Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Italiavivi

message: #The quote from Hu12 is badly mischaracterized - the full statement looks moderate and reasonable.  I did receive a post from Hu12 at my user talk page regarding this RFC.  To the best of my knowledge the only reasons for that were because I was Hu12's admin coach and nominated him at RFA, and because this is Hu12's first RFC and I have experience in this area.  Hu12 in no way asked for my support.  Italia, if I have opposed you in some some past dispute please post diffs; I can recall no such dispute. DurovaCharge! 18:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by others: (From [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Italiavivi#Response|Italiavivi's response]])

message: Impossible.  One user cannot solely disrupt a mediation that would have proceeded fine without them.  The other users had the option of ignoring the user (whether that would have been just or not).  If they did not and the mediation was disrupted, then the disruption was caused not solely by the one user, but also by the reactions of the others. --Coppertwig 14:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shamir knows well what tanked that mediation. All User:Jayjg had to do was identify himself as a past participant in the Talk page dispute and formally join the mediation instead of pretending to be an "outside view." That was all I asked; instead Jayjg edit-warred to preserve his "outside" status and started challenging the mediator over the mediation's structure and repeating his past Talk page arguments. Jayjg tanked that mediation, not myself. Italiavivi 17:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Shamir1 may be unable to respond currently; he was blocked today for 48 hours for violating 3RR on the Israel article. Italiavivi 06:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to view by Shamir1 

message: Let's get your facts straight: Jayjg tanked that mediation, not myself. I don't care how established he is, he doesn't get to run around masquerading as an "uninvolved party" during mediations where he's clearly been a participant. Italiavivi 18:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from Response by Italiavivi 

message: :Most of the edits from the above IPs are not mine, including from ones Hu claims are "confirmed." Most of these IPs appear to be shared or come from places I have never heard of, I have no control over that. Italiavivi 04:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "confirmed" IP's have diffs showing you signing the IP's comments. All but one confirmed IP are from the same location, same IP range 206.255.0.0-255.255, same articles edited, similar edit summaries...ect. we could Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser.--Hu12 05:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CheckUser is not for fishing, Hu. There are some of my edits in these IP ranges (the first two IPs you link), and some which are decidedly not. The others from your "Related IPs" are not mine, nor can I control what others on my IP range do, especially not stale IP edits some of which are even two years old. Most of these edits are not mine regardless of what range they came from and I will not be held accountable for things I have not myself written. (I am not surprised to see Obama-bashing coming from IPs in this part of the United States though.) Italiavivi 05:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not be held responsible for every edit made during the last two years from the region I currently reside. This is unacceptable broad-brushing, accusing me of two-year-old IP edits and edits which are completely contrary to my own positions. Italiavivi 05:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It still remains, they are your IP's--Hu12 06:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are not.  The last two IPs especially have no edits from me whatsoever on them, I have reviewed them exhaustively. You are welcome to CheckUser them, but you know good and well that any such request would be rejected as being both stale and fishing. Italiavivi 06:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IP's

message: :That sysop called me a "dick," not the other way around. I was responding to his insult, which can be clearly seen in the diff. Are you really reading these diffs you're indiscriminately putting up now? Italiavivi 06:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct your misrepresentation of the diff where the sysop in question called me a dick, not the other way around, immediately. Italiavivi 06:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPA

message: :I contacted every user who had participated in the previous Fred Thompson talk archive, including Zsero's good friend User:Ferrylodge and other editors who opposed inclusion of the age difference. This is a perfect example of how you misrepresent diffs, Hu. Italiavivi 19:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You posted them, how is that misrepresentative? You sent messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to influence a community discussion. "Zsero has resumed his deletion of the age difference ..." is not Neutral and is biased.--Hu12 19:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think this is quite fair.  There's nothing wrong with contacting people to let them know there's a discussion going on, and s/he did contact people on both sides of the question, including Ferrylodge whom for some reason s/he calls my "good friend".  You missed the part of WP:CANVASS where it says that only "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion" are considered disruptive.  While in these messages Italiavivi mischaracterised what was happening as "Zsero has resumed his deletion..." instead of "I have resumed my insertion...", that's not a violation of CANVASS.  So I dissent from this portion of the accusation.  -- Zsero 23:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with contacting people in a "Neutrally worded notification...", however "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive ". the message "Zsero has resumed his deletion of the age difference between Fred Thompson and Jeri Kehn Thompson. " Implies you(Zsero) are wrong, and the removal was wrong. A "Neutrally worded notification..." would have been along the lines of "The age adifference between Fred Thompson and Jeri Kehn Thompson is in dispute.... " ect. A walk through the discussion Talk:Fred_Thompson#Age_difference_again illustrates this this. --Hu12 00:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  this edit and edit summary  Editors need to see that you are engaging in the exact same deletions as last time, adds to the fact this was in no way neutral, you even edited the section header from "Jeri Kehn's age" to 'Zsero back to deleting Jeri Kehn's age again "--Hu12 07:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:CANVASS]]

message: :Please explain how this diff is "edit warring." I renamed my own section to clarify my question, nothing more. Italiavivi 06:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruptive edits]

message: This RfC is poorly constructed and does not come close to abiding by the standards set forth at WP:RFC. It is neither compliant nor valid, and should be closed immediately.
===Support===
# Move that it be closed. Italiavivi 05:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion to close (refractored from project page by ElC)

message: # Move that it be closed. Italiavivi 05:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Not quite, this is heading for arbitration at the minute. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: I was getting ready to post some comments in the genuine hope that they would help Italiavivi improve his civility. The first thing I see is a whole slew of edits by Italiavivi and Hu12, here and on Italiavivi's talk page, and on WP:ANI. They both get blocked, then Italiavivi ups and leaves. He deletes his user page, deletes his talk page, requests an indef block on himself, and says that he will never again contribute to Wikipedia.
Early on in the process of this RfC, Italiavivi wrote "... I won't be participating any further beyond this statement." If he had done exactly that, if he had not participated at all, then the RfC would have died out. It was his own comments that added fuel to the fire as another editor advised him.
I've never seen anything like this but I've been around for just six months or so. Has anyone seen other editors get this angry or even half this angry?
I'm sorry to see a potentially useful contributor leave the project but I'm not sorry to see the controversy go away. In retrospect I wish that someone had advised him to take a Wikibreak, but he probably would not have heeded the advice.
If I see anything like this again, I really am going to suggest that editors take a Wikibreak and try to calm down. Sbowers3 13:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were a few of us who recommended taking a step back and thinking about the comments being made, but none of the comments seemed to help matters. It's sad, really, as I think Italiavivi had a lot of good to contribute. Hopefully he'll come back and participate in a more mellow manner in the future. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow! Does this happen often?