Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/WikiUser

message: WikiUser's RfAr took place at the same time as at least two major RfArs ("Lyndon LaRouche I" and "Lir"), and it's hard to follow what happened with it.  Could someone post a diff for where the RfAr was formally rejected? --Carnildo 09:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be this one: 20:09, 6 Aug 2004 Raul654 (→WikiUser and Fred Bauder - - speedily delete following legal threat)   -- ChrisO 13:38, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Frivolous RfAr

message: I have not yet decided whether it is right that I make a response to the project page which I think is invalid. (If I do it will need to run into many, many pages if I am to answer all the claims made about me.) However I must note that there are a great many factual inaccuracies on the page. Among others in the three revert claims. Could a responsible admin please look into these and remove the blatant factual inaccuracies. As I say on my talk page; for example a three revert violation is listed, where I, (and chriso), never edited that page more than twice on any day. It is not possible to 3 revert a page in that case. Also my post history is a factual matter, so claims that my first post was such and such, when it wasn't, must clearly be removed.Also as I have said on my talk page, v.riga, and now chriso, are posting in both the endorse and comments sections. According to everything I have seen on the wiki this is against the rules for a RFC page. Also according to everything I have seen on the wiki it is not possible, i.e. against the rules, for someone to agree to Mediation and then break Mediation by launching a complaint project. She should have withdrawn from Mediation before launching the complaint project.It is likewise against the rules for chriso to both pursue Mediation and this complaint project. He should have said whether he has refused to go to mediation or not. He is not above the rules. Also he has broken the rules by adding comments to the mediation 'special page' that are not allowed. The [RFMediation] page says at the top: "Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in a case. Also, please do not remove content or move sections to separate pages if you are not a member of the Mediation Committee. Relevant comments may be left on the Talk page, and will be read in full." I have left at least 3 messages formally requesting that his breach of rules editing of the RFMediation  page is removed but the page appears to have been abandoned by the Mediation committee. So will a responsible admin please put that right?They cannot both be pursuing Mediation, and this project complaint. It's against the wiki rules. And it also says on the [Mediation page]: "Any disputant may refuse or withdraw from the mediation process at will, though this is considered bad form."WikiUser 20:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any parts of the RfC that you dispute should be noted explicitly in your response.  Any problems you have with those bringing the RfC against you (primarily myself and ChrisO) should also be noted along with any breaches of rules or guidelines.  As for mediation I think you'll find that you had no grounds to take me there considering there was no dispute (it was therefore the incorrect place for your complaint).  violet/riga (t) 21:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not refusing mediation, I merely believe it to be a waste of time and a further example of your unbalanced behaviour. As for mentioning this RfC on the mediation page, I agree that in a normal case it wouldn't be appropriate - but in this case it is more than justified, given your record of misconduct and your frequent threats of arbitration, mediation and legal action against individual editors and Wikipedia as a whole. Your request for mediation needs to be considered in its proper context. Personally, if I was a mediator, I wouldn't touch your request with a bargepole. -- ChrisO 00:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Many of the problems stem from your inability to understand what people are saying. At no point do I even hint that anything on this RfC are false and was merely pointing out that if you think them to be false then you should do something about it - specifically, pointing out exactly which one(s) you think are incorrect. As for the mediation I said to you that you could do what you wanted and did not post on the page to support the request.  Considering that there was not an article content dispute, merely me pointing out your mistake in breaking the 3RR, I still fail to see the requirement to go that route.  Next I would like you to point out the wording of the rules you suggest that I have broken. violet/riga (t) 21:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. I too would like to know the specific grounds for your complaint - all we've had so far is sound and fury. -- ChrisO 00:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re project page

message: I forgot to mention the claims made by Ashley Pomeroy and Phil Boswell should of course be removed. It is wrong for them to make false statements about me using computers I've never heard of to attack Ahsley Pomeroy. I've never heard of him, or Phil Boswell, and it is not my fault if he is in dispute with vandals. They cannot accuse me of being every user in Britain in this way. It is absurd, although very reflective of the nature of this 'kangaroo court' RFC project against me. (So perhaps their claims should be left on as they perhaps support my case well about the hate and discrinination I am targetted for on the wikipedia.) If I am to be held responsible for every vandalism edit made by every user in Britain then The Wikipedia Foundation will need to produce some evidence of this bizzare claim.Also deathpheonix's claims that I am mentally ill are against the personal abuse rules and no one else would be expected to tolerate such insults: "I wouldn't presume to put a label on this behaviour because I don't have any medical experience either." Also as he is now endorsing this formal RFC complaint against me his endoresment should be moved to the correct section. He can not have it both ways.RE "Also as I have said on my talk page, v.riga, and now chriso, are posting in both the endorse and comments sections. According to everything I have seen on the wiki this is against the rules for a RFC page. "-Therefore by the rules their entries in one section or another must be deleted.WikiUser 21:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As per request, I have un-levelled the accusation of turpitude. It seemed odd that my very first defacement from someone in the UK should come so soon after wading into this hilarious dispute. I read the 'problem users' page for entertainment's sake - although this is not to say that I don't take the process seriously - and this is the most dramatic dispute in the current crop; the appellant's self-pitying paranoia, mock outrage ("Have some people no morals?") and excessively prolix justifications remind me of the Sollog affair. Back in the day I used to work as an audio typist for the Immigration Appellate Authority, typing up the appeals of refugees; tales of torture, murder, rape, injustice and casual violence, most of them fabricated by people who would climb up a pile of drowing babies to reach dry land. If you find this "offensive", then your baseline is lower than mine. As for "hate and discrimination", it's good to hate bad things, and to discriminate against them. -Ashley Pomeroy 01:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, I never made any allegations that WikiUser is mentally ill. In fact, my very lack of medical experience forbids me from making such allegations. Since WikiUser seems to favour making demands, I shall make one of my own: that WikiUser retract his statement that I am going against the rules of personal abuse, since I explicitly made no such accusations as to WikiUser's mental illness. Failure to do so only shows me that WikiUser loves to be the victim without admitting any wrong doing. --Deathphoenix 03:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The above two posts prove the points I've made very well.WikiUser 17:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Further breaking of rules by endorsers on project page

message: So what's the deal here?  I've never contributed evidence for one of these before (never had to) however having just been at the sharp end of this guy's temper with accusations of a misuse of my admin powers and being a vandal I now have evidence from my user talk page.  Do I just add it myself?  In what format?  If someone else would like to read my user talk page and add it themselves please feel free, I'll not archive it until it's been done. -- Francs2000 | Talk  23:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may wish to add to "Uncategorized false accusations against other users" but that is already quite a lot of evidence.  Perhaps just supporting (adding your vote onto "Other users who endorse this summary") the RfC would be acceptable.  That is if you agree with the other aspects of the RfC. violet/riga (t) 23:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read through it and it is fairly well written.  I'll just add my sig. -- Francs2000 | Talk  23:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More evidence 

message: It would seem that the WikiUser account, along with his IP address, have gone quiet of late - no edits in two days.  Hopefully this break will go towards clearing up the situation. violet/riga (t) 19:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quiet