I don't want this to degenerate into a tit-for-tat "he did it first, so he should stop first" dispute. Oh wait. Too late. I asked both of you if you couldn't shake and make nice. I'd like to know what is preventing you from doing so. Tomer TALK 21:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Tomer, I object to the title of this page, the idea of this page, and your latest proposal on -Ril-'s page (which -Ril- does not want me to respond to over there). First, -Ril-'s problem is obviously -Ril-'s problem and a Wiki-wide thing. If I went away it would not change -Ril- in the least, he would still have his -Ril-rage and just have more energy and time to target others.
Second, I have gone way overboard in my proposals. I have even gone far to offer to change some things that I should not have to do, such as expressly stating that I will not revert or change -Ril-'s edits. I never did anything to -Ril-'s edits he made. In all the time he was targeting me, I have expressly refrained from retaliating. I decided that I would simply tell my story to others, including yourself.
Third, you have gone way overboard in making proposal after proposal to him, and what have you gotten? To be charitable, he told you to get lost. In fact, his behavior got worse, in the middle of all this getting a 3RR and deleting other people's comments and reverting numerous times the RfC page and the talk page.
The proper thing to do is to start an RfC against -Ril- and let the community decide. I am not the only one -Ril- has done this to and I will not be the last. --Noitall 01:22, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Tomer, after further consideration, I will now modify my proposal. I will do exactly what every other editor who has gotten in a dispute will do with -Ril-. If every other editor who has gotten in a dispute is going to refrain from editing -Ril-'s pages, or his comments, or anything, I will also. So all we need to do is compile a list of everyone who -Ril- has stalked, gotten in revert wars, who he has totally ignored or rudely dismissed when they have tried to work things out, everyone who he has erased comments from, made misleading edit changes about, stated "POV" 5 times, failed to give any explanation for his reverts, targeted in his 3RRs, targeted in his RfCs and fraudulent attempts to certify RfCs, etc., etc., etc. My guess is that is a pretty long list. --Noitall 01:39, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Response to Noitall
editZeroth, the title of this page was a direct result of the fight the two of you were engaging in on my talk page. You may "object" to it, but I created it as a result of my "object"ion to the use of my talk page as a boxing ring.
First, I have not made any proposals regarding your activities either at User talk:-Ril- nor anywhere else. Ever. So I am mystified by the assertion and somewhat taken aback by its tone.
Second, well, there's really nothing to respond to there.
Third, I have not made any proposal to -Ril-, regarding you, other than that he shake and make nice with you. On the RFC page, I made a proposal to the community that XYZ regarding -Ril-, but that was a proposal to the community. I also agreed there to make myself available as a mentor to -Ril-, but that had nothing specifically to do with you, in fact, it followed my notification that the RFC -Ril- brought against TUC was out of process.
When I offered my services, it was in an attempt to reach a resolution with -Ril-, who seems to fail to understand the position he has put me in by responding to my suggestion as though he were the injured party. As for your proposed RfC, I don't have the time to assist you in writing it, although I'm guessing Ta bu shi da yu and Mel Etitis would be more than happy to assist. That said, I think we can both agree that I am very well-qualified to certify the basis for such an RFC (although I'll wait to see it written before committing to do so, obviously). It's too late, in fact, to say that -Ril- is on a collision course with ArbCom. The collision has occurred. The only thing to be done now, on -Ril-'s part, is to consider how much his ability to participate on WP means to him. When he's not trolling, he's actually a good editor. Although they're sometimes irritatingly irrelevant, his non-insulting comments often demonstrate that he knows a bit about a lot of subjects. His grammar and spelling are much better than many editors'. I would like to see him stay around, but as so many others have said, if that's going to happen, it'll be because -Ril- changes. Best of luck. Tomer TALK 07:47, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I truly did not mean to use anyone's page as a "boxing ring", but I can't say anything to anyone at all on Wiki without -Ril- following me onto the page. I am in the process of writing the RfC, something I really really did not want to do. Sorry if I got offended. --Noitall 08:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Response from -Ril-
editTomer, you have just witnessed Noitall's agressive tendencies, and may now appreciate where our quarrel originates. It began when I reverted Noitall's POV edit to The Bible and History. Noitall reverted back with the edit summary "YOU SHALL NOT PUSH ME OFF THIS PAGE", a summary that made me think "oh great, another psycho", clearly marking a POV warrior, so I reverted back. Noitall insisted his edits were "a consensus edit from other pages", but I challenged this (on the article talk page) and asked for evidence that there was consensus for the change. Noitall then backtracked claiming that the edits were copy+paste wording from a collection of other articles, so I pointed out that this isn't the same as consensus, and copy+paste can be used to make any pov whatsoever. Noitall also claimed that the change wasn't controversial, I pointed out that at least one other editor thought it was, and there was no evidence that any other editor supported the change. Noitall then responded that Noitall wasn't going to bother discussing things any more, and just started revert warring.
Consequently, I went to Noitall's talk page to reproach Noitall, but noticed that the last comment on the talk page referred to an RFC against Noitall, so found the RFC instead. Reading the RFC it was clear that there was a problem, so I looked through Noitall's other edits, noticed several instances of inappropriate behaviour - e.g. calling Mustafaa a "terrorist" and explicitely goading other users to engage in a revert war (Noitall has also recently repeated such goading, e.g. upon User talk:Xaa and User talk:Reddi, whom I subsequently advised not to heed such behaviour), so I co-signed the RFC. Slimvirgin, who appeared, from his friendly comments at User talk:Noitall, to support Noitall, then deleted the RFC.
I have not seen a single instance of constructive discussion with other editors by Noitall about articles, and most of his edit history consists of reverting several different articles to his own version of them, rather than trying to incorporate other people's edits. Noitall also exhibits wiki-stalking to the extent that at least one other user (User:Dmcdevit) has told Noitall to stop trolling. I don't find this encouraging behaviour. This is the reason I have a dispute with Noitall.
As for Noitall's dispute with me, I suspect it is simply because I am more willing than other editors to challenge the behaviour of POV warriors (I have already been involved in disputes with User:Germen (up for RFAR, which is currently suspended to see if mediation between Axon and Germen is successful), User:AI and User:Gabrielsimon (both in seperate RFARs), with User:SimonP (both instances of unusual behaviour being demonstrated by surveys I have instigated to not have any consensus for), with User:Melissadolbeer and an army of her sockpuppets (see Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of melissadolbeer) (her original research article is now, finally, blanked and redirected, after total consensus from everyone else, except Mel Etitis (who thinks I am only opposing Melissadolbeer+socks because I have a grudge against her - despite Melissadolbeer+socks being involved on no other article content dispute whatsoever)), and with User:Slike2 supporter of User:Karlscherer3 (most of his 200+ original research and advertising articles and images are now deleted due to the largest single VFD ever (this one)(200+ articles+images for deletion at once - full list here) plus 12 or so VFDs for material discovered subsequently))
Mel Etitis has an issue with me entirely due to Mel Etitis' quite bizarre and continued belief that I am a sockpuppet of User:Lir (who is based in the US - in Ohio, as well as using American spellingz, has major dislike of editors I haven't even come into contact with, and appears to have a completely different sphere of interest (and knowledge)). Personally, apart from the bizarre accusation (and associated "anon" vandalism to my old (now deleted & replaced) user page), I have no issue with Mel Etitis whatsoever. Ta bu shi da yu has issues with me because my academic knowledge points to an entirely different view concerning the historic involvment of Zoroastrianism in Christianity/Judaism to his own (as an Evangelical Christian, his view isn't too surprising), an issue on which Ta bu shi da yu has decided to take a wiki-break because of getting too emotionally involved, and I have not had other problems with Ta bu shi da yu, indeed we get on on other issues quite happily.
I agree that I tread on some people's toes, but some people's toes need treading upon. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Noitall, with regards to my IP address that you seem to be discussing on your talk page, my IP is provided by my Internet provider - BT Openworld - which is by far the largest internet provider in the UK. The IP points to the geographic location of BT (there is a large exchange in London called the Kingsway Exchange), rather than to me. The IPs provided by BT Openworld are not static, and so every time there is a power cut, or my machine is switched off, or BT just decides to, I get a new IP address, and someone else, potentially, gets my old one. Several edits attached to that IP both before and after I have used it, may not be by me, or anyone connected to me, and may be by someone at the other end of the country. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello
editI think this page probably ought to be deleted now, since the discussion has gone somewhat cold. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)