Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/The Number

message: I'm adding this here because I'm not a neutral outside party: I've been peripherally involved in an earlier stage of this debate and have been following the recent discussions on Talk:Sollog without actively contributing.
First, and most importantly, let's not make this a debate about whether The Number is or isn't Sollog. This is precisely the direction TheNumber has been trying to take, but this is not what this RFC should be primarily about. TheNumber's recent strategy has been to react angrily to real or perceived accusations that he/she is Sollog/Ennis, often sidelining debates and painting herself/himself as the victim of attacks.  At a point in the past, this may even have been justified: TheNumber has been consistent in claiming that he/she is based in the UK, several editors have expressed doubt, some of them have even been asked to stop pursuing this line of debate. Nevertheless, TheNumber has been unusually vocal and detailed in trying to convince everyone of his whereabouts. Since neither side can offer any definitive proof one way or the other and the debate cannot possibly be resolved, any attempt to raise this issue again should be seen as trolling.
So this RFC is about the behavior of TheNumber, and not about any factual claims regarding his/her whereabouts. I have endorsed the summary of the dispute statement, because I agree that TheNumber has been a source, catalyst, and strange attractor of hostility, pointless acerbic debate, and other bad behavior. I would consider this RFC a success if TheNumber could be convinced to (1) focus on issues of his/her own behavior (rather than insisting on beeing seen as the victim of a conspiracy) and (2) promise to substantially reduce the abrasive behavior.
Since I don't want this debate to turn into a big troll fest regarding TheNumber's whereabouts and identity, I will personally revert any and all contributions on this topic in the present subsection. Constructive discussion of TheNumber's behavior and ways to modify it is what this debate should be about instead. --MarkSweep 20:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Number wrote: Ways to modify: It's really very simple. All Wyss has to do is stop calling me Ennis (and insulting me accordingly) while at the same time trying to interrogate me for a source about Sollog (Ennis) [off-topic comments deleted, as stated above --MarkSweep 02:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: This area is for the discussion of The Number's behaviour and I submit that this behaviour has largely (though not entirely) been because of Wyss's continuous abuse. You should also read (if you haven't already) the response from The Number on the accusation page. The Number 20:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you implying that you're not responsible for your own behavior, because it is mostly the product of this harsh and unfriendly (sarcasm!) environment we have here? I've deleted your comments because you repeated yourself and you strayed from the topic. The topic is: do you have any constructive suggestions regarding how your interactions with other editors can be improved from your side? --MarkSweep 08:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: MarkSweep's view

message: The Number has a habit of refusing to answer direct questions with long-winded excuses and rehashing of old grudges.  So I doubt I'll get an answer to this, but I am curious how the Number would answer the following: 
:# Why are you here?  What do you hope to accomplish by participating in Wikipedia?
:# In what way have you positively contributed to the goal of constructing an encyclopedia?
Because the encyclopedia is what it's all about.  As Jimbo has stressed over and over again, we aren't an experiment in democracy or anarchy or society building, we are an encyclopedia.  If you aren't here to construct an encyclopedia, you are trolling, taking up space, or getting in the way.     All of us who work on Wikipedia have faults, we have done things wrong, and we've been part of the problem at one time or another.  But regardless of how much blame we deserve, and even if your behavior was as blameless and as innocent as Anne Frank's, unless you are here to contribute, you are just wasting everyone's time and Wikipedia's resources.  Gamaliel 08:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will give you my answer, and be polite in so doing, if you give me your unequivocal guarantee that you will not delete the answer and will revert any other deletions.There's no point contributing an answer if it's just deleted.The Number 10:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If your answer is civil, relevant, and does not rehash old grudges, I don't see what grounds anyone would have to delete it. Gamaliel 17:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The big question

message: It takes a special kind of sanity to admit your mistakes. 
Hoary wrote: "You had clearly stated that your original purpose was to contribute on Sollog." 
Gamaliel wrote: "Hoary had no problem figuring out how I came away with that interpretation of what you wrote."
And Gamaliel's interpretation? 
"Given that you have openly stated that your sole purpose here is to annoy people"
So Gamaliel thinks that:
a. "You had clearly stated that your original purpose was to contribute on Sollog."
b. "Given that you have openly stated that your sole purpose here is to annoy people"
are the same?
That's why he keeps deleting my resolution - he is loving all this! The Number 09:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I kept deleting your response because it was a talk page comment and not a "resolution".  I also restored my comments which you repeatedly altered.  Instead of blocking you for vandalism, I decided to ask an unrelated administrator to keep an eye on this page to keep all of us in line.  Gamaliel 10:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It IS a resolution as you very well know. You (plural) stop getting at me and I'll go and Edit. It really is that simple. And your 'resolution' contains inaccuracies amounting to a personal attack. The Number 10:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point was that Wyss's question exposed Wyss's activities hence my refusal to answer Wyss. But this is just a rehash. The RFC is the key issue now - in particular Gamaliel's constant deletion of my resolution and his woeful attempt to misrepresent meThe Number 10:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Will Gamaliel now admit he's wrong? 

message: Please see User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/archive M%E4rz 3#RFC. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC