Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Merecat

message: :I do not deny heMerecatedit by Kevin Baas made edits to the talk page. What I say is that these comments do not constitute debate and are not intended to resolve any differences regarding the contents of the article in question. Nomen Nescio 19:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Per the above notice:  "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."  Kevin was allowed to second Nescio's complaint; why am I not allowed to dispute his claims here, again, as per the above-cited notice?
:Kevin and Nescio are the certifying editors. They can edit that section, but not 'responses' or 'outside views'. You signed an 'outside view', and therefore cannot edit the 'certifying' section, nor can you edit the 'response' section. The instructions read:
::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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
:The policy is clear and straightforward. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation, Ryan.  I misunderstood what "other sections" in the second sentence was referring to.  But now that I understand, I see it is clear and straightforward, as you say.--WilliamThweatt 00:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My pleasure. No harm, no foul. Be well. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why was my summary moved to the discussion page?

message: Merecat, we are of the belief that process is important.  And that process is not my process or nescio's process or your process, it is common sense and community-developed process (such as are in the policies and guidelines). (though status quo ante bellum while the dispute is being resolved (i.e. as a stopgap) was my own suggestion to stop an edit war, which i made to try to help to resolve the dispute peacably, that as far as i know isn't policy) You do not see any attacks on your character on the RFC because that is not what RFCs are for.  User conduct RFCs, as i see it, are responses to persistent process violations (such as good faith, etc.), not espousals of feelings that one another may have.  Their proper use is to discuss a user's actions in relation to the community-accepted process. Kevin Baastalk 00:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kevin, your words ring hollow. On this RFC, you have explicitly accused me of "bad faith" - such accusations are indeed attacks on character. Also, as I have explained to you several times during this RFC, I am interested to discuss, with Nescio and also with yourself, certain concerns I have regarding the quality and quantity of links at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Several times in the last day or so, you have made definate statements indicating your intent to refuse to have such a discussion with me. Do you deny that you are refusing? And where is the proper application of process in your refusal? Merecat 05:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Answering Merecat

message: Kevin, as I have told you at least three times in the last few days, I am interested to discuss the quality and quantity of the links currently in Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. So far, you have declined my request to talk about this. However, I am reminding you that I still want to discuss this with you. If you continue to decline, I will interpret that as consent from you for me to unilaterally edit various links in that article. Please don't skip this opportunity to talk. I am begging, literally begging you - please agree to discuss the quality and quantity of the links with me. Merecat 18:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...  Kevin Baastalk 19:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement to Kevin Baas

message: "unwillingness to compromise by Nescio." I find this an interesting observation. Could you tell me how to compromise with an editor that refuses to discuss? Nomen Nescio 03:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nescio, I am interested to debate and/or discuss with you the quality and quantity of the links at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I would like to do this sooner rather than later. When will you be available to do that? We can have our dialog at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Please, let me know when you are ready. Merecat 19:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Resonse to WilliamThweatt

message: RfC policy only requires that two editors (not necessarily but usually including the filer) certify the RfC within 48 hours of its filing. Requiring two people to file it would be impractical, if not impossible (in theory), since two people can't make the same edits at the same time. Johnleemk | Talk 07:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I had just thought that this was older than it actually was. It just seems that in the past people worked together on an RfC and then posted it to the public. I just wasn't sure who else had really been involved and upset enough by Merecat's actions to file an RfC. That's why I had actually asked Kevin if he was planning on being the second certifying editor; Nescio's summary didn't really seem to include anyone else. But thanks anyway for the reminder. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re Lord Voldemort 

message: As to the allegation by Thatcher131 and WilliamThweatt that Merecat's good faith edits are being reverted by me, as partisan and leftwing operative (hyperbole, they did not say that), I object. Furthermore, for some reason editors fails to notice the lack of cooperation by Merecat as can be seen by the absense of discussion on the talk page. 
*Merecat adds citation tags and I insert the requested source.
*Alleged improvement of headers. Deletes/alters headers as POV, effectively denying there is such a thing as the Plame affair regarding the outing of an CIA agent.
*Correcting so-called bias. 
**Despite an official report sayinfg there are no weapons he insist on "allegedly." or deleting. 
**Merecat deletes Katrina as argument for impeachment, then deletes reference to the administration saying local authorities are responsible, then the cite to Der Spiegel  (among others)that show the administration tried to shift the blame on Katrina is deleted.
**Deletes sources that explain parts of the paragraph but do not explicitly address impeachment.
**Inserts claim that Plam's identity was previously know.  Although we have a court document stating otherwise, Merecat insists we should accept the right-wing talking point. As an aside: it is interesting to see so much discussion over the use of "left-wing" sites, when here the "right-wing" propaganda machine is used as source. More to the point, when Merecat used evidently biased sources himself I allowed him to use them. Nevertheless, he now objects to me using so-called biased sources. This means that 1 he is using a double standard, 2 I am allowing other voices to balance the perceived POV. This clearly shows I compromise when offered a serious debate. 
*Complains about accepted wikipedia policy, why?
*Although we know this administration has made numerous claims that are incompatible with our current knowledge of events, (WMD in Iraq, AQ and SH, Katrina could not be foreseen, et cetera), saying so is considered partisan. (Regarding Plame: he did say, those involved would be fired, to later change it. He also said he did not know anything of leaks started an investigation and now claims he authorized spreading info. Why did he start the investigation if he himself allowed information to be discussed and it is not classified?)
After having seen all this, editors assert that Merecat is making good faith edits and I only bad faith. He is reasonable, but I am not willing to compromise. Odd! Nomen Nescio 14:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nescio, I am interested to debate and/or discuss with you the quality and quantity of the links at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I would like to do this sooner rather than later. When will you be available to do that? We can have our dialog at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Please let me know when you are ready. Merecat 19:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response in general

message: As unaccustomed I am to playing this role, I feel, gentleman, that we are getting nowhere here.  While I personally feel like giving Thatcher a standing ovation for his arguments above, it would do no good.  I am calling on everyone involved here to stop making accusations, stop claiming "he did this so you should have done that" and stop re-citing arguments from from the talk pages about this "scandal" or that "affair".  Nescio, Kevin and Ryan, I vow now to stop doing so, if you will do likewise, and instead, focus only on how we are going to resolve this.  I call on all involved to do the same.  Instead of stating, re-stating (and re-re-stating) the same problems over and over, let's focus on suggesting a solution, otherwise we are just going to go in circles indefinately.
I realize this holds no official weight other than the weight of our word (or honorable intentions), but please, any who agree with this call, on all sides of the issue, please sign below to indicate your intention to constructively resolve this situation.--WilliamThweatt 17:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: #--WilliamThweatt 17:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: #--Merecat 19:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Voice of Reason

message: Nescio, I am interested to debate and/or discuss with you the quality and quantity of the links at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I would like to do this sooner rather than later. When will you be available to do that? We can have our dialog here at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Please let me know when you are ready. Merecat 19:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my thoughts at the applicable talk page. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mine too Merecat 19:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  @ 16:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC) - Merecat is still waiting for Nescio's response 

message: Let's try to reduce the animosity on this page just a bit, take a breath, have a cup of tea, and stop to smell the flowers. Have a lovely Spring Saturday. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...for those of us living in the northern hemisphere (per Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Seasons). :-) -- Donald Albury(Talk) 16:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spring, or Autumn... whatever your hemisphere :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flowers

message: merecat has now simply vanished some of my comments on the talk page.
Isn't that against the rules?
Merecats argument on the rationale to impeach article is irrational
and holds no water. Reading under the lines as near as i can tell the
primary premise of the primary argument is that "Alternet" isn't a neutral
information resource. Thats patently irrelevant, because the article is
only recording the rationale to impeach as it exists; this is a historical
report of the factual rationales to impeach created by large groups
of people. (Which is how we beat the "soap box" clause; to wit; if this
was a single individuals pet project only, it would be noise.)
This article should be a factual and historical fact based report on the topic of the rationales generated by a group of people for impeachment. One place
that group of people has made the argument for imeachment is Alternet.
Alternet is Factually a biased site, but in this case that is irrelevant;
this is a factual article about a factual movement and their factual reasoning as they have factually reasoned. Alternet is a member of the group of internet communities which the article is about. 
Further analysis of the conversation leads me personally to find merecat
guilty of sufficient noise to label as no longer operating under the principle of good faith. Thats a logic analysis based on the qualities of his argument. I would like to request that this person recuse themselves from this article and that level headed and lucid republicans
be ushered over to help with the neutrality-ification. Thanks for having
this interesting way of doing things around here, its my first time
doing this, so, let me know if it needs work.
Prometheuspan 20:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prometheuspan, please read the edit summary for this edit. The enormous quantity and loose formatting of your comments from today regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush, would do better at a sub page. I've made one for you here: Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush/ppan. If you move your material from today to that page, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Merecat 23:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The material belongs on the talk page for everyone to see and discuss, Merecat. Kevin Baastalk 00:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  =my complaints= 

message: ------------
a partial list of times that merecat deleted my comments. I will continue to search the list when i have the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49984262&oldid=49984034
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49982136&oldid=49981936 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49662384&oldid=49643309
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49662499&oldid=49643309
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49471755&oldid=49471520
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49515967&oldid=49515502 
--------------
Prometheuspan 03:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  illegally deleted comments 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WilliamThweatt
"Thank you for your well reasoned defense of my editing methods. I've tried, as best as I can, to address my concerns at a few articles with those fellows. In my assessment, Nescio is the hardest to deal with, Kevin next and Ryan 3rd. However, at various times, each of them have directed harsh commentary towards me and/or have been otherwise very difficult to dialog with. Frankly, I am surprised at the grab-bag of invective they are now heaping at me. I do not intend to respond in kind. So, whether officially rebuked by these proceedings or not, I'll resume my editing efforts, chastened, but unbroken - and more careful about whom to expect honest dialog from. Merecat 00:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  slanted and biased and false representation 

message: "What is the problem with you people?
Have you all gone mad?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia community not a place to hang each other in. Maybe some of you would like to start up a firing squad, stand Merecat against the wall, and fill him full of bullet holes."
Merecat is lying, making illegal deletions, making assorted ad hominem and straw man attacks, is using policy to game the system,
is not editing in good faith, is being an obstructionist, is being
a pov pusher, and is cheating and gaming the system.
Merecat deserves wholly to be banned permanently from wikipedia,
based solely on actions taken only against me personally.
Thats not to even begin to talk about the assorted ways that merecat
has been abusive to nescio.
Prometheuspan 17:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prometheuspan, thank you for your candor. It's always refreshing to hear exactly what people think and in this case,  you are no exception. Merecat 20:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: )
Prometheuspan
concerning your "honesty and transparency" people might be interested in going here and seeing how you lie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#trying_to_save_Wikipedia  please see Prometheuspan's response to my plea for help to Jimbo Wales. If people follow the links I provided after Prometheuspan's accusation, I will be easy to see what he is up to. (His lies and false accusations  concern both Merecat and myself. Also, please take into consideration, the fact that many involved in this rfc and in my interactions in an editing war, have been aware of my website and know that I am not a conservative. It's obvious that Merecat isn't either. Thanks, thewolfstar 23:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  response to ad hominems and straw man 

message: FYI - Merecat, the editor about whom this RfC is based, has been shown to be a likely sockpuppet of User:Rex071404. I've informed editors who I thought would welcome the news and not see it as spamming, but haven't taken that liberty with editors I know less well - in any case, I thought the editors of this RfC should know. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merecat is Rex071404