Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Xiong 2

This is foolishness. The RfC was going very nicely, I thought, despite dragging on indefinitely. I think it was quite clear that the villagers are not up in arms against myself alone.

Radiant seems to think this is an Etch-a-Sketch; if the picture isn't to his liking, why, just give it a shake and try over. This makes a mockery of the entire process. Why did I participate? Why did I honestly respond to objections, some of which were obviously made in bad faith? Why did other users take time from their lives, time away from substantive contributions, to read this turgid text and endorse one summary or another? Was it so we could all be played for fools?

If anyone cares to revert this RfC, I shall continue to participate in it -- on the offchance that someone might make a genuine comment, to which I must honestly and fully respond. But I assert that anyone foolish enough to play along with this sandbox-raking does not even care to hear me, so I shall remain silent.

As always, of course, I am available at the drop of a hat on my Talk or by email -- just click the Chinese character in my sig. Thank you. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk 08:55, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)


 * My interpretation of what Radiant! has done is that he's re-read the instructions at the top of the page which state that an RfC must be about the same dispute, not several. The old RfC could be interpreted now as being two disputes - yourself and Netoholic; and yourself and others. I am not strongly opinionated as to whether this is the case or not, but it appears to be the way several people are treating it. In that situation it appears sensible to split the topics to stay within RfC rules. Thryduulf 09:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Thryduulf. I should point out that Xiong asked me to 'get Netoholic off his back'. I have attempted to do just that. It seems Xiong is unaware of the fact that, despite any alleged hostility from Netoholic and his alleged cronies, there exist in fact legitimate concerns about him. Radiant_* 10:16, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * These are good points. There are genuine concerns about Xiong's behaviour that may be buried under a mound of Netoholic vs. Xiong, so perhaps a new RfC is a good idea. I'm not sure. Maybe the old one should have been placed into its own section (titled Xiong vs. Netoholic?). Having to start anew with fresh (though repeated) evidence makes me feel like we just wasted a lot of time. --Deathphoenix 13:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evidence in the renewed RfC
I have cut-and-pasted most evidence from the old RfC to the new. This evidence includes some references to the dispute between Xiong and Netoholic. I think that this evidence is still relevant as it is directly about how Xiong conducted himself in an inappropriate manner. If you disagree with the re-inclusion of this evidence please say so. -- FP ?? 10:57, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

please don't "renew" this again. it was going fine the way it was, but if we're going to renew it, just leave it this time. - Omegatron 14:19, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * It was going just fine, with the execption of the subject of the RfC not listening to what anyone was saying. A fresh start may fix that. --Carnildo 19:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. - Omegatron 22:49, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

From my talk page,
 * ''Now here is something Netoholic and I agree on completely. Maybe we can work together after all. I never said he was stupid. — Xiong&#29066;talk 03:29, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * So I guess this did work in resolving the differences between Xiong and Netoholic. Glad to hear that. -- Radiant, no login from here sorry.