User talk:86.11.84.3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I see you have been experimenting with Wikipedia. Your change was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. You have edited a user page associated with another IP address, and this might cause, or be thought to be intended to cause, confusion. 86.10.231.219 10:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Midgley 10:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

See [[1]] re IP address changed overnight from 86.10.231.219 to this one.

Talk - The Invisible Anon 86.11.84.3 08:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OMbudsman may be busy

And this is the page for communicating with whoever is lokked in on this IP address. Both of you may care to look at this page which appears to me to have been written for the situations you are both in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/How_to_present_a_case

I think the particular point most of notice and therefore to which I specifically direct your attention 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. The first to try to rules-lawyer the arbitration process invariably loses — because they wouldn't be rules-lawyering if they had a case."

One could argue about whether medication and arbitration are a continuous process, and whether complaining about flaws in the RFC process is different from copmplaining about flaws in the arbitration ctee process, and about whether demanding that everybody else in a request for comments made to the whole of the world (1) must first assure you they will say nothing else before you contribute(2) is or is not wiki-lawyering, and there may well be another WP essay about RFC procedures, or perhaps there should be and if anyone felt it needed writing, they'd write it(3), but in the end you run up against two things:-

A) it is a request for comment - if you choose not to say something then that is up to you, but after you have had a sufficient time to make any comment that occurs to you, it is possible that some people looking later at it may feel that some of what you later say could reasonably have been said earlier and interpret your choice to not comment.

B) an RFC on conduct that doesn't conclude with a consensus is highly likely to be an ArbCom case, and then you run up against the phrase from the essay.

So, you are invited, again, to consider making a response in the response section of the RFC, rather than scattering what appear to be bits of it on a host of other pages. Midgley 14:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) logged in and non-logged in WP editors are all entitled to comment (2) assuming that you are who you say you are, although actually you don't say who you are, just that you are the same person as someone else who makes a particular point of not adopting a consistent identity (3) There is, now


Midgley 14:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../8/6/2E/User_talk%7E86.11.84.3.html"