Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219

message: There are some pages in the BMJ's Rapid Responses columns which may be relevant:-
For instance 
*http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7500/1132
*http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/411#72605
Also this page (on the Whale.to site which is the subject of another RFC commencing shortly before a definite intensification in the making of entries giving my name and alleging various bad things occurred in WP.  )
*http://www.whale.to/additions.html
I'm not sure how to classify them overleaf.
Midgley 23:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

message: I contemplated making a list of several WP: to initiate this RFC, and concluded, perhaps in error, that everyone likely to join in would understand this, and that it is a characteristic of this user - probably a lawyer - that the more specific one is, the more detailed argument about the finest specifics of that specificity will ensue.  I also thought that provided I was not coming to a sole conclusion based on my own experience about him, that others would probably produce more specific points, and that if they didn't there would be little point my making a long list.  
It is descriptive, not pejorative.  At least in its intent, as in the intent I expect of whoever originally wrote it.
I've also considered striking it through, and if nobody else had mentioned it, I would at this moment strike it out, in favour of the specifics such as WP:CIV and WP:NPA and WP:POINT.  I could easily be persuaded to...  Midgley 13:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here - if someone can find some better classification for the pseudosociological post to Angela and the "worthy of the attention of my highly attuned and intelligent mind" bit. The former might come under WP:POINT, the latter - as an "I'm better than you" comment - under WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Tearlach 15:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:DICK 

message: This is a request for comments.  Having been made, it has attracted some, and may attrract more.  WP:ISNOT a courtroom with a charge and defence.  This is the place for discussing this RFC.   Midgley 21:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a reference to something very similar with regard (WRT) to ArbCom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/How_to_present_a_case  Is anyone aware of an essay or other reference making the same points WRT to RFCs?  Midgley 14:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion (and wikilawyering) 

message: The initial response 86 made, unusually for an RFC by making a link to text elsewhere, he then refactored to be a link to elsewhere.
It read 
"
Hi. I noticed your addition to the RfC.
  	+ 	
  	+ 	:You might like to look at this [] which is not the contribution of a "troll" (whatever that pejorative term means).
  	+ 	
  	+ 	:The three editor protagonists have a history together and keep adding to the RfC so I cannot really respond to it yet until I know they have finished their handiwork. The fact that they keep adding to it is odd - and you will later see that there is no "dispute" nor has there been any prior effort to resolve "it".
  	+ 	
  	+ 	:You seem to have made up your mind on the basis of what the protagonists have written without waiting to see the response? Care to wait?
  	+ 	
  	+ 	:Talk - The Invisible Anon 06:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF (that is, assume unfamiliarity with the process). I've posted a note . Tearlach 00:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can assume unfmiliarity with the process, given the comments on the nature of the process, including teh move of material from another RFC page to the talk page, witht eh comment that that is where discussion is supposed to take place at  and in the half dozen edits prior to that.  That RFC does impinge on others, and there is a degree of contact and overlap relevant to this one. (Summary: 86. knows his way around an RFC and in january was telling otehr people how to do it - therefore in April he is not unfamiliar with the process.)Midgley 14:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I have never seen anyone else do that before, and since I couldn't see guidance on it in the RFC instructions I've posted to Talk:RFC a question/suggestion about such guidance, mentining this one as an/the example. We'll see what is remembered by older hands.  Midgley 00:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219&oldid=50004342
It could get wearing if there was much of that.  Midgley 00:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional note: the above refers to the blanking of much of this page by , whose address traces to Optus Internet, NSW, Australia. Tearlach 01:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version link for what the vandal wanted you to see 

message: It is probably illuminating, if nothing else, to see what similar RFCs there have been, and what ArbCom has had to sort out of they didn't work in resolving a dispute.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/-Ril-  confusing signature despite requests, some general disruption.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/PSYCH#Editing_from_anonymous_IPs WP users are encouraged to register accounts
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiPierro_2 Trolling and withdrawing from a standing order
Midgley 16:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder why more people haven't shown up here. There must be at least 5 other people that were previously involved and would want to have a say here. I am also sort of wondering why this isn't a RfAr, considering the accusations being made. –Tifego(t) 09:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's official policy - see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes - to try lighter options before RfAr. Tearlach 10:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a sequence which I read as: ask, suggest and/or seek mediation, discuss with experienced users, RFC, and only if - for instance - the editor whose conduct is the subject of the RFC declares that the RFC is improper and they need not answer it - or otherwis consensus is not reached, would it become a matter for ArbCom.  Midgley 10:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ArbCom "precedent" 

message: Reposted from above for clarification:
Essentially, forget resemblances to a court of law. RFCs, like all Wikipedia documents, tend to accrete: someone posts a skeleton argument; co-signatories add to it; subject adds response; other editors for or against (either involved, or outsiders who've seen the RFC listing and offer outside views) add further, and so on. As long as editors stick to the prescribed sections (indicated by instructions in  italics) the whole thing is fluid. It goes on until (with luck) some kind of consensus appears.
Wikipedia:Requests for comment gives general guidelines on how the process works.  Subjects can respond at any time (i.e. as soon as a picture of the complaint develops).
There is no requirement for the subject to wait until evidence addition is "finished". Nor is such a condition possible, because evidence generally continues to be added during the course of an RFC (including evidence based on conduct in response to the RFC).  Tearlach 12:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC procedure

message: Previously 86. persuaded Michael Ralston to withdraw from an RFC by introducing specious claims of misconduct against him in, among other places,   on the Admins noticeboard.  These included ""subtle" vandalism" and anti-semitism.  There was no vandalism, and the accusation of anti-semitism was exactly contrary to the truth, however nevertheless the experience was clearly sufficiently unpleasant for Michael Ralston to reach an agreement with his harrasser to withdraw.  Possibly he still feels constrained by this agreement or inhibited by the unpleasantness.  Exactly which heading on this page this should go under is uncler to me - opinions?  The stepping up of attacks against me and repeated postings on User:Tearlach's talk page seem to me to be another effort at this, and there is a specific effort to dissuade another user by repeated comments on his talk page.Midgley 21:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous activity by 86. (nobbling) 

message: *If User:81.111.172.198 talk isn't 86.10 I'm a Monkey's bum.
*On the 24th of November this exchange took place on another RFC pageRFC on Ombudsman:-
 
:DNFTT. JFW | T@lk 18:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But surely from what I have seen [User:Jfdwolff|JFW] spends a goodly deal of time doing this - feeding the trolls. Is this breaking the habit of a lifetime (spent on Wikipedia - sadly it seems)? 81.111.172.198 20:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: 86.10.231.219 definitely seems to have made those comments as 81.111.172.198, but it might be worth laying out the evidence for that more directly some time, unless you want to be accused of being a chess opening. –Tifego(t) 22:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, however if it is not denied, there may be no need, and that RFC on Ombudsman is not that long, yet.  Midgley 00:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troll soup 

message: Apropos the holding threat on Thursday: "I have to go and earn a living for a while and force these jokers to behave properly after that. I will be back."
Monday is a Bank holiday.  No work is done by many people, particularly most lawyers, particularly that which involves dealing with businesses other than shopping.  Many of us take Friday off, to make it a long weekend.  Those who do not are unlikely to have a particularly productive day.  Midgley 20:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A digression on the end of April in England 

message: User:Midgley here []:-
:*quotes a draft essay on presenting a case that "The first to try to rules-lawyer the arbitration process invariably loses — because they wouldn't be rules-lawyering if they had a case." and,
:*"... you are invited, again, to consider making a response in the response section of the RFC ..."
Interestingly, the first to "rules-lawyer" were the protagonists of this RfC who dictated that anything goes [].  
What I am saying is not "rules-lawyer"ing or wikilawyering but common sense.  It is not fair to expect someone to hit a moving target.  Either you know what you claim the "dispute" is about by now or you do not.  With all the time that has passed and all the requests I have made for the position to be clarified on the finalisation of the Statement of Case, you should all be in a position to confirm you have nothing further to add to this RfC of elephantine proportions.
If you do not know what the dispute is how can you in all fairness expect anyone to respond to "it"?
Accordingly, you are all cordially invited to confirm whether or not there is anything further you want to add before I respond.  A response is a response to something that exists not to something that changes depending on what I put in my response.
If you cannot see the force of that and you cannot see that is fair and not wikilawyering then I cannot help you overmuch.  It is going to be odd if this case gets to the arbitration committee and my response is aired there for the first time.  
If you think you have such a strong case already you can confirm you have finished? If you have not got such a strong case as you thought, then you should consider withdrawing it or withdrawing your individual endorsements to the Statement of Case.
So if you know what the dispute is about you should confirm that and therefore confirm the Statement of Case is complete. That is fair.  Anything less is not.  
Talk - The Invisible Anon 15:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what, if anything, are you offering?  Midgley 16:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The essay is at . Midgley 20:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The esay is not a draft, save in the sense that WP is a draft - to describe it so is to disparage the authors thus far. 20:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And, the quote is "Arguing about flaws in the Arbitration process is usually a waste of time and will make Arbitrators look dimly upon you. Take the time that you could spend arguing about the details of process and apply it to trying to gather useful evidence....".  Midgley 20:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Since then, BTW, I've contributed to some articles, one new one and one big edit - that being the purpose for which most of us are at WP.  Midgley 20:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Its What is Fair

message: Other than blustering, threats, repeated attacks and a change of identity.  Shall we leave this open in case the gentleman in question returns to WP?  Or look for action in advance of that?  Midgley 20:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So - no reply then...