Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Aminz

message: * I noticed BostonMA's outside view. I wonder if I should complete my response section. 
Replies:
* Also, I had another question. Can I activate the an RfC which I prepared sometime ago(but wasn't officially added) to this RfC? . I think RfC brings all involved parties under consideration. Is that right? Thanks --Aminz 05:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't copypaste here, no. But you can't really start another, either. I would just add the text into your response. -Amark moo! 06:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your reply.I mean starting a new section, not in response section. Thanks for your suggestion but if you would give me some time to revise it, I would be grateful.--Aminz 06:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I am refering to An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors point here  --Aminz 06:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the rules for sectioning are, nor does it matter all that much if they're so hard to find. Start a new section, or include it in the response section; it doesn't matter. -Amark moo! 06:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: Asterion, I’m not certain if your comment were meant to enlighten or merely to advertise an out-of-process RfC on this one, but your statement "This is just premature tick-for-tack" is ill-informed. First, this RfC predates the one to which you'd referred. (as it happens, I didn't add anything). Meanwhile, predating both of these is Aminz' own RfC against Beit Or, Humus sapiens and Jayjg. True or not, it would at least make sense to connect this RfC with the Aminz' earlier one against the very editor who's filed this, but to call it retaliation for an out-of-process RfC against a third party which hadn't even been hinted at, much less drafted, is bizarre. In both instances, it seems you're very confident in weighing in without having much of an idea of what you're talking about.Proabivouac 11:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation is generalised. I was not singling you out. I am perfectly aware you did not start this RfC either. --Asteriontalk 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I appreciate it.Proabivouac 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Asterion]]'s baseless charge of retaliation

message: The issue stops being a single user's behaviour when people certify that there is a dispute, even more when they say that dispute involves an edit war.  Both a dispute and an edit war take at least two parties.  Also, the  instructions for user conduct requests for comment explicitly say in the third bullet point that "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors, and can lead to binding arbitration."  I'll point out that if it gets to arbitration, the conduct of all involved will be scrutinized, no matter what the name of the case or who brings it.  GRBerry 20:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Humus sapiens 

message: [moved from RFC page] Am I allowed to post this here? I just want to say that I don't think Aminz acted in bad faith in nominating these books for deletion. I supported him on that because I think it's odd to have so many pages about Robert Spencer, some of whose views are seen as controversial. People might disagree with the nomination, but there's no reason to suspect bad faith, in my view. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to CltFn 

message: Please indicate below if you disagree, otherwise I shall delist this at some point tomorrow. --Spartaz Humbug! 20:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shall we delist this RFC? there has been no activity for over two weeks.