Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/February userbox deletion

message: I stand by the aforementioned admins for their actions.  --Cyde Weys 17:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement of support 

message: I think from you that's a rather hypocritical statement. Your actions are mostly destructive. →AzaToth 23:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to MarkSweep 

message: MarkSweep and Doc glasgow are not the only admins involved in this abusive behavior. Should I expand it to include others? —Guanaco 01:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if you can also show that you have attempted to resolve your dispute with them and failed.  Kelly Martin (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of this RFC 

message: This is getting a bit too Kafkaesque. Could someone please state explicitly who this RFC is supposed to be about now? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kafkaesque 

message: :Isn't it usual to actually make a response, like "I think what I did was justified", rather than just signing your name or requesting formality? Stifle 13:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; they're just being rude. --Fang Aili 00:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *In addition to actively, boldly, failing to acknowledge that there is, in fact, a real problem here. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Seconded. --Fang Aili 03:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from project page 2 

message: Basicly, My problem with Sweep (or rather, his problem with me), started when I tried to open a diologue regarding the bush templat debates and all I got was a warning. I tried again and was basicly told that there would be no more discussion on the issue. Mark also deleted a discussion in Pages for Unprotection citing "end of discussion". Since then, he has been speedy deleting content in my userspace. I've asked him to stop harrasing me and to leave my userspace alone, but he persists (upto and including a deletion today.) see here: User:Mike McGregor (Can)/scrap page   where I've been documenting the problems. What should I do with this, add it to this RfC? would it be an inside comment or and outside comment? feel free to drop me a line on my talkpage Mike McGregor (Can) 18:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can try offering it as evidence. --D-Day  My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 15:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how? I added it to the end of the "evidance of disputed behavior a while ago.Mike McGregor (Can) 04:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My issues with MarkSweep

message: --Localboy 11:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Word!

message: I want to add User:UninvitedCompany to the RFC but i'm a little unsure how to do it. On March 3rd he deleted 7 userboxes which were (slightly inappropiate) religious humour, I have no problem with him sending them to TFD, but the fact that in the face of this RFC and community consensus to use TFD he went ahead and speedied these templates is highly inappropiate from a bureaucrat. He is admittedly highly biased and selective in his edits concerning religion
I think with such a strong POV he should be steering clear of religious topics when acting in his role as an administrator. Discordance 18:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this isnt appropiate here and I don't have major issue with uninvited company, I'd just like him to try to stay a little more NPOV around religion and his admin tools. Discordance 18:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UninvitedCompany 

message: when does this close? and what happenes then?Mike McGregor (Can) 16:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: closeing?