Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User:Girlvinyl

Changing other peoplpe's comments

I wasn't going to get involved but after seeing User:DreamGuy and User:SchmuckyTheCat claim to have an "outside" view (which I've moved to the response section where they belong) when they are both directly involved with not only the edit war on Encyclopedia damatica but the discussion on Talk:Encyclopedia damatica, I felt I had too.--ElvisThePrince 10:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Loved the way User:SchmuckyTheCat removed my endorsement [1] at the same time as claiming to be have an outside and therefore unbiased view now that shows class.--ElvisThePrince 15:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Jesus christ now User:DreamGuy [2] has removed my endosement!!!--ElvisThePrince 17:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I simply reverted some malcontent who changed the outside views to responses... I didn't purposefully remove your endorsement. If peoplpe would stop screwing around changing other people's edits then this stuff wouldn't happen. DreamGuy 17:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

EtheP, it was not my intent to remove your endorsement. I didn't notice that along with the other changes when you moved my summary. Sorry 'bout that. SchmuckyTheCat 17:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey NP --ElvisThePrince 17:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

My view is an outside view. This RfC was neither created by nor involved me, hance outside. You are not allowed to change other people's comments on an RfC just because hyou mistakenly think they should not be outside views. Please take a few minutes to actually read the RfC policy as described on the page before jumping in and screwing things up with your highly biased modifications. You are only showing your bad faith even more by playing with other people's comments. DreamGuy 16:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Outside views are Response

Seeing as User:DreamGuy and User:SchmuckyTheCat won't be happy until they start a revert war here as well I will state that in my opinion that both of their summaries are "Response"'s not "Outside View"'s and leave others to draw their own conculsion about their reaons for insisting otherwise:

Response Definition:This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

Outside View:This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

How users involved in a revert war of the article in question and information being selectively deleted by the user in question can claim to be "not directly involved with the dispute" is obviously beyond my feeble intelligence, perhaps they have invented some new form of Quantum Logic or something--ElvisThePrince 17:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not directly involved in the dispute as listed in this RfC. I did not remove any mention of the individual or remove the photograph in question. I am not saying the person was right to use sockpuppets. That's an outside view. Please read the rules for RfCs, maybe get a little experience, before jumping in and making such accusations. Oh, and, while you are at it, it's pretty clear you desperately need to read and follow the Wikipedia:Civility policy. DreamGuy 17:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Puzzled View by McClenon

I have read this RfC, and I have no idea what violation of Wikipedia policy is being alleged. Unless I have read the dispute wrong, girlvinyl is the originator of Encyclopedia damatica, and should have the right to remove images from it. The statement of the dispute does not say that she is misusing Wikipedia.

Um, look again... the misuse of a Wikipedia article named Encyclopædia damatica and a related Wikipedia image talk page are what's alleged. This person is using multiple userID's to repeatedly remove very specific pieces of information from the Wikipedia article, namely the info as to who owns the encyclopædiadamatica.com site. --66.102.74.90 15:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Eithier I'm being thick or the RFC page needs re-writting but where on the RFC page does it say "2 Days without endorsement" [3] I can see:

1. Once the request for comment is open, these two people must document their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed to produce change, and sign the comment page. Requests for comment which do not meet these minimum requirements after 48 hours from creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed. The subject RFC page will also be deleted, unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained.

   And it seems to be that these efforts have been meet:

   these two people must document their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed to produce change, and sign the comment page. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:girlvinyl#Evidence_of_trying_and_failing_to_resolve_the_dispute

Am I missing something and being unable to see the wood for the trees?--ElvisThePrince 19:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you are right, that's why I keep removing the tag. DreamGuy 21:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'll contact the users who have been disenfanchised then, seems a bit arbitary not matter your views on the matter....--ElvisThePrince 23:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

==== Users certifying the basis for this dispute ==== --carlb 20:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

--2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Clearly this Rfc fails the 2Users certifying the basis for this dispute test as there were not 2 users certifying it within 48 hours. You have no case. Please restore the delete tag as it is now clearly a candidate and should be left for an admin to decide. It clearly has no future so it all abit of a waste of time. You cannot subvert the process merely by removing the tag. It is no longer at Wikipedia:Requests for comment so it is just so much waste paper (sic), SqueakBox 23:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

So your arugment boils down to.

1. I removed User:2004-12-29T22:45Z signature, leading too:
2. User:2004-12-29T22:45Z have to resign to make you happy, BUT now it's more than 48 hours between the RFC and the signature.
3. I removed the link from Wikipedia:Requests for comment, ergo you have no case.

???--ElvisThePrince 23:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If it's removed from Wikipedia:Requests for comment then I'll just go put it back... It clearly had four people certifying it well before the cut off date... The fact that Squeakbox personally removed some from the list shows clear bad faith and deceptive practices. DreamGuy 00:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me. You claimed it only began on the 19th August, so I removed 2 sigs from the 15th. It has not had 2 people certifying it within 48 hours is a fact. however much that annoys you don't blame me, and please don't subvert the legit Rfc process by reinserting an article that failed to get certification within 48 hours. bullying won't work, SqueakBox 00:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

If you look you will see only 2 people have certified the dispute but not within 48 hours. Why can you not accept this is not anymore a legit Rfc. You are making a mockery of Rfc, SqueakBox 00:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I don't wish to sound rude, but are you in the right frame of mind to be editing here at this time? I am actualy quite worried for you, if your a diabetic I think you may need to check you blood sugar levels. Can you just assure me your OK--ElvisThePrince 00:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Your actions here are completely inappropriate. They worked on this RfC before it was moved to the RfC space, they had two signatures already on it. If you count from the time it was started then, then they had two then. If you count from the time when it was officially started they also had at least two, counting the people that were already there (and they would have resigned to get the date stamp correct if someone had pointed it out to them earlier). The fact that you waited until after 48 hours and erased the names yourself is not at all proper procedure. You should either count those names ar have had them resign it when they could have. Of course if you do delete it they can just refile it immediately and get all the signatures they need right away and we'll be right back to where we started. There's no possible justification for you to be trying to delete this RfC. You are the one making a mockery of the process, because you are deleting names that were there for no good reason. DreamGuy 00:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You are wasting your time as the Rfc still will go nowhere, stop calling me a woman or I will take it as a personal attack, SqueakBox 00:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if Squeak is a male and I've been referring to him as a she, but the name seemed feminine to me. Frankly, from the speedy delete tag being applied for no genuine reason I assumed it must have been this girlvinyl person trying to get rid of the RfC improperly. DreamGuy 00:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

In DreamGuys defense without going to SqueakBox his actions would appear to be the work of a GirlVinyl sockpuppet (which of course it isn't)--ElvisThePrince 01:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm considering deleting this for two reasons: (1) there are no diffs showing prior attempts by each of the certifiers to resolve the dispute: talk pages have been offered but no diffs; and (2) one of the certifiers' names is there without a signature and date stamp so it's not clear when it was signed, if at all. Can anyone shed light on this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

1. I'll leave to User:Carlb, User:2004-12-29T22:45Z and User talk:Depakote (original certifiers)
2. Which certifier are you refering too?--ElvisThePrince 00:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Elvis, I was referring to User:2004-12-29T22:45Z. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I would support a speedy on the grounds that it wasn't endorsed by 2 people within 48 hours. This vinylgirl has made less than 20 edits in 4 accounts, SqueakBox 00:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

This is completely false, it was signed, I saw it. Squeakbox removed two of the signatures. They worked on this on another page before it came here and you completely disregarded their signatures. If you didn't want to count them as valid you should have alerted them to that fact beforehand. You are completely disenfranchising them by not counting them and pretending that they didn't exist. I simply cannot believe the audacity of some people here to flagrantly violate the rules of this site. DreamGuy 00:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted it as uncertified, because there was definitely something fishy. It was dated August 15, posted on August 19, and one of the certifiers dated his signature August 22, but without actually signing it. And as you say, it was a new account with a number of deleted edits, which I restored and which indicated the account had been deleted before for some reason. It all adds up to a spurious RfC. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I saw them working on this RfC originally on the page in question. They originally put it together on the talk page or a user page beforehand and then moved it over. The early signatures means they signed it before it was transferred. Yes, it may look fishy but those people were valid endorsers and fully intended to have this thing go forward. DreamGuy 00:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You should try Kate's edit counter. Alsao my user page which opens with a pic. squeak is my female dog, Box is the male, maybe I should have been called boxsqueak but SqueakBox has more of a ring to it. I would also point out that nobody had informed vinylgirl of the Rfc, and with less than 20 nedits to her 4 alleged accounts we can assume she did not know about it. If those people had wanted to go forward they would have needed to do it properly, like everyone else. i actually had removed 2 for not meeting the 2 person threshold within 49 hours, promoted one that had and left one that still has time. i was being impartial and evenhanded, SqueakBox 01:04, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Right Timeline (some errors on exact times may exist)

1. August 15 USer:Carlb Drafted RFC here: Talk:Encyclopædia_damatica#Use_of_multiple_userID.27s.3F
2. (later) August 15 User:2004-12-29T22:45Z sign's draft
3. (later) August 15 User:Depakote signs draft
4. August 19 having (in his view) tried and failed to resolve problem User:Carlb files RFC
5. August 20 User:SchmuckyTheCat adds Outside View
6. August 20 User:DreamGuy adds Outside View
7. August 20 User:Robert McClenon adds Outsied (cofused?) View
8. August 20 User:ElvisThePrince (me!) Endorses + stuff thats not important right now (see above)
9. August 22 User:SqueakBox deletes from RFC and adds speedy delete tag
10. August 22 Both myself and User:DreamGuy point out the are at least 4 endorses/certifiers.
11. August 22 User:SpueakBox deletes certifiers + adds delete tag again
12. August 22 revert war, revert war
13. August 22 User:2004-12-29T22:45Z (resigns) (I don't know why his sig dosn't link to his user space with the article deleted I can't create a diff but it's there if you had looked.
14. August 22 Revert War
15. August 22 You ask some questions and before they are answered delete

This timeline brought to you by the number 3 and the letter W --ElvisThePrince 00:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the 2 illegitimate sigs from 15th Aug that cl;early should not have been there as the Rfc began on the 19th. They were imported, clearly illegitimate, and therefore needed removing. There were never 2 endorsements within 48 hours, otherwise I would have had no reason to remove it in the first place. At that time I did not even know that in all 4 accounts Vinylgirl had done less than 20 edits, and only later realised it was an entirely spurious Rfc of the sort Wikipedia doesn't need. As I said above I examined the 4 Rfc's in the needing endorsement section and acted impartially with all 4 (if I had had any involvement in any of them i would not have touched it). I was doing some janitorial work and feel I am unjustly being given a hard time for it. Dreanmguy could easily have checked I was not Vinylgirl before engaging in edit warsd with me, SqueakBox 01:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Even, even ignoring the legit sigs, both Carlb and myself signed so Your Case = Case - Leg to stand on, you made a mistake and rather than being man enought to admit it you threw a hissy fit deleted the other sigs and went on a crusade, when users from both sides of an RFC tell you your wrong that might be a hint that you are (shock horror) wrong.--ElvisThePrince 01:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

We can't use imported signatures from other pages written four days before the RfC goes up. It's a simple matter for the certifiers to come and sign the page within 48 hours of the RfC being posted, and if they're not able or willing to do that, you have to wonder why not. We have to stick closely to the certification rule to avoid frivolous RfCs being posted, so I'm standing by the deletion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Whats that do I see common sense flying past my ear, my god it's fallen out the window!!--ElvisThePrince 01:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I doubt that it's they were "not able or unwilling" to sign as much as thinking that they already had. The proper thing to do in these situations is to alert them to the problem and educate them instead of totally disregard their input. Perhaps you are not able or unwilling to try to help editors here, but the intent was absolutely clear that they had already certified this RfC. By deleting it all you are going to do is piss a bunch of people off and have them refile and resign and end up exactly where we already were other than the wasted time and the newbie biting. I see a lot of people complaining about how the admins here do not want to try to work with people and make arbitrary decisions to have things their own way, and I have to tell you that this is yet another example. I signed this as an outside viewer thinking it should go nowhere, but the callous disregard for signatures and the lack of any attempt to explain these things to the editors involved before simply tossing their words aside is extremely disturbing. This whole episode of unfriendliness and using the rules as a club instead of working with people is the exact same thing you try to accuse me of, and here you are doing it yourself without any sort of attempt to deal with people in a responsible manner. DreamGuy 01:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

This is as dodgy an RfC as I've seen. Apart from the date and signature problems, User talk:2004-12-29T22:45Z appears to be a sockpuppet. I'd say let it go, DreamGuy. Some of the editors here were acting in good faith, but some appear not to have been. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

If DreamGuy and Elf are so impassioned perhaps they can explain why we must bite the newbies (20 edits), why did neither of you move the Rfc from vinylgirl to Vinylgirl, and why did neither of you consider it important to inform the person that they were under an Rfc. Your calls for justice ring hollow. If you block the Arbcom up with spurious Rfc's you subvert the legitimate ones and waste everyone's time, SqueakBox 03:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Improper Deletion?

Looks like the Rfc was indeed certified, [4], [5]

Although it was aggravating the non-history-preserving strategy that was taken to create the Rfc (building it as a section on a talk page, then moving it), it does not seem obvious that it failed the certification requirement. Someone care to clarify? (After further examination the usefulness and merits of the Rfc seems very questionable though) --Mysidia (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Those are diffs at Talk:Encyclopædia damatica. You can't certify an Rfc from there, you can't expect someone to find even that page, and they validate nothing. Or perhaps you would like to point out where in policy and guidelines it says Rfc's can be validated in talk pages, SqueakBox 03:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I had originally raised the issue on Talk:Encyclopædia damatica as this user's edit pattern (creating multiple accounts and making just a few edits from each, directed almost entirely to articles Encyclopædia damatica and Image talk:Sherrod_degrippo.jpg) meant that a post-to-user-talk would likely not be seen (username keeps changing) but post-to-article talk (the approach used, I posted to both affected article/image talk pages long before coming here with this) would be the most likely to bring this matter to the attention of user Sherrod Degrippo and the various 'girlvinyl' or 'encydra'* alias used by this person to edit these two pages.

If the matter comes up again on RfC, yes I would sign again. Enough people had attempted to resolve this (without success) on the article talk page to qualify it for inclusion here. Nonetheless, it wasn't my intention in posting to the article talk page first that this gather signatures there - I just posted there in the hopes that the one narrow issue (sockpuppet use in deleting info from the article) could be addressed before making any decision as to whether it needed to be brought here at all. Given the relative unimportance of the affected pages to the task of constructing an encyclopædia (an article about one individual website that's neither in the top 100000 by alexa rank nor in the list of largest wikis here, already VfD'ed once, speedied once, narrowly survived a second VfD under a slightly modified name), I'd have been quite content if the issue were to have been resolved and gone away without wasting additional time and resources. --carlb 16:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

My view of the whole story

Look, first of all, I don't understand what's going on with my user page all of a sudden. Its history list shows three edits, two on June 2, supposedly by Mikkalai, and then another edit in July. That's bananas. Nobody ever edited my user page, and all of a sudden it's no longer blank. Some four hours ago it was still blank. That's totally strange.

Secondly, I've never before participated in a requests-for-comment page, so I didn't know how this whole process works. The thing is I just added myself on that list started by Depakote on the Encyclopedia damatica article talk page, just to show my opinion. Of course, when I signed, I didn't know what "requests for comment" was all about. I just thought Depakote had started a list of voters to see who agreed with him. Obviously, I agreed with him in that those three or four accounts mentioned on that talk page belong to Sherrod DeGrippo, no doubt about it.

But again, back then I didn't know that Carlb was gonna copy the whole section to "requests for comment", and I guess neither did Depakote, nor did Carlb know how to start a "request for comment" properly. Of course, that means that the whole process of copying all that info that was on that talk page section about Encyclopedia damatica was wrong. I mean, Carlb made a mistake. He shouldn't have copied the whole thing to "requests for comment". Instead, he should have written on "requests for comment" his own version of the story, and then he should have asked us who initially agreed with Depakote to cast again our votes here on "requests for comment". I mean, Carlb should have written the whole introduction on "requests for comment" on his own, and then he should have told Depakote, possibly Elvis, and me, that there is a "request for comment" going on here.

I hadn't visited the Encyclopedia damatica article talk page for like two days, so I didn't have a clue that Carlb had copied that section to "requests for comment", until Elvis sent me a message to my talk page, but by the time Elvis had sent me that message, and by the time I added those two votes, one on the "approvers" list, or whatever it's called, and another one on that "additional approvers" list, just in case, it was already too late. So in the end, my vote or votes don't count here. That's for sure. What I don't know, though, is if Elvis had cast a vote, as he tells, and then somebody deleted it. I mean, that's what I don't know. Strange things happen here, so I don't know.

And another thing: SlimVirgin, or whatever its name is, it said I hadn't signed one of my invalid votes. That's not true. I signed all my votes. Apparently, like many other users, it confuses my nickname with the date, but the two are not the same. Most of the time, I don't forget to sign my messages.

Again, I would have voted like Depakote, Elvis and Carlb if I had been given the opportunity, but I have to say that Elvis only has a point here when discussing the deletion of the page if somebody really deleted a vote of him that was on the list. Again, I don't know, but since strange things happen here, and since those administrators from the Encyclopedia damatica seem to be conspiring against us, what Elvis says about the deletion of his vote may quite be true. I don't count that one out, since SlimVirgin didn't give us more time to check the history of that deleted page. I mean, why delete the page if you know it's still gonna be grounds for discussion? Why not just freeze the page instead of deleting it? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 05:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You've confirmed that the RfC wasn't filed correctly, which is why it was deleted. I'm not an "it," by the way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well, anyway, does that mean we can start the whole request-for-comment process again if we do it correctly? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 13:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wait for it, I'm getting a vision, yes it's becomming clearer now, if you do then, er not sure what that is are yes I see now, if you do and even if it's:

1. 100% completly accurately filled out
2. every i dotted
3. every t crossed
4. with form 22.3b v.22.3 subsection C filled out in triplicate.
5. stamped with the Great Seal of Wikipedia itself
6. signed by Jimbo himself
7. a blood hair and saliva sample collected and logged with the WHO for all involved
8. Everyone has sworn on the holy bible, in heaven, witnessed by Jesus and the host of Angels (with their signatures of course).
9. And the papers were not lost in the floods of 1965, the move from whitehall in 1975, the merger Trades Council and the Department of Industry in 1984, the close of the India Office in 1945 or due to bomb damage in WWII.

EVEN THEN User_talk:SlimVirgin and User:SqueakBox will go "A-ha"! this is just a copy of an old RFC that was deleted!!!, WP:POINT, WP:POINT" and delete it anyway completly ignoring the point that it was original deleted on dubiouse grounds and for, at best, purely buracratic reasons. I hate to be so negative but thats what you get with jobsworth's like this who miss working in the civil service. --ElvisThePrince 14:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies. An Rfc against Vinylgirl, who has less than 20 edits, would clearly be spurious. But from my perspective do take it to the arbcom, as they clearly have the power to punish anyone involved in an Rfc: ie get involved with the arbcom and take the consequences. I would push for a ban myself, SqueakBox 16:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well, first of all, by the time Girlvinyl started editing on Wikipedia, he/she wasn't new to editing with MediaWiki. Girlvinyl had already created a wiki based on MediaWiki back in December and edited on it multiple times, so he/she's not inexperienced. And he/she has experience with newsgroups and computer security, so he/she does at least have a notion of how to edit on a wiki based on MediaWiki. So, from my perspective, I wouldn't call him/her a "newbie". He/she's not a "newbie" at all.

Next thing, I'm not gonna bite him/her. And now that I know what a request-for-comment page is all about, I see it makes no sense to push it any further. It's not worth the effort right now to ban Sherrod DeGrippo, because he/she doesn't edit that much, and it's not worth it just because of a stupid photograph of him/her. I mean, we're allowed to mention the name "Sherrod DeGrippo" on the article about Encyclopedia damatica, so that's more important than the photo itself.

Another thing I wanna point out is, the real motive for Sherrod DeGrippo to send a DMCA violation notice to the Wikimedia directors is not that putting the photo on the article really violated a copyright. We all know that's nonsense, whether you wanna admit it or not. No copyright was violated. The site clearly stated that one can "take" the photos from the Sherrod DeGrippo site as long as there's a hyperlink back to the site. Just because he/she changed the text on his/her photo gallery after the photo was put on Wikipedia doesn't mean he/she's allowed to take it back. That's nonsense.

The real reason for Sherrod DeGrippo to try to delete the text about him on the article and to remove the photo is because of his/her site and wiki and photos, which are based on sexuality. He/she's ashamed to have his/her name mentioned on the article because of that. But, anyway, his/her identity was public beforehand, so his/her attitude is naive, at least, and I won't count out that it was done in bad faith, because I don't think that person is naive enough not to realize that many people can identify him/her with a simple Whois database search or seach engine search. Even the phone numbers are listed on Google PhoneBook and other white-pages sites. So I have lots of reasons to believe he/she didn't try to remove the content because he/she's naive, but because of having bad intentions. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 16:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Deleting the Rfc had nothing to do with Girlvinyl or her innocence or guilt and everything to do with the fact that it wasn't endorsed by 2 people within 48 hours, as would have been necessary to take it forward. That is indisputable. Punto final, SqueakBox 19:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

don't byte the n00bs???

In response to user:Squeakbox above:

Don't bite the newbies. An Rfc against Vinylgirl, who has less than 20 edits, would clearly be spurious. But from my perspective do take it to the arbcom, as they clearly have the power to punish anyone involved in an Rfc: ie get involved with the arbcom and take the consequences. I would push for a ban myself, SqueakBox 16:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that Sherrod Degrippo (by whatever name or handle) qualifies as 'n00b', having already been on Wikipedia (and already having an axe to grind against Wikipedia) long before starting ED in Dec 2004. From ED's article on itself, "Encyclopediadamatica was created December 9th 2004 while girlvinyl was impatiently awaiting the delivery of her ibook. ghettofinger and girlvinyl were outraged and amused by the ill-treatment of internet celebrity jameth by the moderators and idiots at wikipedia. girlvinyl decided it was time to present an alternative to the fascist hold they had over information on the internets." Nonetheless, advocating an approach of running straight to arbcom when lesser measures would suffice is an abuse of process and an inconsiderate waste of resources. Wikipedia deserves better. --carlb 19:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

See my comment directly above this section, SqueakBox 19:57, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, what you just said is not a "punto final" nor a "punto". It's a comma at most, because we're not allowed to see the different versions of the deleted page nor its history, so we're not allowed to see whether Elvis's vote really was there before the deadline. I would like an administrator to put back and freeze the page to see if it's true that Elvis's vote got deleted. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please desist in attacking me as it makes you appear not serious and very rude. I have corrected my name from ShriekBox. I would be happy to have the history of the page under scrutiny as it would absolutely prove my point and that others had no right to attack me for anything I did in rtelation to this rfc, SqueakBox 21:45, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

All right, I'm not gonna change your nickname anymore. I myself would also like to see the history of the page frozen and displayed. I agree. I want some transparency here. Who do we contact to see if they can display the page without making it modifiable? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:34, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

A solution

IMO the only way forward is for those who believe it was unfair because 2004-12-29T22:45Z and Depakote might have erroneously thought their original signatures were valid (a spurious argument as if that were the case they should have re-signed) they should re/create the Rfc from scratch and see if 2 people sign it within 48 hours, and sticking carefully to the rules which means no pasted material from talk pages or anywhere else, and no adding other people's signatures for them; ie make a legitimate rfc, and see if it gets endorsed or not, SqueakBox 17:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

(a spurious argument as if that were the case they should have re-signed) Except User:2004-12-29T22:45Z did and you refused to accept that..........--ElvisThePrince 22:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

His signature wasn't valid as the 48 hours were up. To have accepted that signature after the 48 hours were up would have made a mockery of the Rfc process. The solution I am proposing was the only valid one even then, SqueakBox 22:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

What I asked before is whether the page can be displayed again, or "undeleted", as they call it here. I agree that Depakote's vote and my vote were invalid, because they were copied to the page by Carlb. Carlb should have taken into account that voters can change their minds after they vote, and that about a week had passed between the voting on the ED talk page and the copying of those votes to the RfC page. So to me, that's not the problem. I agree with that.

Now you say that the only way forward is if someone disagrees with the affirmation that those two votes were invalid, but I don't see why. We can still ask an administrator to freeze and display the page. I still wanna see the history of the deleted page and the page itself, but, of course, frozen, so the editing and the reversals don't continue.

What I mean is, we can still check whether everything was right before another RfC is posted. I don't see why the people who are still interested in the RfC should start the RfC page from scratch when the previous RfC page could still be valid. But, anyway, if that's too big of problem for administrators, then I would agree that the whole thing be started from scratch by those still interested. So I first wanna know who I can contact to see if they freeze and "undelete" the page. I first wanna see some transparency before those interested in an RfC have to make a second RfC page. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

You might want to look into Wikipedia:Undeletion policy and Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion if undeletion (or temporary undeletion) is needed to determine if this page was deleted out of process or to address any allegations of tampering. If you just wanted to put the original question back up for RfC (without determining responsibility for the shenanigans which've already taken place here), the basic RfC text (sans signatures) could be reconstructed using the article talk page text and the template (/Example_user) for posts here. --carlb 22:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you cannot create a new Rfc with the old signatures. That would defy due process, be entirely in bad faith, be clear tampering if it were someone else's signature, and would be an ideal candidate for a speedy deletion. What is clear that Carlb did tamper with the original Rfc by pasting signatures from a talk page, and is now propsoing to repeat his actions. Please do not do so, SqueakBox 22:14, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please re-read my post; I said that "the basic RfC text (sans signatures) could be reconstructed using the article talk page text and the template...". You are twisting words here! --carlb 23:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I apologise. If you look at the bottom of my user page you will see I have French=0. I shouldn't have used punto final (S[panish) either. The text without the signatures is exactly what could be done for a new Rfc, SqueakBox 23:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Heres an idea why not, undelete the oringinal then remove the signatures signature (given that User:2004-12-29T22:45Z has already resigned it!!!!) that you find so offensive, is that not the common sense approach!!!, oh wait we essentialy tried that but you whinned and it got deleted, No you would rather than everyone certifiers, endorses, outside viewers run around redoing ALL their work again just for your amusement! --ElvisThePrince 22:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

if you really believe his 2nd signature dated the 22nd should be accepted as valid put your ideas at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). All I want is a clear valid process, not for my amusement but to ensure that invalid Rfc's are not treated as valid one's. The consequences of not doing so woul;d be to defy policy and to make a mockery of the Rfc process. Which is why Slim was right to delete the page I asked an admin to delete, SqueakBox 22:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I would not do it for my amusement but to ensure that girlvinyl has a afair hearing. Or is that not important to you? SqueakBox 23:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on Requests_for_arbitration

This is probably pertinant.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_third_party_SqueakBox

--ElvisThePrince 23:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

For those who don't know this is a request against DreamGuy which 2 separate people asked me to contribute to. I agree it is pertinent, SqueakBox 23:22, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Changing other peoplpe's comments

I wasn't going to get involved but after seeing User:DreamGuy and User:SchmuckyTheCat claim to have an "outside" view (which I've moved to the response section where they belong) when they are both directly involved with not only the edit war on Encyclopedia damatica but the discussion on Talk:Encyclopedia damatica, I felt I had too.--ElvisThePrince 10:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Loved the way User:SchmuckyTheCat removed my endorsement [6] at the same time as claiming to be have an outside and therefore unbiased view now that shows class.--ElvisThePrince 15:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Jesus christ now User:DreamGuy [7] has removed my endosement!!!--ElvisThePrince 17:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I simply reverted some malcontent who changed the outside views to responses... I didn't purposefully remove your endorsement. If peoplpe would stop screwing around changing other people's edits then this stuff wouldn't happen. DreamGuy 17:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

EtheP, it was not my intent to remove your endorsement. I didn't notice that along with the other changes when you moved my summary. Sorry 'bout that. SchmuckyTheCat 17:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey NP --ElvisThePrince 17:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

My view is an outside view. This RfC was neither created by nor involved me, hance outside. You are not allowed to change other people's comments on an RfC just because hyou mistakenly think they should not be outside views. Please take a few minutes to actually read the RfC policy as described on the page before jumping in and screwing things up with your highly biased modifications. You are only showing your bad faith even more by playing with other people's comments. DreamGuy 16:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Outside views are Response

Seeing as User:DreamGuy and User:SchmuckyTheCat won't be happy until they start a revert war here as well I will state that in my opinion that both of their summaries are "Response"'s not "Outside View"'s and leave others to draw their own conculsion about their reaons for insisting otherwise:

Response Definition:This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

Outside View:This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

How users involved in a revert war of the article in question and information being selectively deleted by the user in question can claim to be "not directly involved with the dispute" is obviously beyond my feeble intelligence, perhaps they have invented some new form of Quantum Logic or something--ElvisThePrince 17:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not directly involved in the dispute as listed in this RfC. I did not remove any mention of the individual or remove the photograph in question. I am not saying the person was right to use sockpuppets. That's an outside view. Please read the rules for RfCs, maybe get a little experience, before jumping in and making such accusations. Oh, and, while you are at it, it's pretty clear you desperately need to read and follow the Wikipedia:Civility policy. DreamGuy 17:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Puzzled View by McClenon

I have read this RfC, and I have no idea what violation of Wikipedia policy is being alleged. Unless I have read the dispute wrong, girlvinyl is the originator of Encyclopedia damatica, and should have the right to remove images from it. The statement of the dispute does not say that she is misusing Wikipedia.

Um, look again... the misuse of a Wikipedia article named Encyclopædia damatica and a related Wikipedia image talk page are what's alleged. This person is using multiple userID's to repeatedly remove very specific pieces of information from the Wikipedia article, namely the info as to who owns the encyclopædiadamatica.com site. --66.102.74.90 15:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Eithier I'm being thick or the RFC page needs re-writting but where on the RFC page does it say "2 Days without endorsement" [8] I can see:

1. Once the request for comment is open, these two people must document their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed to produce change, and sign the comment page. Requests for comment which do not meet these minimum requirements after 48 hours from creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed. The subject RFC page will also be deleted, unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained.

   And it seems to be that these efforts have been meet:

   these two people must document their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed to produce change, and sign the comment page. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:girlvinyl#Evidence_of_trying_and_failing_to_resolve_the_dispute

Am I missing something and being unable to see the wood for the trees?--ElvisThePrince 19:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you are right, that's why I keep removing the tag. DreamGuy 21:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'll contact the users who have been disenfanchised then, seems a bit arbitary not matter your views on the matter....--ElvisThePrince 23:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

==== Users certifying the basis for this dispute ==== --carlb 20:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

--2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Clearly this Rfc fails the 2Users certifying the basis for this dispute test as there were not 2 users certifying it within 48 hours. You have no case. Please restore the delete tag as it is now clearly a candidate and should be left for an admin to decide. It clearly has no future so it all abit of a waste of time. You cannot subvert the process merely by removing the tag. It is no longer at Wikipedia:Requests for comment so it is just so much waste paper (sic), SqueakBox 23:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

So your arugment boils down to.

1. I removed User:2004-12-29T22:45Z signature, leading too:
2. User:2004-12-29T22:45Z have to resign to make you happy, BUT now it's more than 48 hours between the RFC and the signature.
3. I removed the link from Wikipedia:Requests for comment, ergo you have no case.

???--ElvisThePrince 23:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If it's removed from Wikipedia:Requests for comment then I'll just go put it back... It clearly had four people certifying it well before the cut off date... The fact that Squeakbox personally removed some from the list shows clear bad faith and deceptive practices. DreamGuy 00:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me. You claimed it only began on the 19th August, so I removed 2 sigs from the 15th. It has not had 2 people certifying it within 48 hours is a fact. however much that annoys you don't blame me, and please don't subvert the legit Rfc process by reinserting an article that failed to get certification within 48 hours. bullying won't work, SqueakBox 00:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

If you look you will see only 2 people have certified the dispute but not within 48 hours. Why can you not accept this is not anymore a legit Rfc. You are making a mockery of Rfc, SqueakBox 00:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I don't wish to sound rude, but are you in the right frame of mind to be editing here at this time? I am actualy quite worried for you, if your a diabetic I think you may need to check you blood sugar levels. Can you just assure me your OK--ElvisThePrince 00:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Your actions here are completely inappropriate. They worked on this RfC before it was moved to the RfC space, they had two signatures already on it. If you count from the time it was started then, then they had two then. If you count from the time when it was officially started they also had at least two, counting the people that were already there (and they would have resigned to get the date stamp correct if someone had pointed it out to them earlier). The fact that you waited until after 48 hours and erased the names yourself is not at all proper procedure. You should either count those names ar have had them resign it when they could have. Of course if you do delete it they can just refile it immediately and get all the signatures they need right away and we'll be right back to where we started. There's no possible justification for you to be trying to delete this RfC. You are the one making a mockery of the process, because you are deleting names that were there for no good reason. DreamGuy 00:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You are wasting your time as the Rfc still will go nowhere, stop calling me a woman or I will take it as a personal attack, SqueakBox 00:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if Squeak is a male and I've been referring to him as a she, but the name seemed feminine to me. Frankly, from the speedy delete tag being applied for no genuine reason I assumed it must have been this girlvinyl person trying to get rid of the RfC improperly. DreamGuy 00:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

In DreamGuys defense without going to SqueakBox his actions would appear to be the work of a GirlVinyl sockpuppet (which of course it isn't)--ElvisThePrince 01:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm considering deleting this for two reasons: (1) there are no diffs showing prior attempts by each of the certifiers to resolve the dispute: talk pages have been offered but no diffs; and (2) one of the certifiers' names is there without a signature and date stamp so it's not clear when it was signed, if at all. Can anyone shed light on this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

1. I'll leave to User:Carlb, User:2004-12-29T22:45Z and User talk:Depakote (original certifiers)
2. Which certifier are you refering too?--ElvisThePrince 00:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Elvis, I was referring to User:2004-12-29T22:45Z. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I would support a speedy on the grounds that it wasn't endorsed by 2 people within 48 hours. This vinylgirl has made less than 20 edits in 4 accounts, SqueakBox 00:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

This is completely false, it was signed, I saw it. Squeakbox removed two of the signatures. They worked on this on another page before it came here and you completely disregarded their signatures. If you didn't want to count them as valid you should have alerted them to that fact beforehand. You are completely disenfranchising them by not counting them and pretending that they didn't exist. I simply cannot believe the audacity of some people here to flagrantly violate the rules of this site. DreamGuy 00:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted it as uncertified, because there was definitely something fishy. It was dated August 15, posted on August 19, and one of the certifiers dated his signature August 22, but without actually signing it. And as you say, it was a new account with a number of deleted edits, which I restored and which indicated the account had been deleted before for some reason. It all adds up to a spurious RfC. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I saw them working on this RfC originally on the page in question. They originally put it together on the talk page or a user page beforehand and then moved it over. The early signatures means they signed it before it was transferred. Yes, it may look fishy but those people were valid endorsers and fully intended to have this thing go forward. DreamGuy 00:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You should try Kate's edit counter. Alsao my user page which opens with a pic. squeak is my female dog, Box is the male, maybe I should have been called boxsqueak but SqueakBox has more of a ring to it. I would also point out that nobody had informed vinylgirl of the Rfc, and with less than 20 nedits to her 4 alleged accounts we can assume she did not know about it. If those people had wanted to go forward they would have needed to do it properly, like everyone else. i actually had removed 2 for not meeting the 2 person threshold within 49 hours, promoted one that had and left one that still has time. i was being impartial and evenhanded, SqueakBox 01:04, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Right Timeline (some errors on exact times may exist)

1. August 15 USer:Carlb Drafted RFC here: Talk:Encyclopædia_damatica#Use_of_multiple_userID.27s.3F
2. (later) August 15 User:2004-12-29T22:45Z sign's draft
3. (later) August 15 User:Depakote signs draft
4. August 19 having (in his view) tried and failed to resolve problem User:Carlb files RFC
5. August 20 User:SchmuckyTheCat adds Outside View
6. August 20 User:DreamGuy adds Outside View
7. August 20 User:Robert McClenon adds Outsied (cofused?) View
8. August 20 User:ElvisThePrince (me!) Endorses + stuff thats not important right now (see above)
9. August 22 User:SqueakBox deletes from RFC and adds speedy delete tag
10. August 22 Both myself and User:DreamGuy point out the are at least 4 endorses/certifiers.
11. August 22 User:SpueakBox deletes certifiers + adds delete tag again
12. August 22 revert war, revert war
13. August 22 User:2004-12-29T22:45Z (resigns) (I don't know why his sig dosn't link to his user space with the article deleted I can't create a diff but it's there if you had looked.
14. August 22 Revert War
15. August 22 You ask some questions and before they are answered delete

This timeline brought to you by the number 3 and the letter W --ElvisThePrince 00:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the 2 illegitimate sigs from 15th Aug that cl;early should not have been there as the Rfc began on the 19th. They were imported, clearly illegitimate, and therefore needed removing. There were never 2 endorsements within 48 hours, otherwise I would have had no reason to remove it in the first place. At that time I did not even know that in all 4 accounts Vinylgirl had done less than 20 edits, and only later realised it was an entirely spurious Rfc of the sort Wikipedia doesn't need. As I said above I examined the 4 Rfc's in the needing endorsement section and acted impartially with all 4 (if I had had any involvement in any of them i would not have touched it). I was doing some janitorial work and feel I am unjustly being given a hard time for it. Dreanmguy could easily have checked I was not Vinylgirl before engaging in edit warsd with me, SqueakBox 01:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Even, even ignoring the legit sigs, both Carlb and myself signed so Your Case = Case - Leg to stand on, you made a mistake and rather than being man enought to admit it you threw a hissy fit deleted the other sigs and went on a crusade, when users from both sides of an RFC tell you your wrong that might be a hint that you are (shock horror) wrong.--ElvisThePrince 01:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

We can't use imported signatures from other pages written four days before the RfC goes up. It's a simple matter for the certifiers to come and sign the page within 48 hours of the RfC being posted, and if they're not able or willing to do that, you have to wonder why not. We have to stick closely to the certification rule to avoid frivolous RfCs being posted, so I'm standing by the deletion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Whats that do I see common sense flying past my ear, my god it's fallen out the window!!--ElvisThePrince 01:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I doubt that it's they were "not able or unwilling" to sign as much as thinking that they already had. The proper thing to do in these situations is to alert them to the problem and educate them instead of totally disregard their input. Perhaps you are not able or unwilling to try to help editors here, but the intent was absolutely clear that they had already certified this RfC. By deleting it all you are going to do is piss a bunch of people off and have them refile and resign and end up exactly where we already were other than the wasted time and the newbie biting. I see a lot of people complaining about how the admins here do not want to try to work with people and make arbitrary decisions to have things their own way, and I have to tell you that this is yet another example. I signed this as an outside viewer thinking it should go nowhere, but the callous disregard for signatures and the lack of any attempt to explain these things to the editors involved before simply tossing their words aside is extremely disturbing. This whole episode of unfriendliness and using the rules as a club instead of working with people is the exact same thing you try to accuse me of, and here you are doing it yourself without any sort of attempt to deal with people in a responsible manner. DreamGuy 01:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

This is as dodgy an RfC as I've seen. Apart from the date and signature problems, User talk:2004-12-29T22:45Z appears to be a sockpuppet. I'd say let it go, DreamGuy. Some of the editors here were acting in good faith, but some appear not to have been. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

If DreamGuy and Elf are so impassioned perhaps they can explain why we must bite the newbies (20 edits), why did neither of you move the Rfc from vinylgirl to Vinylgirl, and why did neither of you consider it important to inform the person that they were under an Rfc. Your calls for justice ring hollow. If you block the Arbcom up with spurious Rfc's you subvert the legitimate ones and waste everyone's time, SqueakBox 03:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Improper Deletion?

Looks like the Rfc was indeed certified, [9], [10]

Although it was aggravating the non-history-preserving strategy that was taken to create the Rfc (building it as a section on a talk page, then moving it), it does not seem obvious that it failed the certification requirement. Someone care to clarify? (After further examination the usefulness and merits of the Rfc seems very questionable though) --Mysidia (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Those are diffs at Talk:Encyclopædia damatica. You can't certify an Rfc from there, you can't expect someone to find even that page, and they validate nothing. Or perhaps you would like to point out where in policy and guidelines it says Rfc's can be validated in talk pages, SqueakBox 03:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I had originally raised the issue on Talk:Encyclopædia damatica as this user's edit pattern (creating multiple accounts and making just a few edits from each, directed almost entirely to articles Encyclopædia damatica and Image talk:Sherrod_degrippo.jpg) meant that a post-to-user-talk would likely not be seen (username keeps changing) but post-to-article talk (the approach used, I posted to both affected article/image talk pages long before coming here with this) would be the most likely to bring this matter to the attention of user Sherrod Degrippo and the various 'girlvinyl' or 'encydra'* alias used by this person to edit these two pages.

If the matter comes up again on RfC, yes I would sign again. Enough people had attempted to resolve this (without success) on the article talk page to qualify it for inclusion here. Nonetheless, it wasn't my intention in posting to the article talk page first that this gather signatures there - I just posted there in the hopes that the one narrow issue (sockpuppet use in deleting info from the article) could be addressed before making any decision as to whether it needed to be brought here at all. Given the relative unimportance of the affected pages to the task of constructing an encyclopædia (an article about one individual website that's neither in the top 100000 by alexa rank nor in the list of largest wikis here, already VfD'ed once, speedied once, narrowly survived a second VfD under a slightly modified name), I'd have been quite content if the issue were to have been resolved and gone away without wasting additional time and resources. --carlb 16:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

My view of the whole story

Look, first of all, I don't understand what's going on with my user page all of a sudden. Its history list shows three edits, two on June 2, supposedly by Mikkalai, and then another edit in July. That's bananas. Nobody ever edited my user page, and all of a sudden it's no longer blank. Some four hours ago it was still blank. That's totally strange.

Secondly, I've never before participated in a requests-for-comment page, so I didn't know how this whole process works. The thing is I just added myself on that list started by Depakote on the Encyclopedia damatica article talk page, just to show my opinion. Of course, when I signed, I didn't know what "requests for comment" was all about. I just thought Depakote had started a list of voters to see who agreed with him. Obviously, I agreed with him in that those three or four accounts mentioned on that talk page belong to Sherrod DeGrippo, no doubt about it.

But again, back then I didn't know that Carlb was gonna copy the whole section to "requests for comment", and I guess neither did Depakote, nor did Carlb know how to start a "request for comment" properly. Of course, that means that the whole process of copying all that info that was on that talk page section about Encyclopedia damatica was wrong. I mean, Carlb made a mistake. He shouldn't have copied the whole thing to "requests for comment". Instead, he should have written on "requests for comment" his own version of the story, and then he should have asked us who initially agreed with Depakote to cast again our votes here on "requests for comment". I mean, Carlb should have written the whole introduction on "requests for comment" on his own, and then he should have told Depakote, possibly Elvis, and me, that there is a "request for comment" going on here.

I hadn't visited the Encyclopedia damatica article talk page for like two days, so I didn't have a clue that Carlb had copied that section to "requests for comment", until Elvis sent me a message to my talk page, but by the time Elvis had sent me that message, and by the time I added those two votes, one on the "approvers" list, or whatever it's called, and another one on that "additional approvers" list, just in case, it was already too late. So in the end, my vote or votes don't count here. That's for sure. What I don't know, though, is if Elvis had cast a vote, as he tells, and then somebody deleted it. I mean, that's what I don't know. Strange things happen here, so I don't know.

And another thing: SlimVirgin, or whatever its name is, it said I hadn't signed one of my invalid votes. That's not true. I signed all my votes. Apparently, like many other users, it confuses my nickname with the date, but the two are not the same. Most of the time, I don't forget to sign my messages.

Again, I would have voted like Depakote, Elvis and Carlb if I had been given the opportunity, but I have to say that Elvis only has a point here when discussing the deletion of the page if somebody really deleted a vote of him that was on the list. Again, I don't know, but since strange things happen here, and since those administrators from the Encyclopedia damatica seem to be conspiring against us, what Elvis says about the deletion of his vote may quite be true. I don't count that one out, since SlimVirgin didn't give us more time to check the history of that deleted page. I mean, why delete the page if you know it's still gonna be grounds for discussion? Why not just freeze the page instead of deleting it? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 05:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You've confirmed that the RfC wasn't filed correctly, which is why it was deleted. I'm not an "it," by the way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well, anyway, does that mean we can start the whole request-for-comment process again if we do it correctly? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 13:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wait for it, I'm getting a vision, yes it's becomming clearer now, if you do then, er not sure what that is are yes I see now, if you do and even if it's:

1. 100% completly accurately filled out
2. every i dotted
3. every t crossed
4. with form 22.3b v.22.3 subsection C filled out in triplicate.
5. stamped with the Great Seal of Wikipedia itself
6. signed by Jimbo himself
7. a blood hair and saliva sample collected and logged with the WHO for all involved
8. Everyone has sworn on the holy bible, in heaven, witnessed by Jesus and the host of Angels (with their signatures of course).
9. And the papers were not lost in the floods of 1965, the move from whitehall in 1975, the merger Trades Council and the Department of Industry in 1984, the close of the India Office in 1945 or due to bomb damage in WWII.

EVEN THEN User_talk:SlimVirgin and User:SqueakBox will go "A-ha"! this is just a copy of an old RFC that was deleted!!!, WP:POINT, WP:POINT" and delete it anyway completly ignoring the point that it was original deleted on dubiouse grounds and for, at best, purely buracratic reasons. I hate to be so negative but thats what you get with jobsworth's like this who miss working in the civil service. --ElvisThePrince 14:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies. An Rfc against Vinylgirl, who has less than 20 edits, would clearly be spurious. But from my perspective do take it to the arbcom, as they clearly have the power to punish anyone involved in an Rfc: ie get involved with the arbcom and take the consequences. I would push for a ban myself, SqueakBox 16:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well, first of all, by the time Girlvinyl started editing on Wikipedia, he/she wasn't new to editing with MediaWiki. Girlvinyl had already created a wiki based on MediaWiki back in December and edited on it multiple times, so he/she's not inexperienced. And he/she has experience with newsgroups and computer security, so he/she does at least have a notion of how to edit on a wiki based on MediaWiki. So, from my perspective, I wouldn't call him/her a "newbie". He/she's not a "newbie" at all.

Next thing, I'm not gonna bite him/her. And now that I know what a request-for-comment page is all about, I see it makes no sense to push it any further. It's not worth the effort right now to ban Sherrod DeGrippo, because he/she doesn't edit that much, and it's not worth it just because of a stupid photograph of him/her. I mean, we're allowed to mention the name "Sherrod DeGrippo" on the article about Encyclopedia damatica, so that's more important than the photo itself.

Another thing I wanna point out is, the real motive for Sherrod DeGrippo to send a DMCA violation notice to the Wikimedia directors is not that putting the photo on the article really violated a copyright. We all know that's nonsense, whether you wanna admit it or not. No copyright was violated. The site clearly stated that one can "take" the photos from the Sherrod DeGrippo site as long as there's a hyperlink back to the site. Just because he/she changed the text on his/her photo gallery after the photo was put on Wikipedia doesn't mean he/she's allowed to take it back. That's nonsense.

The real reason for Sherrod DeGrippo to try to delete the text about him on the article and to remove the photo is because of his/her site and wiki and photos, which are based on sexuality. He/she's ashamed to have his/her name mentioned on the article because of that. But, anyway, his/her identity was public beforehand, so his/her attitude is naive, at least, and I won't count out that it was done in bad faith, because I don't think that person is naive enough not to realize that many people can identify him/her with a simple Whois database search or seach engine search. Even the phone numbers are listed on Google PhoneBook and other white-pages sites. So I have lots of reasons to believe he/she didn't try to remove the content because he/she's naive, but because of having bad intentions. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 16:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Deleting the Rfc had nothing to do with Girlvinyl or her innocence or guilt and everything to do with the fact that it wasn't endorsed by 2 people within 48 hours, as would have been necessary to take it forward. That is indisputable. Punto final, SqueakBox 19:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

don't byte the n00bs???

In response to user:Squeakbox above:

Don't bite the newbies. An Rfc against Vinylgirl, who has less than 20 edits, would clearly be spurious. But from my perspective do take it to the arbcom, as they clearly have the power to punish anyone involved in an Rfc: ie get involved with the arbcom and take the consequences. I would push for a ban myself, SqueakBox 16:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that Sherrod Degrippo (by whatever name or handle) qualifies as 'n00b', having already been on Wikipedia (and already having an axe to grind against Wikipedia) long before starting ED in Dec 2004. From ED's article on itself, "Encyclopediadamatica was created December 9th 2004 while girlvinyl was impatiently awaiting the delivery of her ibook. ghettofinger and girlvinyl were outraged and amused by the ill-treatment of internet celebrity jameth by the moderators and idiots at wikipedia. girlvinyl decided it was time to present an alternative to the fascist hold they had over information on the internets." Nonetheless, advocating an approach of running straight to arbcom when lesser measures would suffice is an abuse of process and an inconsiderate waste of resources. Wikipedia deserves better. --carlb 19:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

See my comment directly above this section, SqueakBox 19:57, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, what you just said is not a "punto final" nor a "punto". It's a comma at most, because we're not allowed to see the different versions of the deleted page nor its history, so we're not allowed to see whether Elvis's vote really was there before the deadline. I would like an administrator to put back and freeze the page to see if it's true that Elvis's vote got deleted. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please desist in attacking me as it makes you appear not serious and very rude. I have corrected my name from ShriekBox. I would be happy to have the history of the page under scrutiny as it would absolutely prove my point and that others had no right to attack me for anything I did in rtelation to this rfc, SqueakBox 21:45, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

All right, I'm not gonna change your nickname anymore. I myself would also like to see the history of the page frozen and displayed. I agree. I want some transparency here. Who do we contact to see if they can display the page without making it modifiable? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:34, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

A solution

IMO the only way forward is for those who believe it was unfair because 2004-12-29T22:45Z and Depakote might have erroneously thought their original signatures were valid (a spurious argument as if that were the case they should have re-signed) they should re/create the Rfc from scratch and see if 2 people sign it within 48 hours, and sticking carefully to the rules which means no pasted material from talk pages or anywhere else, and no adding other people's signatures for them; ie make a legitimate rfc, and see if it gets endorsed or not, SqueakBox 17:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

(a spurious argument as if that were the case they should have re-signed) Except User:2004-12-29T22:45Z did and you refused to accept that..........--ElvisThePrince 22:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

His signature wasn't valid as the 48 hours were up. To have accepted that signature after the 48 hours were up would have made a mockery of the Rfc process. The solution I am proposing was the only valid one even then, SqueakBox 22:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

What I asked before is whether the page can be displayed again, or "undeleted", as they call it here. I agree that Depakote's vote and my vote were invalid, because they were copied to the page by Carlb. Carlb should have taken into account that voters can change their minds after they vote, and that about a week had passed between the voting on the ED talk page and the copying of those votes to the RfC page. So to me, that's not the problem. I agree with that.

Now you say that the only way forward is if someone disagrees with the affirmation that those two votes were invalid, but I don't see why. We can still ask an administrator to freeze and display the page. I still wanna see the history of the deleted page and the page itself, but, of course, frozen, so the editing and the reversals don't continue.

What I mean is, we can still check whether everything was right before another RfC is posted. I don't see why the people who are still interested in the RfC should start the RfC page from scratch when the previous RfC page could still be valid. But, anyway, if that's too big of problem for administrators, then I would agree that the whole thing be started from scratch by those still interested. So I first wanna know who I can contact to see if they freeze and "undelete" the page. I first wanna see some transparency before those interested in an RfC have to make a second RfC page. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

You might want to look into Wikipedia:Undeletion policy and Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion if undeletion (or temporary undeletion) is needed to determine if this page was deleted out of process or to address any allegations of tampering. If you just wanted to put the original question back up for RfC (without determining responsibility for the shenanigans which've already taken place here), the basic RfC text (sans signatures) could be reconstructed using the article talk page text and the template (/Example_user) for posts here. --carlb 22:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you cannot create a new Rfc with the old signatures. That would defy due process, be entirely in bad faith, be clear tampering if it were someone else's signature, and would be an ideal candidate for a speedy deletion. What is clear that Carlb did tamper with the original Rfc by pasting signatures from a talk page, and is now propsoing to repeat his actions. Please do not do so, SqueakBox 22:14, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please re-read my post; I said that "the basic RfC text (sans signatures) could be reconstructed using the article talk page text and the template...". You are twisting words here! --carlb 23:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I apologise. If you look at the bottom of my user page you will see I have French=0. I shouldn't have used punto final (S[panish) either. The text without the signatures is exactly what could be done for a new Rfc, SqueakBox 23:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Heres an idea why not, undelete the oringinal then remove the signatures signature (given that User:2004-12-29T22:45Z has already resigned it!!!!) that you find so offensive, is that not the common sense approach!!!, oh wait we essentialy tried that but you whinned and it got deleted, No you would rather than everyone certifiers, endorses, outside viewers run around redoing ALL their work again just for your amusement! --ElvisThePrince 22:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

if you really believe his 2nd signature dated the 22nd should be accepted as valid put your ideas at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). All I want is a clear valid process, not for my amusement but to ensure that invalid Rfc's are not treated as valid one's. The consequences of not doing so woul;d be to defy policy and to make a mockery of the Rfc process. Which is why Slim was right to delete the page I asked an admin to delete, SqueakBox 22:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I would not do it for my amusement but to ensure that girlvinyl has a afair hearing. Or is that not important to you? SqueakBox 23:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on Requests_for_arbitration

This is probably pertinant.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_third_party_SqueakBox

--ElvisThePrince 23:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

For those who don't know this is a request against DreamGuy which 2 separate people asked me to contribute to. I agree it is pertinent, SqueakBox 23:22, August 25, 2005 (UTC)