Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User:Girlvinyl

message: : I have read this RfC, and I have no idea what violation of Wikipedia policy is being alleged. Unless I have read the dispute wrong, girlvinyl is the originator of Encyclopedia damatica, and should have the right to remove images from it. The statement of the dispute does not say that she is misusing Wikipedia. 
Um, look again... the misuse of a Wikipedia article named Encyclopædia damatica and a related Wikipedia image talk page are what's alleged. This person is using multiple userID's to repeatedly remove very specific pieces of information from the Wikipedia article, namely the info as to who owns the encyclopædiadamatica.com site. --66.102.74.90 15:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puzzled View by McClenon 

message: In response to user:Squeakbox above:
:Don't bite the newbies. An Rfc against Vinylgirl, who has less than 20 edits, would clearly be spurious. But from my perspective do take it to the arbcom, as they clearly have the power to punish anyone involved in an Rfc: ie get involved with the arbcom and take the consequences. I would push for a ban myself, SqueakBox 16:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I doubt that Sherrod Degrippo (by whatever name or handle) qualifies as 'n00b', having already been on Wikipedia (and already having an axe to grind against Wikipedia) long before starting ED in Dec 2004. From ED's article on itself, "Encyclopediadamatica was created December 9th 2004 while girlvinyl was impatiently awaiting the delivery of her ibook. ghettofinger and girlvinyl were outraged and amused by the ill-treatment of internet celebrity jameth by the moderators and idiots at wikipedia. girlvinyl decided it was time to present an alternative to the fascist hold they had over information on the internets." Nonetheless, advocating an approach of running straight to arbcom when lesser measures would suffice is an abuse of process and an inconsiderate waste of resources. Wikipedia deserves better. --carlb 19:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  don't byte the n00bs??? 

message: IMO the only way forward is for those who believe it was unfair because  2004-12-29T22:45Z and Depakote might have erroneously thought their original signatures were valid (a spurious argument as if that were the case they should have re-signed) they should re/create the Rfc from scratch and see if 2 people sign it within 48 hours, and sticking carefully to the rules which means no pasted material from talk pages or anywhere else, and no adding other people's signatures for them; ie make a legitimate rfc, and see if it gets endorsed or not, SqueakBox 17:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
:(a spurious argument as if that were the case they should have re-signed) Except User:2004-12-29T22:45Z did and you refused to accept that..........--ElvisThePrince 22:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to look into Wikipedia:Undeletion policy and Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion if undeletion (or temporary undeletion) is needed to determine if this page was deleted out of process or to address any allegations of tampering. If you just wanted to put the original question back up for RfC (without determining responsibility for the shenanigans which've already taken place here), the basic RfC text (sans signatures) could be reconstructed using the article talk page text and the template (/Example_user) for posts here. --carlb 22:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Please re-read my post; I said that "the basic RfC text (sans signatures) could be reconstructed using the article talk page text and the template...". You are twisting words here! --carlb 23:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Heres an idea why not, undelete the oringinal then remove the signatures signature (given that User:2004-12-29T22:45Z has already resigned it!!!!) that you find so offensive, is that not the common sense approach!!!, oh wait we essentialy tried that but you whinned and it got deleted, No you would rather than everyone certifiers, endorses, outside viewers run around redoing ALL their work again just for your amusement!  --ElvisThePrince 22:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A solution

message: This is probably pertinant.
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_third_party_SqueakBox
--ElvisThePrince 23:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on Requests_for_arbitration

message: : I have read this RfC, and I have no idea what violation of Wikipedia policy is being alleged. Unless I have read the dispute wrong, girlvinyl is the originator of Encyclopedia damatica, and should have the right to remove images from it. The statement of the dispute does not say that she is misusing Wikipedia. 
Um, look again... the misuse of a Wikipedia article named Encyclopædia damatica and a related Wikipedia image talk page are what's alleged. This person is using multiple userID's to repeatedly remove very specific pieces of information from the Wikipedia article, namely the info as to who owns the encyclopædiadamatica.com site. --66.102.74.90 15:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puzzled View by McClenon 

message: In response to user:Squeakbox above:
:Don't bite the newbies. An Rfc against Vinylgirl, who has less than 20 edits, would clearly be spurious. But from my perspective do take it to the arbcom, as they clearly have the power to punish anyone involved in an Rfc: ie get involved with the arbcom and take the consequences. I would push for a ban myself, SqueakBox 16:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I doubt that Sherrod Degrippo (by whatever name or handle) qualifies as 'n00b', having already been on Wikipedia (and already having an axe to grind against Wikipedia) long before starting ED in Dec 2004. From ED's article on itself, "Encyclopediadamatica was created December 9th 2004 while girlvinyl was impatiently awaiting the delivery of her ibook. ghettofinger and girlvinyl were outraged and amused by the ill-treatment of internet celebrity jameth by the moderators and idiots at wikipedia. girlvinyl decided it was time to present an alternative to the fascist hold they had over information on the internets." Nonetheless, advocating an approach of running straight to arbcom when lesser measures would suffice is an abuse of process and an inconsiderate waste of resources. Wikipedia deserves better. --carlb 19:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  don't byte the n00bs??? 

message: IMO the only way forward is for those who believe it was unfair because  2004-12-29T22:45Z and Depakote might have erroneously thought their original signatures were valid (a spurious argument as if that were the case they should have re-signed) they should re/create the Rfc from scratch and see if 2 people sign it within 48 hours, and sticking carefully to the rules which means no pasted material from talk pages or anywhere else, and no adding other people's signatures for them; ie make a legitimate rfc, and see if it gets endorsed or not, SqueakBox 17:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
:(a spurious argument as if that were the case they should have re-signed) Except User:2004-12-29T22:45Z did and you refused to accept that..........--ElvisThePrince 22:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to look into Wikipedia:Undeletion policy and Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion if undeletion (or temporary undeletion) is needed to determine if this page was deleted out of process or to address any allegations of tampering. If you just wanted to put the original question back up for RfC (without determining responsibility for the shenanigans which've already taken place here), the basic RfC text (sans signatures) could be reconstructed using the article talk page text and the template (/Example_user) for posts here. --carlb 22:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Please re-read my post; I said that "the basic RfC text (sans signatures) could be reconstructed using the article talk page text and the template...". You are twisting words here! --carlb 23:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Heres an idea why not, undelete the oringinal then remove the signatures signature (given that User:2004-12-29T22:45Z has already resigned it!!!!) that you find so offensive, is that not the common sense approach!!!, oh wait we essentialy tried that but you whinned and it got deleted, No you would rather than everyone certifiers, endorses, outside viewers run around redoing ALL their work again just for your amusement!  --ElvisThePrince 22:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A solution

message: This is probably pertinant.
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_third_party_SqueakBox
--ElvisThePrince 23:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on Requests_for_arbitration