Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dabljuh

message: How does an RFC about a user work? Do we comment here, or on the user page that goes with this talk page? Benami 04:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

message: Would anyone care to comment on this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ZimZum
Jakew 12:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL. I like it, and I got a couple ideas about why and what and who. But won't say more :) Dabljuh 12:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Just as long as you're aware of WP:SOCK. Jakew 13:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you use this accusation as an example of WP:FAITH Dabljuh. Regardless, I wish Jakew good luck finding dirt on me. As to my defence, the political aspects of Wikipedia have recently started to intrigue me.  --ZimZum 13:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, but judging by your contribution history, "recent" is a pretty good description of your dealings with Wikipedia in general. Were you posting under a different name before today?Benami 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, 213.129.1.112 or something like that, I know, not very charismatic. --ZimZum 23:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strangeness

message: The page states: In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users.
Now there aren't any links showing an indication that the users tried to resolve a dispute. All I see are one sided accusations, pointing the finger, as well as several different disputes: Civility, Consensus, Vandalism, and asuming bad faith, oftenly involving different users.
From what I see there has been little done by the accusing side to reach consensus, quite the opposite.
While Civility might be an issue I think this should include being respectful, and I don't see much respect from either side. The claim for Vandalism is slightly ridiculous and there hasn't been any discussion about it on the talk page. Like I mentioned before, fingers are pointed, but no effort is taken to resolve the dispute.
Asuming bad faith comes from both sides, and even exists on this talk page. No effort was taken to resolve the issue.
From what I can see a rather mangled image is created from several months of dispute. I think the real problem doesn't lie at the excentric behavior of Dabljuh but at a couple of disrespectful users who do not wish to reach consensus and use a small majority to succesfully engage in edit wars. The amount of efford by Dabljuh to communicate with these people should speak for itself. --ZimZum 16:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your assessment (obviously) but I don't really see the need to prevent this RFC from happening. Maybe I could make it somewhat clearer for the casual reader though. Dabljuh 16:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the Dispute about exactly?

message: Dabljuh has apparently certified that he has tried and failed to resolve a dispute with himself, and also appears to have endorsed McClenon's view. I thought at first that this was a mistake, but given his acknowledgement that he has indeed been uncivil, I am not so sure. Would he please clarify? Jakew 13:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You got that right. Dabljuh 17:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I'm still confused. Please explain: which explanation is right? Jakew 17:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's just say, I know what I'm doing. Dabljuh 18:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be so, but you're not being helpful. If you made a mistake, there's no need to be embarrassed - we're all human, after all. If not, explain. The community deserves that much. Jakew 19:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You requested comment on an article. There is a content dispute, certainly, and filing an RFC was an appropriate thing for you to do (though as I commented at the time, your choice of category was odd). This is a user conduct dispute. Jakew 11:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification needed

message: Dabljuh's response to the RfC here seems to clearly illustrate that he has no intention of being civil or taking this in the way it is intended, which is to serve as constructive criticism. He goes as far as to cite his "favorite" personal attacks from the evidence above. In a case like this, I would recommend that the initial parties should probably escalate this to a request for arbitration which can have binding consequences for such a harmful editor. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a true credit to the species of tapioca. Dabljuh 09:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, this comment made me go and double-check your stated age on your user page. I was pretty sure that I'd read 24, but thought maybe there was a birth year involved and I'd simply done my math badly.Benami 12:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can an RfC succeed in this situation?

message: Ugh.  I'm trying to figure out where to put this...Talk:Rape#I dont understand, please explain me.  Tomertalk 14:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some concerns regarding rape legislation that the article didn't answer. I raised them on the talk page and later, found some interesting material about it myself. Dabljuh 21:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the part where the grammar becomes really bad, below, isn't from me. And I have to suggest I was fairly tired when posting my part too, so... Dabljuh 00:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? 

message: This editor's flagrant abuses and continued disruption is so serious that I am considering the execution of an proposed community ban. -ZeroTalk 21:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which would be immediately opposed by a number of editors.  For one thing, the poor guy was banned for imaginary crimes, and now that he's using random IP's to defend himself on talk pages, he's being threatened with bigger and bigger bans.  The right answer is not a community ban, it's an apology from Cohen, followed by the removal of his current block. Al 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds interesting, MZ. How would that work? Jakew 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, what are the pros and cons as compared with an RfAr? Jakew 21:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on the continued discussion ongoing on the talkpage, I will purpose the ban on the appropriate section on WP:AN/I. Provided this meets with unproductive results, I will file a request to arbritration. -ZeroTalk 21:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever; he's been blocked indefitely proceeding the submission of the arbritration case. -ZeroTalk 18:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Community Ban