Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Noitall (talk | contribs)
rv, page blanking by -Ril-
-Ril- (talk | contribs)
-off topic trolling
Line 21: Line 21:


[[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BadBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Newgate|?]] | [[User:-Ril-/Nissa|*]] ) 14:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
[[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BadBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Newgate|?]] | [[User:-Ril-/Nissa|*]] ) 14:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

== -Ril- even reverts an RfC page, 5 TIMES ==

I am going to let someone else handle this. At the beginning of this page -Ril- reverted my comments erasing them completely 2 TIMES. Now, -Ril- has reverted part of my comments 3 TIMES. These are ''my'' comments he is reverting. Does anyone want to take a crack at this? --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 19:05, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

==-Ril- new 3RR ==
See [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR]]. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 20:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:18, 11 August 2005

Certification

Is User:Irishpunktom's certification proper? He's not directly involved in the affair, and seems to have signed purely as an offer of support. --Calton | Talk 08:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

He signed because

  • an admin with an explicitely stated extreme bias
  • blocked a user who opposes said bias being pushed
  • for over 24 hours
  • for a violation of 3RR that didn't exist. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Marvelous. Every single bullet point was completely irrelevent to my question, which was about Irishpunktom's standing to be a co-signatory. Or is zeal about sticking to rules tossed aside whenever you find it convenient? --Calton | Talk 19:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Irishpunktom's certification is questionable indeed. However, as I have stated elsewhere, I welcome this opportunity to discuss my actions and would hope that no one would close, de-list, or delete the RFC solely on such a technicality. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Staying on Topic

The subject of this RFC is UninvitedCompany. The RFC is on the subject of the appropriateness of his use of blocking, particularly given his explicitely stated extreme bias.

There is a lot of off topic discussion.

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]