Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:50, 23 August 2005

Changing other peoplpe's comments

I wasn't going to get involved but after seeing User:DreamGuy and User:SchmuckyTheCat claim to have an "outside" view (which I've moved to the response section where they belong) when they are both directly involved with not only the edit war on Encyclopedia Dramatica but the discussion on Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica, I felt I had too.--ElvisThePrince 10:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Loved the way User:SchmuckyTheCat removed my endorsement at the same time as claiming to be have an outside and therefore unbiased view now that shows class.--ElvisThePrince 15:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Jesus christ now User:DreamGuy has removed my endosement!!!--ElvisThePrince 17:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I simply reverted some malcontent who changed the outside views to responses... I didn't purposefully remove your endorsement. If peoplpe would stop screwing around changing other people's edits then this stuff wouldn't happen. DreamGuy 17:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

EtheP, it was not my intent to remove your endorsement. I didn't notice that along with the other changes when you moved my summary. Sorry 'bout that. SchmuckyTheCat 17:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey NP --ElvisThePrince 17:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

My view is an outside view. This RfC was neither created by nor involved me, hance outside. You are not allowed to change other people's comments on an RfC just because hyou mistakenly think they should not be outside views. Please take a few minutes to actually read the RfC policy as described on the page before jumping in and screwing things up with your highly biased modifications. You are only showing your bad faith even more by playing with other people's comments. DreamGuy 16:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Outside views are Response

Seeing as User:DreamGuy and User:SchmuckyTheCat won't be happy until they start a revert war here as well I will state that in my opinion that both of their summaries are "Response"'s not "Outside View"'s and leave others to draw their own conculsion about their reaons for insisting otherwise:

Response Definition:This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

Outside View:This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

How users involved in a revert war of the article in question and information being selectively deleted by the user in question can claim to be "not directly involved with the dispute" is obviously beyond my feeble intelligence, perhaps they have invented some new form of Quantum Logic or something--ElvisThePrince 17:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not directly involved in the dispute as listed in this RfC. I did not remove any mention of the individual or remove the photograph in question. I am not saying the person was right to use sockpuppets. That's an outside view. Please read the rules for RfCs, maybe get a little experience, before jumping in and making such accusations. Oh, and, while you are at it, it's pretty clear you desperately need to read and follow the Misplaced Pages:Civility policy. DreamGuy 17:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Puzzled View by McClenon

I have read this RfC, and I have no idea what violation of Misplaced Pages policy is being alleged. Unless I have read the dispute wrong, girlvinyl is the originator of Encyclopedia Dramatica, and should have the right to remove images from it. The statement of the dispute does not say that she is misusing Misplaced Pages.

Um, look again... the misuse of a Misplaced Pages article named Encyclopædia Dramatica and a related Misplaced Pages image talk page are what's alleged. This person is using multiple userID's to repeatedly remove very specific pieces of information from the Misplaced Pages article, namely the info as to who owns the encyclopædiadramatica.com site. --66.102.74.90 15:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Eithier I'm being thick or the RFC page needs re-writting but where on the RFC page does it say "2 Days without endorsement" I can see:

1. Once the request for comment is open, these two people must document their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed to produce change, and sign the comment page. Requests for comment which do not meet these minimum requirements after 48 hours from creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed. The subject RFC page will also be deleted, unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained.

   And it seems to be that these efforts have been meet:

   these two people must document their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed to produce change, and sign the comment page. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User:girlvinyl#Evidence_of_trying_and_failing_to_resolve_the_dispute

Am I missing something and being unable to see the wood for the trees?--ElvisThePrince 19:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you are right, that's why I keep removing the tag. DreamGuy 21:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'll contact the users who have been disenfanchised then, seems a bit arbitary not matter your views on the matter....--ElvisThePrince 23:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

==== Users certifying the basis for this dispute ==== --carlb 20:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

--2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Clearly this Rfc fails the 2Users certifying the basis for this dispute test as there were not 2 users certifying it within 48 hours. You have no case. Please restore the delete tag as it is now clearly a candidate and should be left for an admin to decide. It clearly has no future so it all abit of a waste of time. You cannot subvert the process merely by removing the tag. It is no longer at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment so it is just so much waste paper (sic), SqueakBox 23:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

So your arugment boils down to.

1. I removed User:2004-12-29T22:45Z signature, leading too:
2. User:2004-12-29T22:45Z have to resign to make you happy, BUT now it's more than 48 hours between the RFC and the signature.
3. I removed the link from Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, ergo you have no case.

???--ElvisThePrince 23:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If it's removed from Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment then I'll just go put it back... It clearly had four people certifying it well before the cut off date... The fact that Squeakbox personally removed some from the list shows clear bad faith and deceptive practices. DreamGuy 00:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me. You claimed it only began on the 19th August, so I removed 2 sigs from the 15th. It has not had 2 people certifying it within 48 hours is a fact. however much that annoys you don't blame me, and please don't subvert the legit Rfc process by reinserting an article that failed to get certification within 48 hours. bullying won't work, SqueakBox 00:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

If you look you will see only 2 people have certified the dispute but not within 48 hours. Why can you not accept this is not anymore a legit Rfc. You are making a mockery of Rfc, SqueakBox 00:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I don't wish to sound rude, but are you in the right frame of mind to be editing here at this time? I am actualy quite worried for you, if your a diabetic I think you may need to check you blood sugar levels. Can you just assure me your OK--ElvisThePrince 00:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Your actions here are completely inappropriate. They worked on this RfC before it was moved to the RfC space, they had two signatures already on it. If you count from the time it was started then, then they had two then. If you count from the time when it was officially started they also had at least two, counting the people that were already there (and they would have resigned to get the date stamp correct if someone had pointed it out to them earlier). The fact that you waited until after 48 hours and erased the names yourself is not at all proper procedure. You should either count those names ar have had them resign it when they could have. Of course if you do delete it they can just refile it immediately and get all the signatures they need right away and we'll be right back to where we started. There's no possible justification for you to be trying to delete this RfC. You are the one making a mockery of the process, because you are deleting names that were there for no good reason. DreamGuy 00:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You are wasting your time as the Rfc still will go nowhere, stop calling me a woman or I will take it as a personal attack, SqueakBox 00:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if Squeak is a male and I've been referring to him as a she, but the name seemed feminine to me. Frankly, from the speedy delete tag being applied for no genuine reason I assumed it must have been this girlvinyl person trying to get rid of the RfC improperly. DreamGuy 00:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

In DreamGuys defense without going to SqueakBox his actions would appear to be the work of a GirlVinyl sockpuppet (which of course it isn't)--ElvisThePrince 01:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm considering deleting this for two reasons: (1) there are no diffs showing prior attempts by each of the certifiers to resolve the dispute: talk pages have been offered but no diffs; and (2) one of the certifiers' names is there without a signature and date stamp so it's not clear when it was signed, if at all. Can anyone shed light on this? SlimVirgin 00:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

1. I'll leave to User:Carlb, User:2004-12-29T22:45Z and User talk:Depakote (original certifiers)
2. Which certifier are you refering too?--ElvisThePrince 00:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Elvis, I was referring to User:2004-12-29T22:45Z. SlimVirgin 00:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I would support a speedy on the grounds that it wasn't endorsed by 2 people within 48 hours. This vinylgirl has made less than 20 edits in 4 accounts, SqueakBox 00:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

This is completely false, it was signed, I saw it. Squeakbox removed two of the signatures. They worked on this on another page before it came here and you completely disregarded their signatures. If you didn't want to count them as valid you should have alerted them to that fact beforehand. You are completely disenfranchising them by not counting them and pretending that they didn't exist. I simply cannot believe the audacity of some people here to flagrantly violate the rules of this site. DreamGuy 00:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted it as uncertified, because there was definitely something fishy. It was dated August 15, posted on August 19, and one of the certifiers dated his signature August 22, but without actually signing it. And as you say, it was a new account with a number of deleted edits, which I restored and which indicated the account had been deleted before for some reason. It all adds up to a spurious RfC. SlimVirgin 00:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I saw them working on this RfC originally on the page in question. They originally put it together on the talk page or a user page beforehand and then moved it over. The early signatures means they signed it before it was transferred. Yes, it may look fishy but those people were valid endorsers and fully intended to have this thing go forward. DreamGuy 00:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You should try Kate's edit counter. Alsao my user page which opens with a pic. squeak is my female dog, Box is the male, maybe I should have been called boxsqueak but SqueakBox has more of a ring to it. I would also point out that nobody had informed vinylgirl of the Rfc, and with less than 20 nedits to her 4 alleged accounts we can assume she did not know about it. If those people had wanted to go forward they would have needed to do it properly, like everyone else. i actually had removed 2 for not meeting the 2 person threshold within 49 hours, promoted one that had and left one that still has time. i was being impartial and evenhanded, SqueakBox 01:04, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Right Timeline (some errors on exact times may exist)

1. August 15 USer:Carlb Drafted RFC here: Talk:Encyclopædia_Dramatica#Use_of_multiple_userID.27s.3F
2. (later) August 15 User:2004-12-29T22:45Z sign's draft
3. (later) August 15 User:Depakote signs draft
4. August 19 having (in his view) tried and failed to resolve problem User:Carlb files RFC
5. August 20 User:SchmuckyTheCat adds Outside View
6. August 20 User:DreamGuy adds Outside View
7. August 20 User:Robert McClenon adds Outsied (cofused?) View
8. August 20 User:ElvisThePrince (me!) Endorses + stuff thats not important right now (see above)
9. August 22 User:SqueakBox deletes from RFC and adds speedy delete tag
10. August 22 Both myself and User:DreamGuy point out the are at least 4 endorses/certifiers.
11. August 22 User:SpueakBox deletes certifiers + adds delete tag again
12. August 22 revert war, revert war
13. August 22 User:2004-12-29T22:45Z (resigns) (I don't know why his sig dosn't link to his user space with the article deleted I can't create a diff but it's there if you had looked.
14. August 22 Revert War
15. August 22 You ask some questions and before they are answered delete

This timeline brought to you by the number 3 and the letter W --ElvisThePrince 00:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the 2 illegitimate sigs from 15th Aug that cl;early should not have been there as the Rfc began on the 19th. They were imported, clearly illegitimate, and therefore needed removing. There were never 2 endorsements within 48 hours, otherwise I would have had no reason to remove it in the first place. At that time I did not even know that in all 4 accounts Vinylgirl had done less than 20 edits, and only later realised it was an entirely spurious Rfc of the sort Misplaced Pages doesn't need. As I said above I examined the 4 Rfc's in the needing endorsement section and acted impartially with all 4 (if I had had any involvement in any of them i would not have touched it). I was doing some janitorial work and feel I am unjustly being given a hard time for it. Dreanmguy could easily have checked I was not Vinylgirl before engaging in edit warsd with me, SqueakBox 01:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Even, even ignoring the legit sigs, both Carlb and myself signed so Your Case = Case - Leg to stand on, you made a mistake and rather than being man enought to admit it you threw a hissy fit deleted the other sigs and went on a crusade, when users from both sides of an RFC tell you your wrong that might be a hint that you are (shock horror) wrong.--ElvisThePrince 01:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

We can't use imported signatures from other pages written four days before the RfC goes up. It's a simple matter for the certifiers to come and sign the page within 48 hours of the RfC being posted, and if they're not able or willing to do that, you have to wonder why not. We have to stick closely to the certification rule to avoid frivolous RfCs being posted, so I'm standing by the deletion. SlimVirgin 01:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Whats that do I see common sense flying past my ear, my god it's fallen out the window!!--ElvisThePrince 01:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I doubt that it's they were "not able or unwilling" to sign as much as thinking that they already had. The proper thing to do in these situations is to alert them to the problem and educate them instead of totally disregard their input. Perhaps you are not able or unwilling to try to help editors here, but the intent was absolutely clear that they had already certified this RfC. By deleting it all you are going to do is piss a bunch of people off and have them refile and resign and end up exactly where we already were other than the wasted time and the newbie biting. I see a lot of people complaining about how the admins here do not want to try to work with people and make arbitrary decisions to have things their own way, and I have to tell you that this is yet another example. I signed this as an outside viewer thinking it should go nowhere, but the callous disregard for signatures and the lack of any attempt to explain these things to the editors involved before simply tossing their words aside is extremely disturbing. This whole episode of unfriendliness and using the rules as a club instead of working with people is the exact same thing you try to accuse me of, and here you are doing it yourself without any sort of attempt to deal with people in a responsible manner. DreamGuy 01:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

This is as dodgy an RfC as I've seen. Apart from the date and signature problems, User talk:2004-12-29T22:45Z appears to be a sockpuppet. I'd say let it go, DreamGuy. Some of the editors here were acting in good faith, but some appear not to have been. SlimVirgin 01:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)