Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Whaleto

message: Does this RFC also extend to http://vaccination.org.uk/http://vaccination.org.uk/?  My interpreation is yes, as the material on http://vaccination.org.uk is a mirror of whale.to, but without all the conspiracy theories related to alien implants, etc.  Andrew73 01:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added, explicitly.  Midgley 09:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://vaccination.org.uk should be addressed as a partially cleaned up site that might be further improved for Wiki acceptability, at least that is how I treat it in my discussions (sorry, John, kind of presumptious)--66.58.130.26 15:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vaccination.org.uk

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Whaleto&curid=3418352&diff=49471264&oldid=48443138
Not an obvious place for it overleaf.  Midgley 17:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without comment on any Wiki policy or precise execution for taste, I have to say John's page helps track/decode the lengthy (ahem) social and ideological relations in this contentious area where he is the decided underdog. When I started working, one could criticize an office problem, but you had better offer a useful solution also. --66.58.130.26 21:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistent conduct explicitly regarded as "unhelpful" 

message: I lack a worked out way of looking for these, but note that there is commonly a section giving precedent or previous illuminating decisions or discussions in RFCs.  Possibly it alwys comes from arbcom members?  Anyone help?  Midgley 22:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look through old cases and I did not find one which was similar.  There is more than one way of interpreting that of course.  Midgley 14:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar cases in past at RC or arbcom? 

message: Note side discussion - which ideally ought to have taken place here - at User talk:Whaleto#RfC on Whaleto. Tearlach 00:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User talk:Whaleto#RfC on Whaleto]] 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whaleto&curid=4739312&diff=49591934&oldid=49574197
My reference was removed.  Midgley 14:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored. Tearlach 14:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did this happen? 

message: It seems that 66.58.130.26 has put in a considerable (and perhaps unusual degree of) effort at improving the output Whaleto.  Why all the attention devoted to this one particular individual?  Is there some kind of relationship between the two of you?  Andrew73 12:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zippo, but I do participate in some orthomed topics and watch alt med. Perhaps I should have taken your friend 'HOG's invitation in January, but I usually mind my own business and fight my own battles. And when I do, I'm serious.  Although I have crossed John's path about three times before (more with you), in fact I think the last time around John was *editing once between*(after) you and John in February to finish it.  I don't think I ever directly addressed John before this RfC.  I have my own little lines in the sand, which this RfC seems to have trod on.--66.58.130.26 14:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why all the effort? 

message: I've nominated the biography for speedy delete.
I note though that whale.to and vaccination.org still host attacks. I appreciate the anonymous user's defence of a minority, but this is not about minority views but about WP standards and ethics. Time to close down, and get back to constructive editingGleng 16:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time

message: Please either endorse or reject the motion to close on the RfC.  If it is rejected the next step is ArbCom.  I personally think that is a waste of time at this point since the principal problem behaviour appears to have stopped. Just zis Guy you know? 19:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closure