User talk:Kittybrewster/VK rfc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This space is right now in KittyBrewsters user space and therefore we all need her permission to edit the space. Nothing to do with admins but I think it would be a good idea if Vintage didnt edit it without Kitty's permission, SqueakBox 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out one thing, regardless of the user space argument. I don't think any other editors should certify or endorse the dispute until the RfC has been finished, as parts were still being edited after this happened before. One Night In Hackney303 22:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me make it clear that I have endorsed this on Kitty's user space and that absolutely does not mean anyone has permission to use that signature to endorse an Rfc in the wikipedia: space and all the people would have to resign again to make it valid. we must be very careful about this or else a wikipedia rfc would be invalidated, SqueakBox 23:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I too have endorsed this, primarily as a way of letting Kitty and others know that there is sufficient support among a variety of users for the RfC to go forward. I will re-endorse at the appropriate time and place when the RfC becomes official. I only wish I had time to contribute susbtantively to it. Laura1822 18:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] POINT/CIVIL/AGF/IDONTLIKEIT, etc.

I think it should be pointed out that while violating these policies and guidelines almost continuously, he also frequently invokes them against anyone who doesn't share his viewpoint. In this he is at least consistently hypocritical. (He's also hypercritical.) Laura1822 19:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jackyd101

I would like to draw attention to this edit. The "unsourced, deliberately inflammatory and NPOV" word referred to is "murdered". There is a reference given at cain.ulst.ac.uk. which has the information:

"responses to the official (Widgery) report and new evidence: British Irish Rights Watch Submission to the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on Summary and Arbitrary Executions: The Murder of 13 Civilians by Soldiers of the British Army on 'Bloody Sunday', 30 January 1972".

It is therefore not unsourced. Rather more substantial is a link from that page to this page, which has the statement:

"This Sunday became known as Bloody Sunday and bloody it was. It was quite unnecessary. It strikes me that the Army ran amok that day and shot without thinking what they were doing. They were shooting innocent people. These people may have been taking part in a march that was banned but that does not justify the troops coming in and firing live rounds indiscriminately. I would say without hesitation that it was sheer, unadulterated murder. It was murder."
— Major Hubert O'Neill, the Coroner in a statement issued on 21 August 1973

I think therefore the complaint against Vintagekits over this particular point may well fail to convince editors outside the dispute of its validity. I draw attention to this, as a case presented at RfC needs sound preparation, and I recommend vetting other points to make sure they will stand up under scrutiny. (I looked at this one at random: I have not studied others.)

Tyrenius 01:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the comment about this edit being unsourced, although as I commented here [1] at the time and recieved no response, I do not believe that the source provided is adequate for the claim Vintagekits was attempting to make. The second source you have given above was already correctly placed and formatted in the article in a section about responses to the incident. My objection was not about the use of the word murder anywhere in the article, but simply that where he placed it in the article, given the context of other ongoing disputes, was both disruptive and deliberately trying to make a POINT.--Jackyd101 06:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing comment

User:Vintagekits has scored through/removed comment on his behaviour by another editor. VK now states that the comment was irrelevant because it was made by a sock-puppet. However, it seems to me, at least, that Vintagekits should not in any way be tampering with remarks left on this page regardless of who left them, as the comment itself may be entirely valid and a matter for consideration. We are not here considering the sock-puppet's behaviour. David Lauder 13:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what my father would call "balderdash". I didnt strike through the comment - another editors (possibly the admin) that was involved in blocking him did! I did not tamper with the comment (actually you did by removing the strike through it!) Glad we cleared that up. --Vintagekits 13:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Whoever first scored through another user's comment on this page - unless it was the user themselves - should not have done so. I've explained that above. I restored the original comment which User:Aatomic1 had scored. You twice reverted my restorations. If the RFC had been on a dispute involving myself I wouldn't have the nerve to do something like that so blatantly. I may raise it with an Admin but that is all. David Lauder 14:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, so do you want ot withdraw your accusation that I did it or not?--Vintagekits 14:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
What are you on about? Everything I have said here is accurate and correct. David Lauder 14:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense - Aatomic1 struck through the comment - then YOU removed the strike through and I reverted that edit!--Vintagekits 14:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I removed the strike through because it was wrong to do that (as I said above). That is not the dispute here. The issue is YOU reverting - twice - my reversion when YOU are a defendant in this RFC. It is out of order. Surely you can see that? David Lauder 14:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not an RfC, for the record. One Night In Hackney303 14:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
"For the record" this was a two-way conversation. Thanks. David Lauder 15:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well it's now a three way conversation. If you and VK want to exchange sweet nothings I suggest a chatroom. One Night In Hackney303 15:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted comments by O'Donoghue, sock of banned user User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. This user is not merely blocked, but banned, and has no right to edit wikipedia in any capacity, especially to make accusations against other editors. Tyrenius 18:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Active RfC

Is this an active RfC? Why is it hostd in the user space? If it's active it should be in the Wikipedia space. If it isn't active how come so much editing is going on? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 18:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not active, and has never been active. If the parties concerned wish to open an RfC I wish they would, as I don't think this should be hanging around in userspace for months on end. I would MfD it myself, but the nomination wouldn't be looked upon favourably. One Night In Hackney303 18:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It would have to be opened afresh were it to be a real rfc. I think it was testing the waters. It might be good to get a statement of intention from Kitty when he returns but really this is no different in terms of okayness to the page of ONIH had which just survived a deletion attempt, SqueakBox 19:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the ONIH page is a preparation for a future action, such as an RfAr, while this page no longer appears to be a preparation. I don't see the purpose of this page in this location, being actively edited by a range of users. If it's an RfC then it shouldn't be in user-space. If it isn't an active RfC then it shouldn't be treated like one. "Private" RfCs don't have a place in Wikipedia. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It was always stated to be an RfC in preparation, but it seems to have ground to a halt. Tyrenius 02:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
If there's no imminent intent we should at least blank it. It can always be resurrected if necessary. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 03:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. It was started on 11 March, so there's been plenty of time to post it properly. Tyrenius 06:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)