Dougweller, @User:Gregkaye and @User:Anna Frodesiak:
 * Update: Worldedixor was indefinitely blocked today by admin Bishonen in this diff. I would hope that any admin considering an unblock request will read this RFC/U and the above comments above before considering granting the request. From what I understand, a voluntary topic ban can not be offered as a condition for unblock. Also, I've updated the stale talk links to their appropriate place in talk archives. This edit in no way changes the content of the closed project page, it only makes verification of referenced conversations easier to find. ~Technophant (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions to Certifying users from Worldedixor

 * The text in this section was moved from the RFC/U to the talk page See this in the history of the page:

14:16, 20 September 2014] Bbb23 "moved from main page with very minor modifications (to header and removal of parenthetical at top":  Q. To Technophant: My attitude is a reflection of the way I am treated. Treat me with respect for my knowledge and well sourced contributions, and don't gang up on me when I have not even communicated with you, and I will treat you better. Contact me with unprovoked sarcastic and uncivil attack and your first words ever to me were "I thought you said you above you were going to stop editing this article? *shrugs*", and you will make it immediately to my least favorite editors list.  So, isn't true that you have flagrantly violated policy in your communications with me and used anything and everything as a pretext to stir the pot and instigate me? Isn't true that policy allows me to remove your inappropriate comments from my talk page to avoid a worse conflict when your comments were written to instigate me? Are my "Article" edits in ISIS, Management of Savagery, Al Nusrah, etc. a violation of policy? Have you noticed that I was flexible enough NEVER to revert more than once in order to avoid disputes and edit wars, and I have never had an edit war or article dispute directly with you? Your responsive answers will shed a light on the credibility of this Rfc. Isn't it true that you have had email contact with P123ct1? ''I request a senior admin (who has not attacked me in the past) who truly cares enough about Wikipedia to escalate this email exchange matter between them and with an admin, and get to the bottom of this chronic matter as it will reveal a lot of what has been going on behind the scene. Technophant and P123ct1 knew that I don't have time for this and I just want to make highly knowledgeable and well sourced edits -- this is one example -- and go back to my happy life, and yet they teamed up with an admin to remove the joy out of my editing Wikipedia. Worldedixor (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)''

follow up for clarification: That's OK, Technophant, no need to respond right now, just respond responsively when you have the time to come back to Wikipedia tomorrow. Worldedixor (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

A., you asked several questions, too many for me to answer now. As to whether I "flagrantly violated policy" I do admit to reposting removed comments to your talk page. I was unaware that it was against policy and I was informed here that it was. In this diff I acknowledged the violation and agreed not to do it again.~Technophant (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

A. I have described on the user's Talk page here. the situation regarding the exchange of emails between the two Certifiers. No admin was involved. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Q. To Technophant only: (P123ct1, you are a certifying user and I will be asking you questions separately later. Please respond responsively when I ask you directly). Now, Technophant, I first ask you to respond responsively to my unanswered questions above. Also, I intend to ask you to delete this Rfc that has been used as a pretext for flagrant policy violations. In any case, Isn't true that you made the following edits with the express title "RFC/U for user problems"? , , , , ? Worldedixor (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A. @Worldedixor, I asked this question to admin User:Dougweller about where it is appropriate to advertise a RFC/U. I got this reply so I think my requests on other users' talk pages is appropriate. I don't want to shame you or make you feel like your being lynch mobbed so I'm not going to post it to Village Pump or article talk pages (unless there's furher widespread problems). I'm willing to discuss this further, however the "Q & A" section on the boiler plate was optional. I think the best place to have a detailed discussion is on the talk page. I don't want to get this page too cluttered. There's a guideline that this page should be under 100kB.~Technophant (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Q. To Technophant only: Do you believe that the certifying users should have more space on this Rfc than me? Worldedixor (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A. See above answer and .~Technophant (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Q. To Technophant only: As a reviewer who knows policy, you seem to be getting away with a lot that I, for example, could not. Are you permitted to violate policy? and can your actions just be overlooked when you are making all sort of unfounded accusations against a knowledgeable editor that only edits articles strictly following policy? Isn't it true that your conduct has violated policy one or more times in this Rfc? You have already influenced this Rfc by violating policy; because when posting a notice of the RfC, you should not argue the RfC and you are prohibited from notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased. ''Also, this is not a discussion. Those are questions to certifying users. Your non-responsive answers and actions are shattering your credibility and the credibility of this Rfc. You seem to use bytes without being responsive, and your excuse not to be timely and responsive fails as this page is still at 25KB strike that... 20KB... There is something fishy about this Rfc, I reserve my rights per policy, and I ask for 100% transparency and full disclosure. Otherwise, I ask for a fair and just admin (who has never attacked me before) to delete this Rfc and escalate this matter to thoroughly investigate this tragedy of justice. Something just doesn't add up, and I have been very patient adhering to policy.'' Worldedixor (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A.

Q. To --P123ct1 only: ''I have legitimate and reasonable cause to believe that there is indeed a conspiracy, in spite of what P123ct1 keeps asserting, and that this Rfc has been concocted via emails by P123ct1, Technophant and an admin. Now, although it has been almost impossible for me to expose the content of this email scandal, I now have verifiable evidence that on one or more occasions P123ct1 and Technophant did have an email that was not of personal nature but rather an urgent email regarding Wikipedia and this Rfc in particular. I also have other verifiable circumstantial evidence that I am putting together. So, P123ct1, in your certified response above you asserted that "The emails between Technophant and I are strictly of a personal nature", isn't true that your credibility has been shattered by your edits (Clearly titled Rfc) and here  (to try and hide the incriminating evidence)''?".

A. I refer you to my full and clear statements about emailing on your Talk page here and here, which anyone can read and draw their own conclusions. They directly answer your question.

Be careful about misrepresentation. You say, "...in your certified response above you asserted that `The emails between Technophant and I are strictly of a personal nature'." My certified response was: "I have described on the user's Talk page here [links given] the situation regarding the exchange of emails between the two Certifiers. No admin was involved." I said in one of those links that our emails were of a personal nature, but omitted to say that we exchanged non-personal emails after I heard about the RFC/U from Technophant on either 11 or 12 September. This had to be done for obvious reasons. I explained there that I had no knowledge of this RFC/U before he informed me of it. The "urgent" email postdated the time when I first heard about the RFC/U and concerned problems I had filling in the form. It was urgent because Technophant was up against the 48-hour deadline referred to in para 1 of this RFC/U and I did not want him to miss it. I explained this to you on your Talk page here.

Except for one question, all your comments and questions so far – which are another form of WP:PA in my opinion and a good example of the behaviour described in "Statement of the dispute: Description" – look to me like an attempt to evade the issues raised by the RFC/U which you need to address. Questions about how the RFC/U came about are not relevant.