Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV

message: The refactoring you are doing here, and the boilerplate etc... have no relation to what is done on other RfC pages. Why have you decided to take control of this page? Are you unilaterally creating a new RfC policy here and now on this page, or what? Where is the precedent for any of this? Sam Spade 17:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user. I believe everything I've done here is backed up by the guidelines on that page. —No-One Jones 17:28, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe none of the refactoring you have done here is backed up by any policy, on that page or elsewhere. There definitely is no precedent. Sam Spade 17:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case feel free to re-refactor the page as necessary; however I ask that you at least keep the standard boilerplate intact. —No-One Jones 17:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't the standard boilerplate after the two persons have certified their accusations. It has always then been removed. Please review precedent on RfC pages! Sam Spade 17:46, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What are you doing, Mirv?

message: I guess I would be willing to change white supremacism to white seperatism (which is more accurate). But it will stay until May, if you don't like your comments don't make them Sam. GrazingshipIV 17:58, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
:I like my comments. Its yours that are offensive trolling. I no longer have any faith in your intents here.
SamSpade 18:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What I don't want is to hear any more of your vile lies and slander. I don't find your suggestions to be compromising, but rather manipulative barbs designed to provoke and escalate. Clearly I need to bring up more of your past, before we met. Sam Spade 18:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

text: This is a boundary that you have imposed unilaterally. It goes contrary to the normal purpose of talk pages, including user talk pages. Sam never agreed to it that I know of. If he agrees to respect the boundary you want, then you have a negotiated solution, and a rule that you can be justified in expecting him to abide by. Then, if he does post to your talk page again, you would be fully justified in restoring the comments, for as long as you want to keep them there. How does that sound? --Michael Snow 18:28, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of my sense of thea ppropriateness of preserving the comment for all eternity, the task of what to and not to archive on user talk pages is largely left up to the user, and I am not comfortable with any sort of editorial policy on how one ought maintain one's talk page. That is to say, the matter of what stays on there is Graz's to decide. Similarly, this is a Wiki. As long as Sam is not vandalizing the page, he is entitled to post on it. Snowspinner 18:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Samantic (Semantic) compromise

message: I repeat my request for specific citations of GrazingshipIV failing to respect NPOV in articles (not Talk: or Wikipedia: pages—the policy does not apply to those). —No-One Jones 20:59, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV failings?

message: Regarding the earlier dispute (about his behavior on RfA): Is it still ongoing? Have two people tried to resolve it and failed? Graz says that it was resolved amicably through mediation and wonders why it's being brought up now. —No-One Jones 00:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Temp Ban

message: moved from main—best to address it on talk
The statement "This user has behaved contentiously in the recent past, requiring temporary banning" is misleading. My understanding is the ban was lifted when support for it dropped below the required level. AndyL 07:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I believe the temp ban was early in GrazingshipIV's wikilife, when he violated the three revert rule without knowing it was in place, and got banned via a quickpoll. Since the quickpoll process is currently under review, and since it could be a bit easier for a newbie to see a list of editing policies than it is right now, I think the fact that he was briefly tempbanned is unfortunate, but easily put into context such that it is not a big deal. Snowspinner 13:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on new charge

message: As is stated by the rules Ugen64 has neither discussed with me or been involved with both Sam's 3rd and 4th statements of dispute.(3.He has declined mediation in regards to this matter with Sam. 4.This user has behaved contentiously in the recent past, requiring temporary banning). Of course, Sam also cannot list point 4 as he too was not invovled in the temp-ban.
Also Spade has repeatedly changed his charges which violates the rules. He is engaging in personal attacks. If he continues this behavior an RFC page will have to be started about him. GrazingshipIV 00:43, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
:There's no rule against changing the summary, so far as I can tell. It's certainly possible that some hypothetical user (let's call him X) might remember unresolved past disputes (call them Y) with the subject of his initial RfC (call him Z). 
:If User X (and other users), having been previously involved in dispute Y with User:Z, and having tried and failed to resolve it through other means, choose to bring up the subject, then I would see no problem with expanding the scope of the RfC in such a way. Would you? 
:If, on the other hand, X had not been involved in dispute Y and had not tried to resolve it, and the users who were involved in it resolved everything to their mutual satisfaction, and then gave statements to that effect—then I might have a different opinion. What do you think?—No-One Jones 01:10, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no problem with expanding the scope of the RfC, however, I think that every issue listed in the summary needs to be certified - you can't certify four issues if you were only involved in one. So if ugen64 has only talked to Graz about one of the charges, ugen can only certify that charge - the other three, I think, would remain uncertified until someone who has brought them up with Graz certifies them. Snowspinner 01:12, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: False Certification

message: ===User:Sam Spade===
Is repeatedly deleting comments on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV. GrazingshipIV 00:45, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
===GrazingshipIV===
*(User:GrazingshipIV | talk | contributions)
Is repeatedly deleting comments on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV. Sam Spade 00:40, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: moved from [[Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress|Vandalism in progress]]

message: *(User:GrazingshipIV | talk | contributions)
Is repeatedly deleting comments on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GrazingshipIV. Sam Spade 00:40, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: GrazingshipIV