Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ste4k

message: In her response Ste4k repeatedly addresses me directly as the author of this RfC. However four other editors also contributed. The edit history may be found at User:Will Beback/Sandbox. To some extent it is the expression of everyone who has signed on as a certifier.  It would be wrong to view this as the perspective of only one person. -Will Beback 01:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. Her comments on the "Description" section, for example, reference several statements added by me. I agree that this RfC represents the views of all who've endorsed it. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 02:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree as well. Although Will Beback should be thanked for putting much hard work into this, it should be considered to come from all those who endorsed it.--Who123 20:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only preperatory notice that I was given was in regard to this URL and the index to this Page on another. At the time when I first read the RfC, there was one signature. Will sent me the message. I asked him in what category. He told me. And I read it. He told me a few days ago that he was going to do it. Ste4k 09:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I alerted you on the 19th that an RfC was being drafted (if I may say so, that is an uncommon courtesy), When the RfC was filed I notified you promptly. I believe you've been warned previously that your behavior may lead to an RfC. Going forward, as Kickaha Ota has said, continued disruption may require binding arbitration. The choice is yours. Please take the option of collaborating with the Wikipedia community in a positive spirit. Please do not prove yourselves to be Internet trolls, or other disruptive influences. -Will Beback 09:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not contesting the facts, Will, I was supplying them. The question was in regard to why I addressed your name. Ste4k 15:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on authorship

message: It appears that a lot of the wikilinks in the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" (and maybe in other sections) that currently start with "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ste4k/Prepolicy_Discussion" need to be changed to start with "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ste4k/Archives_of_first_three_weeks" to reflect the moving/renaming/archiving of Ste4k's user talk page. I've fixed a few links that had to do with my own comments, but won't have time today to fix the others. Kickaha Ota 16:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing that. I think I've fixed the rest. -Will Beback 18:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken wikilinks 

message: I do not understand where we can and where we cannot place comments. For example, can we comment on Ste4k's response or outside views in the article itself or just here?--Who123 18:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've seen, the norm is to avoid back-and-forth commentary on the RfC page. That sort of discussion should be kept on this page or on user talk pages. -Will Beback 19:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Is the "Response" section here for comments on Ste4k's response? If so, could it be retitled to something like: "Comments on Ste4k's Response"?--Who123 20:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that'd be fine. -Will Beback 20:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commenting in Article 

message: User:JzG wrote:
*The "Curse" thing is, in my opinion, flogging a dead horse. If we're going to beat up every Wikipedian for silly things they did before they got properly involved in the project then we are going to lose some good editors. Even long-established editors have done some things they rather wish they hadn't in hindsight.
I disagree. A single addition of hoax material is a silly thing. Edit warring over it for three days, attacking other editors for removing it, and filing a mediation request to seeks its inclusion goes way beyond a little prank. Nor is it the distant past. Even so, Ste4k could put it behind her if she'd acknowledge it as a mistake. Instead, she has refused to comment on it here, and just last week complained about how poorly she was treated while trying to push the material intended to further another online dispute. She apparently does not recognize any problem with her behavior in that matter. -Will Beback 20:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's precisely what IO mean by inexperience.  When your only tool is a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail. Those articles are improving slowly but steadily over time, and removal of most of the original research is one of the principal mechanisms for improvement.  Now you could argue that removing the entire content and replacing it with new, better content is not really deletion, and you'd be right, but to a newbie the distinction may be less apparent, no?  Just zis Guy you know? 12:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a bit worried about this "it looks likes she's changed" argument, primarily because there is no evidence of it. Furthermore, her discussions in regards to this RfC display many of the original problems. For example, in the discussion on her talk page with Will Beback regarding her edit war to add a hoax to Wikipedia she repeatedly skirts the question, flat out refusing to provide any justification or explanation for her actions. Towards the end she makes a vague threat that due to his "actions today" she will be contacting an "intermediary" and that he will "be advised." This is similar to comments made about me in the Response section of the RfC, namely "because there are other actions pending about that user, I will say no more about it at this time." I have no idea to what she could be referring. She has never explained her refusal to discuss the Greek Statue merge with me, nor her numerous allegations that I "stalked" her. In fact, in her recent conversation with Martinp23 she again asserts that I'm a "stalker", claims that I had "been advised" to stop stalking her, and even suggests that by calling for a third opinion I was using Martin to "game the system"! This all shows no remorse or even comprehension that this type of behavior is hostile and not conducive to progress. Clearly, she is making no effort to change the disputed behavior. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 21:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  She has recently called me a "Pawn" of yours, which I disagreed with her about :P (!).  I've been asked to remove my endorsement of the RfC, which I also disagree with, as she wishes to take the RfC to arbitration.  I'm not sure whether her comment was a threat, but Im going to AGF.  Martinp23 22:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She continues to call me a stalker. I am completely unsatisfied that any of the issues raised in the RfC have even been addressed, much less corrected. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 01:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'd have had unlimited time I'd have catalogued the stalker charges too. I think that another editor has also been called a stalker by Ste4k. -Will Beback 06:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I intend to do that for you. Ste4k 15:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to User:JzG 

message: There is a comment that argues with JD_UK's statement in this section on the main page. Ste4k 00:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ste4k#Outside_view_by_JD_UK]] 

message: Between the 20th of June when I was introduced to the concept of WP:0RR,  and the 26th of June when I made that statement  is there any evidence to the contrary that what I said was untrue? The way this is phrased appears to be painting me as a liar. Ste4k 01:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stopped counting the edits summarized as "rv" or "revert" during your specified period after I reached eight. [  etc. Since that remark you've engaged in several revert wars, in particular over the inclusion of tags, and before it you made 19 reverts in three days. So your comment about faithfully following a policy of never reverting sounds odd. -Will Beback 07:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at your examples just now... are you saying that reverting vandalism is revert warring? Have you looked at those example closely? And did you read the conversation that I was having with the mediation guerilla person and investigate what I was talking about regarding my reverts? (i.e. my talk page) Ste4k 10:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't necessarily followed all of the steps you recommend. It's enough to see that you reverted before and after your statement of not reverting. Even if there was a several-day window when you didn't revert, your overall behavior calls your strong claim of 0RR into question. Saying one thing while doing another is becoming a theme here. -Will Beback 10:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your examples are about articles, and my statement was to a mediator about my talk page. Ste4k 15:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? What did you mean when you said "I am 0RR. (religiously)"? -Will Beback 19:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We were talking about 0RR on my talkpage. Now a direct question for you. What does it have to do with anything in the descripotion or the remedy of this RfC? Ste4k 15:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you made that comment, you may have meant "I practice 0RR religiously, on my talk page, between the dates of June 20 to June 26", but that isn't what you said nor was that apparent from the context. Without those qualifiers, it sounds as if you were claiming to never revert, which certainly isn't true. A desired remedy is that you be less confrontational, and that your words and deeds are closer together. -Will Beback 18:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is not what I meant either. For a person that is looking for another editor to change her ways, you have a pretty narrow and suspicious perspective. If you wanted to badger me for having a hopeful positive outlook and trying to change my ways, then you have just succeeded. You don't appear to be very adept at understanding peoples' intentions. Ste4k 23:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that I'm imperfect. Please explain your intentions and the best way to get you to change your behavior. -Will Beback 23:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be real clear here, you are calling what I said, "a claim". It was intended to tell the mediator that I hadn't reverted the comments on my page. If you had a problem with that, and let's keep in mind that there was no dispute about me saying that with the mediator, then you should have brought that to my attention at the time, told me what I had done wrong in discussion, and how to correct it. As I mentioned before, you are taking all sorts of little things out of context, mixing them together and trying to make some sort of A + B = C synthesis out of it. This is exactly the same sort of thinking that fails to convince me while you and I are working on articles; and you know that there isn't anything irrational about that perspective. Ste4k 23:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been changing my behavior for a month in very many ways and from very different sources of information. It's called "fitting in" and it's a process. I read everything that is said to me and take it to heart. The ten names on this RfC aren't even representative of 1% of all of the various editors whom I have taken input from. Ste4k 00:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Which of the issues we've raised do you consider founded? I'd gotten the impression that you consider all of them unfounded. -Will Beback 04:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are asking me to do your work for you, again. If you are going to make allegations, research should come first, imho. If you read my response, it notes which allegations are unfounded, how, and makes suggestions. You might want to start with some of the conversations called unresolved disputes that actually ended up amicably. Ste4k 12:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done research and have provided evidence for the assertions I've made. I don't see any unfounded allegations. If you do, please point them out. Otherwiese, don't say they are unfounded. -Will Beback 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement about 0RR religiously 

message: " 23:54, 24 July 2006 Will Beback (Talk | contribs) (→Statement about 0RR religiously - you tell us) "
Several questions regarding my heritage, nationality, etc, have been raised to ascertain what will require a change...
Do you live in a culture where it is appropriate to ask people to apologize for things they haven't done? I haven't any intention to apologize for things that I haven't done, nor do I intend to be a scapegoat for the acts of several other people. Just because I don't complain, doesn't mean that I don't notice. If you want to turn this RfC around, then since it's in writing and published, you will need to remove the unfounded allegations. If you haven't researched these matters well enough in the first place then I suggest you delete the whole affair and we put it in our past. Ste4k 01:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which of the issues we've raised do you consider founded? I'd gotten the impression that you consider all of them unfounded. -Will Beback 04:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are asking me to do your work for you, again. If you are going to make allegations, research should come first, imho. If you read my response, it notes which allegations are unfounded, how, and makes suggestions. You might want to start with some of the conversations called unresolved disputes that actually ended up amicably. Ste4k 12:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done research and have provided evidence for the assertions I've made. I don't see any unfounded allegations. If you do, please point them out. Otherwiese, don't say they are unfounded. -Will Beback 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments in edit summary 

message: I noted above
"I still wonder if she had/has some hidden agenda or motive for wanting to delete the ACIM articles? Why would a user who supposedly knew nothing about the subject want to do that? It is also interesting that she has largely succeeded in this quest as the primary ACIM article is now destroyed and related articles have been deleted." []
I had last checked the ACIM page about a month ago. At that time it was essentially the same long standing article. When I checked back recently the section on EA had been removed and replaced by a section on FACIM. FACIM and EA have been involved in a multi-million dollar lawsuit that cost FACIM/FIP the loss of their primary copyright, their Service-Mark on "A Course in Miracles", and their Trademark on the acronym "ACIM". This led me to believe that someone associated with FACIM had replaced the EA information with FACIM information.
As I became involved in this I learned about the widespread changes apparently involving many ACIM related articles. The Anderson article (the head of EA) was deleted. Now he/she wishes to delete the EA article.
He/she has been arguing with little logic why people should not use the acronym "ACIM". It is as if FACIM is trying to protect their now void Trademark by bullying.
I just noted this on his/her talk page:
"==License tagging for Image:Wapnickk.jpg==
Thanks for uploading :Image:Wapnickk.jpg.  Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated.  Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image.  This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
*Wikipedia:Image use policy
*Wikipedia:Image copyright tags
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot.  If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: --Who123 03:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't read too much into this. Scott Perry uploaded the Wapnick photo originally. Ste4k just edited it to remove a border. -Will Beback 06:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK--Who123 16:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: --Who123 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: --Who123 04:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its just a barnstar, which means little. Get over it. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The barnstar is not the issue. The issue is different standards of notability by Ste4k when this article is compared to ACIM. If this were an ACIM article it would have been deleted by Ste4k by now.--Who123 16:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, Ste4k did nominate Allerton High School for deletion  due to lack of "reliable secondary sources to provide any notability to this school". I don't understand your complaint here. -MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Ste4k deserves some credit for this (which she's received). Ste4k nominated the article for deletion, which received overwhelming support for "keep". After the AfD was completed Ste4k edited the article to improve it. Now she could have done that without nominating it for AfD, but the result was good. -Will Beback 06:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unaware of the AfD. This makes sense and is a plus for Ste4k. It still speaks to the notability of ACIM articles by comparison and the deletion of ACIM articles and proposed deletion on notability grounds.--Who123 17:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This was not a comment about her work on the article. It is a comment regarding notability and how the user's standards appear to be quite different when it comes to ACIM.--Who123 14:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would appreciate it if you would provide the same answer to Who123 on my talk page where the same comment was injected into conversation tonight and I was afraid to reply in any manner whatsoever. You'll find that comment here.  -- Ste4k 06:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I addressed the issue on your talk page. I apologize that I did not know the full history.--Who123 21:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgiven and forgotten. Ste4k 15:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACIM 

message: When I first tried to leave a comment on Ste4k's talk page she had a notice telling people not to post comments there. I now see a boxed comment by Ste4k at the top. I was surprised to see an American flag in the box. Perhaps my memory is poor but I seem to recall Ste4k saying somewhere that she is from another country in Europe and now lives in the UK.
Recently, I left a comment on the RfC to let Ste4k know I had endorsed the RfC. She moved my comment with this comment:
"Hello Who123, please try to remember to use a section of your own to speak with me on my talk page. That way I don't need to guess what the general topic pertains to. Thanks. Ste4k 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Who123, about your questions regarding my person, please see the 14th Ammendment of the U.S. Constitution. Regarding you questions about my discussion page:
# As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission.
# No insults: Don't write that user such and so is an idiot, or otherwise insult them (even if they are an idiot). Instead, explain what they did wrong, why it is wrong, and how to fix it. 
# Assume good faith: In other words, try to consider the person on the other end of the discussion as a thinking, rational being who is trying to positively contribute to Wikipedia — unless, and only unless, you have firm, solid, and objective proof to the contrary. Merely disagreeing with you is no such proof. 
# If you are having a disagreement or a problem with someone's behavior, please read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
# Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article.
# Separate discussion topics, with new topics at the end: Put each new conversation topic or major thread at the end of the talk page, under a different section header (== Subject ==). This uses section headers like the "Subject line" in email messages. 
# Proceed descendingly within topics: Within each topic, chronological order should also be preserved: the further down the contribution to talk, the later in time it was made. 
# Avoid markup: Don't use a lot of Italic text, Bolded text, or CAPITAL LETTERS. These are considered SHOUTING, and contribute to the view that you are RANTING!!!!! 
# Please refrain from using headers to personally address people on talk pages. Headers should be used to facilitate discussion by indicating and limiting topics related to the article. 
# Article talk pages should be used for discussing the articles and how to improve them, not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article. 
# If the community lets you know that they would rather you deleted some or other content from your user space, you should probably do so, at least for now - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. After you've been here for a while, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it. If you do not cooperate, we will eventually simply remove inappropriate content, either by editing the page (if only part of it is inappropriate), or by redirecting it to your main user page (if it is entirely inappropriate).
Hope this helps. Ste4k 14:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no idea why everything (or anything) you posted here applies to me. This is just another example of your mis-use of WP material and your ability to communicate with others.--Who123 21:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for quoting excertps from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. How do your actions comport with #9? You seem to have gone out of your way to create antagonisitic section headings. Do you feel you've done anything incorrectly in regard to your talk page, or have all of your actions been perfect? -Will Beback 19:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My actions were in direct response to what I had been taught was the norm by consensus. You had become aware of such actions yourself and ignored them. The heading in this very section is against the WP:TPG guidelines. At one point during a session where I was being actively harassed, you advised me not to edit war even though I was right. Then you advised the very same to the other party. You completely ignored that I had been harassed, and you have participated to aid in that harassment even if you were unaware. Ste4k 15:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly how is this section heading against WP:TPG Guidelines? Would you please document your assertions above?--Who123 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ste4k, when you feel you are being harassed the right response is to seek dispute resolution or file a complaint. The wrong solution is to add large, multi-color headers attacking your perceived harasser. I can't imagine who taught you that doing so is the "norm", as I've never seen anyone do that the way that you did. -Will Beback 19:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not mix up two different issues. There is large multi-colored heading in this very sub topic which is against WP:TPG for exactly the same reasons you are describing. Ste4k 23:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues aren't different. This is an RfC, so comments about you are appropriate. -Will Beback 23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've missed the point. There is a clear difference between how my username is used on this page as a subject rather than a predicate. You also seem to have selectively forgotten other instances of the same that exist on your talk page. Is there any reason that I should take your advice when you yourself fail to heed it? Ste4k 00:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a talk page, it is a RfC and WP:TPG simply does not apply to this page.--Who123 00:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this is a talk page, for the RfC (hence the "Wikipedia talk:" in the page title. WP:TPG applies for any talk page throughout the project. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, sorry. I was confused between User Talk Pages and WP Talk Pages. I still do not understand Ste4k's concerns.--Who123 15:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I 've changed it to avoid another distraction, though I would not say that the heading was anything close to the headings that Ste4k put up here  and here , which I think were intended to be antagonistic. -Will Beback 04:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion about those seems to me to be contradictory. Do you also feel that this example is antagonistic? Ste4k 12:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Adding heading that say, "Nscheffey makes confusing comments about what I should or shouldn't like", and "Nscheffey advises not to follow the guidelines" (though that is not his advice) appears to me to be intentionally antagonistic. -Will Beback 19:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad that you put that into writing. Thanks. Ste4k 18:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ste4k refuses to address this issue or any others. Of course those headings were intentionally antagonistic, as any honest observer would agree. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 21:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a patent falsehood. You seem to combine a flimsy grasp of policy with a stubborn and self righteous nature, a dangerous combination. Ste4k 01:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page issues 

message: Seems this RfC is just making things worse rather than trying to bring editors together to constructively discuss and guide Ste4k's approach and actions. Its turned into yet another example of editors talking past and around each other, trying to find minutiae to discredit the bases of questions (and the RfC overall), and its not getting anywhere. (Which somewhat reminds me of my only interaction with Ste4k ). We need to get by the wikilawyernig and move forward. While I agreed with the Outside view by JD UK that Ste4k had made progress in terms of relating with other editors, the last few days on this RfC bring that into doubt. That said, I also don't think it is all Ste4k's fault - seems many editors refuse to "forgive & forget" and continue to find ways to provoke Ste4k within this RfC. This all is nonsense, and does little to help improve the encyclopedia, which needs to be the primary concern here.
Let's all just start over, perhaps agree to a day or two of "radio silence," start working on separate articles, and just see what happens if we stop being confrontational with each other and try to find ways to constructively help each other become better Wikipedians. </lecture> --MichaelZimmer (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting we brush things under the rug. The very existence of this RfC is testament to the desire to make these issues public and deal with them collectively. My problem is that the method used by many here remains confrontational rather than working towards either constructive criticism or an outright solution. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree. Antagonizing someone who has trouble responding civilly with an aggressively worded and dubiously organized RfC is not the way to resolve the problem, folks... -- nae'blis (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I don't think that just "stepping back" is a viable option at this point; I think that the ill feelings on all sides have gone too far.  It does not appear that Ste4k is going to change her behavior voluntarily, and it does not appear that the people who have challenged (and in some cases deliberately provoked) Ste4k are going to change their behavior either.  I think the only way we're going to get closure to this is through a period of probation (where provocative acts on either side can be immediately stopped); that's going to require an arbitration. Kickaha Ota 17:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ste4k shows no interest in stepping back and instead is escalating the matter. -Will Beback 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making things worse 

message: Is it appropriate to re-word outside views after they have already been endorsed by other users? . Concerned that it might change a user's choice to endorse, and they'd have to be watching closely to ensure they're not still endorsing an opinion that has changed. (Not saying JD UK's edit means harm or necessarily causes problems, just wondering general policy). Thanks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering that myself, since my response was in reply to the article before  happened. Ste4k 13:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the edits you present were simply formatting or correction of bad links - not substantive changes of content or tone. Feel free to amend your response. My concern has to do substantive with changes to an "outside view" which might affect other users' endorsement of said view. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes I made were only minor; I didn't feel they would be that big of a problem, as my English seemed pretty dodgy, especially since I was a bit tired when I first wrote my outside view thing.  If people want to revert it to how it was before, I won't have a problem with that.  --JD[don't talk|email] 15:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since bad links were evidence I probably got the wrong impression from a lot them, just a guess, but I would have to go back an reread the entire thing to be fair and rewrite an entire different response, or at least different sections. The way the page originally appeared to me, it was some fairly strict rules, Will's comments, very explicit rules about how to respond and where exactly to sign. So I did that. Ste4k 15:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that you re-read the RfC. You do not seem to be familiar with its contents. -Will Beback 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not seem to be familiar with its contents. Ste4k 01:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording outside views? 

message: In the RfC this is the proposed remedy:
"This editor is a very smart person with experience in cyber communities and computer systems. We request that she stop the problematic behaviors listed above and instead contribute Wikipedia in a more positive, less confrontational manner."
*After reading Ste4k's response and the discussion here, I do not agree with this remedy. I think this user's behavior toward others and in editing articles is completely unacceptable. I think Ste4k's talents would be more useful elsewhere. If it is possible, I suggest that Ste4k's editing privileges be permanently removed. Ste4k should be allowed to continue to read WP if this is possible.--Who123 14:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While a block is one (of many) possible solutions, your inference that a user could also be blocked from even viewing Wikipedia is quite wrong & dangerous. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know the mechanics of how WP works and what is possible and not possible. I was not suggesting that Ste4k be blocked from viewing WP.--Who123 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a Request for Comments.  The only dispute resolution procedure that can actually lead to punishment of users is a Request for Arbitration. Kickaha Ota 17:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the information. Will this decide if this goes to a Request for Arbitration?--Who123 17:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can start a Request for Arbitration. But it's up to the arbitration committee to decide whether or not to actually accept the request and start an arbitration.  The Request for Comments (and all the other dispute resolution procedures that have been tried) are still all important to the process, because arbitration requests will usually be refused unless all the other dispute resolution procedures have already been tried, and because the cases presented to the arbitrators are usually based in large part on the comments made during the previous dispute resolutions.  Kickaha Ota 20:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you again for explaining the procedures to me. In light of this, I still stand by my initial comment but instead think at this point that a Request for Arbitration may be in order.--Who123 21:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Kickaha Ota has it exactly right. Since a User RfC seeks to modify the editing behavior of an editor it is fitting to allow some time to see if the problem behaviors will change. If they don't, and if other relevant dispute resolutions procedures don't help either, then an RfAr is appropriate. -Will Beback 21:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments. I would just like to point out that although I have enjoyed WP for some time I have only had an account for a few months and did few edits. It is only in the last 3 weeks that I have become very active as an editor. I have learned much in these 3 weeks but there is still so much more that I do not know and would like to learn. I certainly welcome helpful advice particularly because I am new.
*I still have not seen one comment by Ste4k where she indicates that she may have some problems. I have not seen any change in her behavior towards me or other users. Although I would like to see a positive result short and long term from this process, I do not see it. I suspect that Ste4k will only worsen, particularly with the users who endorsed this process. I suspect Ste4k views us as enemies now. I am at a loss as to where to go from here. I leave it in the hands of more experienced users and Administrators.--Who123 22:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps disengagement? --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Once this RfC simmers down then we should wait and see if Ste4k changes her behavior. -Will Beback 22:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is my plan here unless I see new comments or ones that I have missed that are in need of response. One of my concerns is that the ACIM articles are in disarray at this point. I would like to see things put back in order and then continued improvement. I do not know how that should be addressed.--Who123 22:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The work on ACIM articles should progress normally. Ste4k has made several comments ot the effect that she has no interest in ACIM, and would be glad to be done with the topic. So she might or might not participate. That shouldn't affect the decision to work on articles. -Will Beback 18:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a hurry? Ste4k 12:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what that question is in regard to. -Will Beback 19:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put simply, now that I am out the way, working on that article is back to "normal". If you go look at the complaints you have on the main page, basically all you're saying is that I am not allowed to work on any articles. It's the same intent as the other editors there who have endorsed this RfC.  -- Ste4k 18:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Remedy 

message: In the RfC it is listed as a "General Problem" that I "Implied that a subject will sue if we include a link." I am completely confused about how this is a General Problem, and would like this addressed by someone other than before. Will, JzG, JChap, or MichaelZimmer would be my preference. Thanks. 
:I can't tell if I'm asked to respond or to not respond. Anyway, it is included as an example of an irrational concern. -Will Beback 19:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is WP:LIBEL and the associated material irrational? How is the burden of evidence in biographies of livings persons irrational? Why would it be a "General problem" for these policies and guidelines to be considered? Ste4k 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain how Chuck Anderson would be libelled by a Wikipedia article that links from his biography to A Course in Miracles. -Will Beback 18:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't digress from the topic of whether or not WP:LIBEL is irrational. This RfC is not about article content but behavior. I don't intend to be swayed into a political discussion about policy interpretation here. You have your POV on policy, and I have mine. A difference between two POV's is not a "general problem" of "one individual". If anything it is diversity that helps the encyclopedia achieve NPOV. That you have listed this as a General Problem looks to me like pushing your POV and having nine other editors back it up to subdue my own. Many of those other editors haven't even been party to discussions between you and me on this topic. There is no dispute that exists between them and me regarding this topic and yet you have them endorsing the entire complaint. Why? Ste4k 00:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't changed the topic. I think that it is irrational to suppose that somone who claims to teach based on "A course in Miracles" would sue Wikipedia or its editors because his biography contained a link to our article on A Course in Miracles, and I believe that it was a flimsy excuse for removing that link. I think that this is characteristic of your editing behavior. -Will Beback 04:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are digressing the point and discussing the article. It is only your opinion that what you state was my point. I will not repeat my points about that article in this discussion and I do not agree with your synopsis of what I said. In order to discuss any of that, we would have to discuss the article. It is not a General Problem for an editor to have a point of view. Ste4k 12:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you've copied the whole discussion below there is no need to rely on my synopsis of what you said. The problem here is that you used a flimsy, irrational excuse to justify removing an important internal link. You've been unable or unwilling to explain why your reasoning is rational. This is indeed indicative of your general behavior.  -Will Beback 20:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you think that people that remove unsourced material is a flimsy excuse. That is indicative of your general behavior as well. Do you actually want a better encyclopedia Will? Ste4k 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an entirely incorrect summary of what I said. I said that you made an irrational argument that an internal link should be removed becasue the subject of an article might sue us if we kept it. -21:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ste4k, chill out. Both of those links obviously belong in the article and your attempt to remove them has been reverted by another editor. You need to seriously calm down, you are not making any friends with your behavior. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 08:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, please, for once, make a cogent argument as to why these links should not be in the article. I am familiar with all of the policies you have linked to, and I still see no basis for many of your actions. I'm also not the only one to think so. You need to calm down and be reasonable. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 09:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not uncalm. I don't know why you would think I am. I don't know this man, and I don't dislike him, and I don't like him either way, he is just another human. He was involved in a one-million dollar law-suit. I think that if he knew that you purposely just added a direct link associating his biography (as an author) to a book that he didn't write, and he was sued a million dollars over, that he would probably make it worth some litigation on the part of the encyclopedia if he was so inclined. Don't you? If you have not been reading the ongoing conversation, then please do so since it is at least four or five screens long now. Thanks. Ste4k 09:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only have I read the talk page, I've commented on it. The link to ACIM should be on there because he was involved in a one million dollar law suit over it. That makes it relevent to the article. What about that don't you understand? I have yet to see you directly reply to a point I (or any one else) have made. Try it. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 09:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For my benefit 

message: Per policy: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
In the future, please provide reputable sources that justify the link that you provided. And please assume good faith. Thank you. Ste4k 08:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ste4k, chill out. Both of those links obviously belong in the article and your attempt to remove them has been reverted by another editor. You need to seriously calm down, you are not making any friends with your behavior. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 08:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, please, for once, make a cogent argument as to why these links should not be in the article. I am familiar with all of the policies you have linked to, and I still see no basis for many of your actions. I'm also not the only one to think so. You need to calm down and be reasonable. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 09:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not uncalm. I don't know why you would think I am. I don't know this man, and I don't dislike him, and I don't like him either way, he is just another human. He was involved in a one-million dollar law-suit. I think that if he knew that you purposely just added a direct link associating his biography (as an author) to a book that he didn't write, and he was sued a million dollars over, that he would probably make it worth some litigation on the part of the encyclopedia if he was so inclined. Don't you? If you have not been reading the ongoing conversation, then please do so since it is at least four or five screens long now. Thanks. Ste4k 09:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only have I read the talk page, I've commented on it. The link to ACIM should be on there because he was involved in a one million dollar law suit over it. That makes it relevent to the article. What about that don't you understand? I have yet to see you directly reply to a point I (or any one else) have made. Try it. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 09:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevent Discussion from my talk page

message: It appears that we are missing two key editors in this (that I know of):
:Andrew Parodi
:Scottperry
Is there any way to contact them?--Who123 17:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, leave a message on their talk pages: User talk:Andrew Parodi & User talk:Scottperry --MichaelZimmer (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  People Missing 

message: Ste4k has now filed a Request for Arbitration against Nscheffey, alleging harrassment and wikistalking.  This arbitration request clearly seems to be tied into the overall dispute here, and I have placed a statement in the arbitration request referring the arbitrators to this RfC and suggesting arbitration of the whole dispute. Kickaha Ota 09:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my humble opinion, Kickaha, it may have something to do with this RfC, but it is not because of this RfC. I'd like to make that clear. If you note the date of my response and the content in it, you will also note that the arbitration on that matter was already being discussed. Ste4k 13:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are clearly related. The fact that you do not see this speaks for itself. Who is next on your list?--Who123 13:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is your question helpful in this RfC? It only goes to show that this RfC was created in bad faith. Ste4k 19:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good development, as Ste4k has now (albeit unintentionally) opened an RfArb on herself. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Arbitration filed against Nscheffey 

message: Under General Problems on the main page, it states:
"Used templates in a condescending, uncommunicative manner."
This template was applied to the talk page right after the closing of an AfD. Why is it a general problem, condescending, and uncommunicative to apply a Dove of Peace that reads: "This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page."? Ste4k 14:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much more could be added under that heading. In the example provided there hadn't been any heated debates, frequent or otherwise. -Will Beback 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is certainly only your opinion, and it certainly doesn't have anything to back it up. The way you have it stated is that I made condescending and uncommicative application of a Dove of Peace. When you filed this RfC, I was expected to respond to it. You listed this as my using a template in a condecending and uncommuncative manner. Maybe you shouldn't have rushed this through and gotten a few extra opinions before making a public condemnation of my behavior. You and others hadn't even finished writing it yet. I am surprised at the editors who put their credibility on the line by endorsing this RfC. Ste4k 17:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another example. In the middle of a conversation on my talk page you replied with a agf3 template.  Not commenting on my actual statements and instead replying with a preformatted (and inappropriate) template fits the definition of "Used templates in a condescending, uncommunicative manner," pretty well in my opinion. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 19:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using cool down templates is a General problem? 

message: Ste4k has abused my comment by interweaving rebuttals into the middle of my comment.
"Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow."
See: How to avoid abuse of Talk pages Wikipedia:Etiquette--Who123 14:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who123, please assume good faith. Her replying within your comments was poor form, but it is not "abuse." Everyone here needs to relax a little, and not spend all of their energy wikilawyering trying to find every new little thing they can complain about. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is not abuse then why is this behavior under WP: "How to avoid abuse of Talk pages"? May I restore my comment by removing Ste4k's insertions into it? Thanks--Who123 16:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the mention of this being a bad idea is in that section, but that doesn't make each and every occurrence of this action actual abuse. Again, AGF, keep cool. Go ahead and move her comments down to an indented reply to your original comments, but do not simply remove them. You should also add a note when you move them stating what you did. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken care of the matter, thank you Michael. I hadn't noticed it with so much else on this page. Ste4k 19:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.--Who123 19:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse of Comments on Response Section 

message: Either the link to the evidence for this is broken, or something else has occurred. Either way, can someone explain to me why this was considered a negative personal comment of mine if the person who wrote it was ? Ste4k 14:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That quotation was misfiled, thanks for catching that. I've aded a better link and moved it down to "Other comments from editors". -Will Beback 19:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it normal to file RfC's like this without doing the research first, Will? Ste4k 17:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a Wiki - we edit to fix mistakes. -Will Beback 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative personal comments: not conducive for editors 

message: About this entire section listed below. It appears to me that this entire section is saying that it is more important for other people to be able to read messages on my talk page than it is for me to receive them. I have tried just about everything that I can to make communicating with me easier. When you edit a talk page you get a big white box to put your message in. If I can't read your message or if it looks like people are shouting when they're not, then all of the complaints that are lodged about my talk page are worthless. The purpose of the talk page is to contact me. I have a e-mail link on top as well. The frequency that any other person needs to use my talk page is far less frequent than for me. 
This entire section hasn't any place in this RfC. There isn't any possible reason that I should be required to apologize for trying to read the messages from other people in an easy and convenient way for myself. 
...Ste4k 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the section, we don't need it copied here and it makes for a more confusing talk page. There are several issues with your talk page behavior. The formatting matter is just one, and the issue there is more how you handled it. Other issues include telling folks they can't post to your talk page, revert warring on your talk page, adding antagonistic headings, and denigrating the messages of others. -Will Beback 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you unilaterally decided that I cannot put comments about the main page in this discussion? Please look below where an entire conversation has been copied by another editor from their talk page. It is at least seven times longer than what you removed of mine. Please put my comments back and remember that as the administrator that started this RfC you of all people should be aware of WP:TPG, and the irritation that is normally caused by disregarding it. Ste4k 17:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this talk page is discussing the RfC we don't need to copy every section from the page itself to comment on it. In fact, doing so would be redundant and confusing. Copying something from another talk page that may be relevant (as you and Viridae have done) is different and acceptable. Drop it. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 19:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My talk page. 

message: I was just reading the recent comments here and was directed to Ste4k's talk page User talk:Ste4k. It seems that part of this RfC has been re-directed to his/her talk page and even taken privately. Should not all the comments be public and take place here?
Also, I find his/her talk page hostile in many ways particularly the directives.--Who123 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC moved to his/her talk page 

message: Can anyone explain why these are marked as "inappropriate"? The second clearly shows that the page ended up protected after an administrator was alerted. Something wrong with that? Ste4k 01:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In neither case were the editors whom you accused actually guilty of having broken the 3RR policy. They were, as you like to call them, "unfounded allegattions". -Will Beback 01:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR reports inappropriate? 

message: In the section on the main page, my words are being misrepresented  and I quote, "When a response was left, it said that a sentence had been missed from the first paragraph and comlained that Martinp23 had used overly harsh words in describing her actions (the use of "accused"). ". Where in this diff do I say that "overly harsh words" had been used? This diff shows that I actually say, "I think "accused" is a little strong and "pointed out" might be more accurate." Is there any reason that my words are being misrepresented here? Ste4k 02:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between "overly harsh" and "a little strong" is negligible, and frankly the least of your worries. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 02:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misrepresentation of my words 

message: I believe this conversation between Ste4k and Will Beback on Ste4k's talk page neatly encapsulates why it is completely impossible to interact with her. In the preceding section of her page she claims Will admitted to submitting this RfC in bad faith, a very serious allegation. When Will calmly asks her to point to said admission she repeatedly dodges the question, says she refuses to do his research for him, suggests someone may have erased it, accuses him of being hostile, and finally asks if she needs to help him learn to read. Calling this circular logic is an insult to logic. What happened here, which any honest and rational observer can see, is that Ste4k lied about Will to another editor and refused to admit it. For people reading this who need a summary of the problem with Ste4k, here is a perfect example. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 02:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following conversation on her talk page  (which she named "Comments") is along the same theme. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perfect example 

message: Everybody needs to stop this, right now.  This has become more, much more, than an RfC should ever be.  It's gone right past the helping stage; it's moved to a personal level, where the two parties are literally faulting the other's every move.  This is not moving towards a resolution; and it definitely won't achieve one.  This should be discussed amicably; with both parties co-operating and not doing... this.  Though I have no power to stop this myself, I'm hoping that everybody involved has the good nature to stop for just a minute, and actually try to salvage something.  —JD[don't talk|email] 09:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would sincerely like to comply with your request. Unfortunately Ste4k's behavior continues without a change for the better. It may be just getting worse.--Who123 12:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing, and nobody, is deciding what people are choosing to do.  It's easy to stop inflating the situation the way it's going - just stop.  Everybody needs to calm down so this can be dealt with appropriately, with an outside party's involvement if necessary.  If everybody stops doing things, that'll be the first step.  What happens after that, whatever it is, will never happen unless everybody can take this first step together.  As it is now, everybody's still doing their own thing; and that isn't helping anybody; least of all the main people involved in this RfC.  —JD[don't talk|email] 13:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your good intentions, but I completely disagree with this "just drop it" idea. Have you looked at the RfArb Ste4k filed against me? Take a serious, honest look at some of the diffs she provided. For example, this one as "evidence of wikistalking", or this one as "evidence of obsession." The best way to deal with this behavior would be to disregard it? Plus the fact that not once has she offered an apology, an "I was confused", or even a rational explanation for any of her strongly contested actions. This needs to be confronted, not ignored. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 21:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I have seen the RfArb, and I think it should also be dropped.  If everybody's gonna be besties around here, they need to start burning the bridges to Hell, and start building new ones to that happy place that I forget the name of...  If Ste4k can withdraw that RfArb, and does that in an attempt to try (again) to discuss and resolve this in a peaceful way, then the problem would be over; and we can all go back to being happy.  --JD[don't talk|email] 21:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JD, while I truly admire your optimism I think the chances of Ste4k dropping the RfArb are slim to none. I mean, look at her "revised" response section to this RfC. Is she trying to show examples of "personal attacks" by everyone who endorsed it? Ignoring the fact that none of these are personal attacks, can you think of a worse method to "resolve this in a peaceful way"? And how about her new penchant for sarcastically referring to herself as a DICK, HOAX, and (inexplicably) CON? As far as I'm concerned, she lacks the ability or the desire to converse constructively with other editors. This wouldn't be a problem if she didn't also make major changes to articles based on unusual interpretations of policy. The combination of strong unilateral actions and horrendous people-skills is too dangerous to be ignored or forgiven. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 22:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It appears that there is a desire to sweep this all under the rug and forget about it. I do not like conflict and do not like the conflicts here. Unfortunately, I find the behavior of Ste4k so bad both here and elsewhere that I think the chance of rehabilitation nil. I have noticed over the years that certain people on the internet just do not have the desire to interact with others in a constructive way. They do not change. I think this is the case here. It is not a matter of Ste4k being a bad person. It does not mean that Ste4k does not have good qualities. What it does mean is that Ste4k appears to lack either the ability or the desire to interact with most people in a constructive fashion. The question at this point is: should Ste4k be allowed to continue editing at WP? Ste4k does have talent and perhaps this talent is best applied elsewhere, not at WP.--Who123 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't about personal opinion.  It's not about speculation or theory, as likely and true as it may or not be.  It's about trying to help the situation with a fresh start.  If some people aren't willing to do that, then they are as hypocritical as the people that have commented on this RfC with only critical intentions.  —JD[don't talk|email] 00:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Does that mean to say, that if Ste4k weren't doing what she's doing now, you'd be more than willing to try and fix things?  —JD[don't talk|email] 22:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course if Ste4k wasn't doing what she's doing there would be no problem. Unfortunately, she is doing it, and she has done it without remorse throughout her entire Wikipedia career. This needs to be addressed. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 00:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, no, what I meant by that was this RfC and the RfArb, and behaviour that's surfaced as a result of this RfC.  —JD[don't talk|email] 00:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. I guess what I'm saying is that this behavior hasn't surfaced because of this RfC, it's been there all along. Again, I really respect your desire for reconciliation and your work towards that end. But how can we achieve that if Ste4k won't even admit that perhaps the 10 editors who certified this dispute have valid concerns? Instead she seems to think that everyone who questions her is making a personal attack. If I saw even a shred of reconciliatory attitude from Ste4k it would be a huge step, but I'm not holding my breath. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 00:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Well what I was trying to say in my first few posts, was that if and as that isn't going to happen, that should just be forgotten; and resolution should be sought.  Waiting for something you're not actually expecting is, as I'm sure you know, pointless.  —JD[don't talk|email] 00:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOP! 

message: It appears that Ste4k has re-written his/her response. Ste4k may wish to update their endorsement of their response on the "project page" with current date.--Who123 13:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ste4k 14:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Who123 meant the time stamp on the actual project page (below your amended response). --MichaelZimmer (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly what I meant.--Who123 14:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry Michael, but I was not at liberty to discuss it. Were you at liberty to investigate it and do something about it? If so, then let me know. If not, then as far as I am concerned:  This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users.
--Who123 15:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Response 2 

message: It seems that Ste4k is diverting discussion that belongs here to User Talk pages. See his/her own talk page. Also see User talk:MichaelZimmer. Under I believe that, but it is out of your hands., Ste4k states:
"If we had a dispute, then we come from two cultures. I thought we discussed and came to a mutual understanding. People don't have to see eye to eye to respect each other, and the world is not gray. In my world, that is where you came in."
Ste4k seems to comtinue to bring up that Ste4k is from a different culture or world. I seem to recall Ste4k first writing that they were from Eastern Europe and now live in the UK. Then Ste4k has an American flag on his/her page and cites US documents.
To eliminate this confusion about cultures and worlds would it be possible for an Administrator to tell us the country that Ste4k is in without violating Ste4k's privacy?--Who123 16:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, how much does it actually matter where she lives?  --JD[don't talk|email] 16:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As addressed elsewhere, the gender of Ste4k is in question. I really do not care much where Ste4k lives. I am concerned when Ste4k deflects issues by saying he/she is from a different culture.--Who123 16:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said many times before, this  has gotten too far.  Who actually gives a damn about who Ste4k really is, where she works, how old she is?  She took the time to register on Wikipedia; that should be enough to get everybody's respect.  I can understand that she's done lots of things that aren't so good, but what you're all doing, Ste4k included, is making a major deal out of something that should be left to die so that things can be started afresh.  —JD[don't talk|email] 16:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not care much about Ste4k's personal information either unless Ste4k brings it up to support his/her position or behavior or has different stories about it. I disagree that we should just all forget about it and Ste4k should be allowed to continue in his/her problematic behavior.--Who123 00:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diverting RfC Discussion to User Talk Pages 

message: It appears that Ste4k has managed to jump directly from "RfC and proposed RfAr" to "indefinite block for exhausting the patience of the community".  When you're already the subject of administrative scrutiny, moving your talk page in an apparent attempt to destroy evidence is sure to get an immediate response.  I personally think that the checkuser of Ste4k and Rrock was rather ludicrous -- they'd already claimed to be husband and wife, presumably living in the same house; a checkuser showing them to use the same IP address is, er, rather unsurprising.  But Ste4k was managing to create such a large amount of irritation in such a small amount of time that a block was probably inevitable anyway; the whole sorry spectacle of bringing someone in to challenge people to fistfights over the Internet was just icing on the cake.  I'm sorry to see it turn out this way; Ste4k made some very sensible and productive edits when she wasn't being disruptive, and her increasingly erratic behavior distracted attention from the fact that some people seemed to be needlessly provocative to her.  I hope she can find a hobby where she'll fit in better.
I don't know offhand what the procedure is for closing an RfC, but the indefinite block of the user being commented on is probably as good a reason as any for closing it. Kickaha Ota 04:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine just got left.  Look, it's still on the page!  —JD[don't talk|email] 04:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indefinite block 

message: Ste4k 01:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that's not called for.
2
Kickaha Ota 04:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images left by Ste4k