Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/February userbox deletion

Statement of support

I stand by the aforementioned admins for their actions. --Cyde Weys 17:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Response to MarkSweep

I think from you that's a rather hypocritical statement. Your actions are mostly destructive. _→AzaToth 23:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Scope of this RFC

MarkSweep and Doc glasgow are not the only admins involved in this abusive behavior. Should I expand it to include others? —Guanaco 01:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Only if you can also show that you have attempted to resolve your dispute with them and failed. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved from project page

Doc glasgow has not posted a response. You can't endorse a response that doesn't exist. —Guanaco 01:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Actually, when I saw those multiple votes I said: Ah, old "friends" - but what in the world do they endorse? I have double-checked the word "endorse" and yes! endorse = support. Quite amusing, isn't it? Misza13 ^(Talk) 19:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

???? There a bunch of signatures below a non-existant response??? What's that about? Is it:

• Since there is no text following the complainant's statements (and endorsing signatures), they are endorsing the complainant's statement? That was my first thought, and perhaps that is it? That doesn't seem too likely, but its possible? Sort of a like saying: we offer no defense, guilty as charged?
• Or, like someone signing a blank document (or blank check!) they are inviting anyone who wants to be bold to put whatever they want above their signatures? They are endorsing something that hasn't been written yet, even if it turns out to be METALLICA ROX or whatever? That seems very unlikely -- nobody would do that, would they?
• Or, is the the silent treatment? A refusal to respond to the charges? But then wouldn't there be a statement to effect "We don't recognize the authority of this process?" That would be usual, for clarification. Or would even that statement give too much legitimacy? Is it a statement to the effect of "We refuse to acknowledge not just the legitimacy of this RfC (or RfC as a concept) but even the existance of the RfC (or of RfC as a concept)? That would seem fairly extreme -- even Saddam doesn't contend that his accusers don't exist. Also, wouldn't that best be communicated by not signing at all?
• Or is it something else? Am I missing something here? This is weird. Herostratus 01:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It means, quite simply, "no answer" (the answer is the empty string). They see no need to answer, and a lot of people agree. See also the first outside view (Drini's). --cesarb 14:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Kafkaesque

This is getting a bit too Kafkaesque. Could someone please state explicitly who this RFC is supposed to be about now? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's about the February userbox deletion, dummy. --Cyde Weys 06:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Not what, but who? User RfCs are meant to be restricted to a single user; this one doesn't even mention any longer which users are concerned! Physchim62 (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't worry about it. I don't think this RFC has a bright future. --Cyde Weys 01:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Um, yeah... it's poorly formed, and it's against TWO users (Mark Sweep and the Doc). It does say that. On the other hand, an RfC against Mark Sweep was deleted by the Doc (I don't know what was in that, 'cause its deleted), so hmmmm. In that case a tag-team RfC might be given a little leeway. But this one's going nowhere as it's quite unclear. Herostratus 01:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I took a look at the previous RfC. It was deleted for being incorrectly formatted and not certified after 48 hours; it was a purely procedural removal, and in fact Zzyzx11 had already said he would delete it in a few hours if it wasn't fixed (but Doc deleted it first, after someone else removed Zzyzx11's warning). --cesarb 14:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
        • In addition, the old version lacked any significant evidence. Sure, Marksweep had made some questionable closures to TFD debates, but it wasn't because he was ignoring consensus; rather, another admin had deleted the template, and he closed the debate because it was speedied, not to speedy it. There were a handful of actions in his first RFC that were innapropriate, but nothing worthy of an RFC, at least, in my view. It was only after the RFC was removed that he really started acting abusively. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 11:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved from project page 2

Isn't it usual to actually make a response, like "I think what I did was justified", rather than just signing your name or requesting formality? Stifle 13:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes; they're just being rude. --Fang Aili 00:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• In addition to actively, boldly, failing to acknowledge that there is, in fact, a real problem here. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Seconded. --Fang Aili 03:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

My issues with MarkSweep

Basicly, My problem with Sweep (or rather, his problem with me), started when I tried to open a diologue regarding the bush templat debates and all I got was a warning. I tried again and was basicly told that there would be no more discussion on the issue. Mark also deleted a discussion in Pages for Unprotection citing "end of discussion". Since then, he has been speedy deleting content in my userspace. I've asked him to stop harrasing me and to leave my userspace alone, but he persists (upto and including a deletion today.) see here: User:Mike McGregor (Can)/scrap page where I've been documenting the problems. What should I do with this, add it to this RfC? would it be an inside comment or and outside comment? feel free to drop me a line on my talkpage Mike McGregor (Can) 18:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)