Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Whig has for a long time been a problematic editor. He was indef blocked for quite some time, but was procedurally unblocked a few months ago. However, he has not reformed, and calls for his rebanning have become very loud again. This RfC seeks to gain community consensus for this ban. [N.B. The redlink was a controversial RfC he and Abridged started, now deleted. A thread spontaneously sprung up expressing outrage, as it was considered an abuse of RfCs, etc. It contained a vote to ban Abridged and Whig for abuse of process, etc, of which I feel only the latter ban is justified.]


[edit] Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

I feel that Whig has exhausted the communities' patience, after second, third, and fourth chances, and it is time to ban him for good.

[edit] Description

Whig is a tendentious editor, prone to wikilawyering, disruption, and other problematic behaviours.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

Previous requests for comment
Previous Administrators noticeboard threads
Whig is already under editing restrictions

I noticed that the admin who was mentoring you may not be around. This presents a slight problem for you, in that you were unblocked on condition of a number of editing conditions and agreements, which were designed and agreed by the community, to help you stay out of problems.

To sum up, these were as follows, as best I understand it: 15 October, following community consensus at WP:ANI: [1]

  • 6 months of 1 revert rule, If you revert content in an article more than once per week, you will be blocked. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
  • Civility patrol for 6 months where any threat or insult, even vague, will result in a block. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
  • You are prohibited from editing the Homeopathy article for 6 months, you may use the talk page. You may revert simple vandalism.

FT2 goes on to say: "The community decisions of 15 October remain. They were decided by the community, not by mercury."

Whig's recent behaviour

Whig's recent behaviour has also been poor. For instance, he has:

  1. done a tendentious Afd on Quackery AfD Discussion about it, warning him for his behaviour To quote East718:
Like I said, that was a colossal mistake at best; more likely it was you trying out subtle disruption. A dispute of that sort would be best resolved by posting a polite and narrow message on the talk page, requesting third opinions, and then going down further steps of dispute resolution if conflict persists. Please don't repeat such behavior.
  1. He was soon after in trouble for edit warring - despite the 1RR.

He has recently gone into tendentious claims of Personal attacks on other users at very slight provocation. This thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive356#Incivility_by_Peter_morrell contains the following, to which I've added some emphasis:

I think there is a problem here, inasmuch as Vanished User is held to a double standard as an admin and is not blocked for his own ongoing gross incivility to editors with a different POV than his own particularly regarding the subject of homeopathy. I have given recent evidence of this in his RfC.[2] Because he treats other editors with disrespect, he may be expected occasionally to receive some negative criticism. —Whig (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
*sigh* Have a look at the diffs Whig provides. They basically amount to me saying that he still has problems as an editor, particularly with only reading part of what people say to him, and... basically, all the problems from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2, though at a slightly lower level. Whig may not like hearing it, but my position is easily defensible by diffs, (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vanished_User#Criticism_of_Whig.27s_behaviour_is_justified_.28Vanished_User.2C_response_to_Whig.27s_comment_below.29) Vanished User talk 21:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to look at Vanished's response, then you might read the follow-up conversation in the talk, but I'm not going to bother digging up diffs for this noticeboard, since this really is an ArbCom matter. For the record, his comment here is incivil, because he presumes some reading deficiency on my part. —Whig (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No, his comment above is not uncivil, unless you're trying really hard to be offended. You criticized his behavior; he criticized yours. Even in the surreal atmosphere currently prevailing on Wikipedia, this is not proscribed by WP:CIVIL. If it were, it would be impossible to meaningfully discuss... well... anything. To go back to the intial part of the thread: a reasonable block, and an unacceptable screed on Peter's part. Just because Vanished is currently embattled does not mean that everyone who dislikes him gets free license to poke him with a stick. MastCell Talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

He was also a collaborator in opening the controversial RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vanished User 2, which ended up having a lengthy section suggesting he be banned for abusing RfC (among the other things). This RfC is an attempt to collect the evidence, and give him a chance to respond in a more appropriate environment.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (Very common. One good example is that, despite the FT2 comment stating he's under restrictions, he is still trying to claim he was never under any sort of probation. Indeed, at a couple points, he tried to attack me over saying he was on probation, e.g here, by trying to claim semantic difference between restrictions and probation. See also Wikilawyering, below.)
  2. WP:POINT
  3. WP:Gaming the system
  4. WP:Disruptive editing
  5. WP:Wikilawyering

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Previous requests for comment
Previous Administrators noticeboard threads

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Vanished User talk 05:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment Whig has recently taken to lying about his past on Wikipedia - or at least, being intentionally misleading. Whig is under restrictions, including a ban from Homeopathy but claims he is not under any sort of probation repeatedly by means of wikilawyering, and perhaps not even accurate wikilawyering, as article bans are considered a type of probation. Such behaviour, which is not atypical for him, is, frankly, toxic, and should not be put up with. Vanished User talk 18:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. Filll (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Endorse - Shot info (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 10:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. FeloniousMonk (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Whig is simply not cut out to help us write an encyclopedia and has become a tendentious and disruptive editor. I recommend that Whig find another project where he fits in better. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. The time has long since past to show Whig the door. I've asked his mentor to comment here and at ANI. Skinwalker (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Have read all related material and this seems to be a fair presentation of events. Orderinchaos 16:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Time for Whig to move along. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Neıl ☎ 17:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Like the party, it's time for this whig to go. •Jim62sch• 22:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Mr.Z-man 01:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. He's been given plenty of last chances, only to repay the community's leniency with wikilawyering and abusive process. Enough. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. His behavior has become oddly reminiscent of another editor that was banned after completely exhausting the community's patience. The main difference being that Whig has been given ample opportunity to address the concerns of the community (this is the 3rd RFC), yet has failed to do so in any appreciable manner. Baegis (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Let's put Wikipedia out of its misery by relieving it of a bothersome editor who has repeatedly exhausted the community's patience. -- Fyslee / talk 09:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Having read through the material: this is enough. – Sadalmelik (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Fully endorse this summary --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. Endorse --DrEightyEight (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Comment by Wanderer57

The people who are most likely to take an interest in this have just gone through an Rfc about Vanished User, Arbitration Committee is still looking at a case about Vanished User, and an Rfc (with a sidedish of ANI) about Whig happened a few months ago.

This Rfc is a symptom of people needing time to cool off from previous stress more than it is a sign of new issues that need to be considered.

IMHO, this Rfc and the new Rfc about Vanished User should both be STRICKEN from whatever they need to be stricken from, and if necessary started afresh in a month or so.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Wjhonson (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. docboat (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. The other rfc has already been deleted. Abridged talk 02:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. I've seen very little of whig, so I may not have all the facts. But this looks like the same kind of vexatious litigation which has recently been argued against (not to say that such litigation occurred, just that if it did, then this looks like more of it). ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Peter morrell 08:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Whig is such a dignified person and editor that he hasn't even entered this vindictive "couter-suit." Vanished C's call to action is clearly his effort to avoid admitting any error and instead to go on the offensive. Luckily for us all, on wiki, the writing is on the wall, literally and figuratively. Dana Ullman Talk 18:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Lara❤Love 03:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. This is just "vexatious litigation" as retaliation for vexatious litigation that Whig didn't even start. --Itub (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Abridged

So we are calling for a community ban of Whig. What fun! Everyone, pile on!

A few days ago, most of the editors calling for this ban were also calling for a community ban of me. Why? because I didn't like being called an "uncritical promoter of homoepathy". I went to RFC to defend my right not to be labeled in this way. Why? because it just ain't true, and it was being used as a personal attack to discount the value of my contributions. (I showed some diffs to support this but no one apparantly looked at them, because, well, they didn't think they had to. Instead they said stuff like, "I bet if you looked at her article edits you'd find plently of evidence that she is a POV pusher".) Whig had tried to get the person making the attack to strike it, and he certified my RFC. Little did I know that that policy wp:npa policy doesn't have teeth, and it was considered overkill to take an issue like this to RFC, and for this reason a community ban was called for on both of us. That evolved into this.

I've looked at the complaints about Whig above, and I've looked at his block log (blocked twice by Vanished User, the bringer of this and the last RFC, the one who I brought an RFC against a few days ago). I've looked at his mainspace edits. After a little time editing in the highly polarized area of homeopathy on Wikipedia I've seen most of the involved folks here calling for the ban on Whig to have been quite guilty of breaking as many behavioral guidelines as they accuse him of breaking. It is an ironic situation, to say the least.

I think it is time for editors on wikipedia to stop calling each other names, stop trying to vote each other off the island. I am against banning Whig.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Abridged talk 02:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. I have no opinion on banning whig, but endorse the rest of it. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Peter morrell 08:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Dana Ullman Talk 18:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. I don't know Whig's actions directly, but considering the multiple overlapping RfCs and ArbCom actions, a cooling off period would be appropriate before discussing something as extreme as a full ban. Let it rest for a couple months while people recuperate and integrate what's happened lately around these issues. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. I agree that in this situation there is no innocent victim. When things get heated what is called for is detachment. No Angry Mastodons and pot-calling-the-kettle-black Wjhonson (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Lara❤Love 03:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. docboat (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Itub (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment 2 by Abridged

Whig really had nothing to do with bring the RFC vanished refers to above. He cosigned onto it, but I take full responsibility for bringing it. Abridged talk 02:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Martinphi

Vanished User blocked Whig twice. Whig participated in User's RfC, generally saying that User did wrong. This is the day after it looks like User is going to lose his sysop tools for six months, about which he seemed very upset. User brought this RfC. This page should be deleted. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. I find this RfC wholly unjustified and bizarre; it seems to be a trumped-up charge based on a nasty form of vengeful vindictiveness against Whig that cannot ever place Vanished in a positive light. I think after recent events he would have been better advised sticking to his alleged wiki-break and trying to regain some dignity rather than launching into this. Peter morrell 08:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Martinphi and with Peter's comment above. Let's get on with itAbridged talk 15:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Taking a wiki-break and stopping his continued deleting of homeopathic content on Wikipedia would be my suggestion. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Agree. Tit-for-tat, WP:KETTLE, revenge and anti-project. Wjhonson (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Lara❤Love 03:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further Comment by Wanderer57

This is to state my objections to this Rfc (beyond my earlier comment above.)

1) Inappropriate Nature of this Rfc

Policy: Requests for comment is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, consensus building, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

Actual Situation: The stated purpose of this Rfc is to build consensus to ban Whig. HERE

Analysis: The tone and purpose of this RFC is inconsistent with the policy.

2) Contradiction

The thrust of this Rfc is that Whig's conduct is so irretrievably bad that he should be banned. Yet this drastic view is contradicted by recent statements.

"Allow me to first say that I have no real problem with Whig, as he is now... because I'm afraid he's at the heart of the controversy, and his behaviour in the past was far worse than his behaviour in the present. I have to talk about it, but please realise that my discussion is in the past tense." Vanished User 6 January 2008 [[3]]

"Yes, but while Whig has improved a lot, it's hard to see him as a really productive member of the community yet." Vanished User 9 January 2008 HERE

3) Close Proximity to the Rfc and Arbitration Committee Proceeding re Vanished User

The current high emotions and fluctuations in emotional level of people involved in these deliberations related to Vanished do not bode well for reasoned attempts to build consensus at this time or in the near future.

For one example, Filll recently expressed what I consider animosity toward people who did not support Vanished in the Rfc.

Evidence: "I will note that most of those voting against Vanished are POV pushers or antiscience zealots or editors in bad standing or on probation. " Filll 12 January 2008 HERE

- - - -

In summary, the Rfc is inappropriate, unnecessary, and untimely.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Well put Abridged talk 15:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. I agree that it was a bit soon and somewhat ill-founded for Vanished to launch this RfC. Considering also the advice he gave others about doing this type of thing: for god's sake, lad, when you're up at ArbCom for your behaviour at one set of articles, it's generally not considered good form to start carrying on at another in the same manner, (etc) [4] then it all reads a bit like WP:Kettle to me. Peter morrell 16:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. I agree. Dana Ullman Talk 18:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Agree. The timing was not good. Wanderer57 summarized it well. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Endorse re bad timing of RfC considering the circumstances as a whole. Cooling-off period is needed. In a couple months, based on then-current behavior, if problems persist a new RfC can be brought. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Too soon. Bad timing. Misuse of the RfC process. Carcharoth (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Nicely put. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. This is a parody of the process. Immediate stop recommended. docboat (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Very well stated. Lara❤Love 04:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

It's hard to see all of the above as anything but a distraction. There seems to be a problem with Whig, his actions in the last two weeks are diffed above. Vague statements that "everyone should just cool down" and "There's no point discussing this", "The timing is poor", "I don't like Vanished" and the like do not seem useful.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Vanished User talk 21:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Carcharoth

If there is no community consensus following this RfC and the behaviour continues (especially the escalating to RfCs seen from both sides), then an arbitration case may be the next step to allow the behaviour of all editors involved in this dispute to be examined, including their inability to walk away when things get too heated.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Carcharoth (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Endorse: Of course, if the behavior is continued by only some of those editors, then an ArbCom should be started just for those editors. --Ronz (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support Comment to this: I would like to see ALL involved editors assessed by ArbCom as a result of this spurious RfC. Those POV pushers who presented this page are just as disruptive as those they are colluding with to have banned. It is high time that POV pushing on ALL sides is stemmed, and I think now is the time for serious action on the part of ArbCom. Enough is enough. docboat (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment only: I tried to bring such a generalized ArbCom, and because it was generalized, it wasn't accepted. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Sbowers3

As far as I know I have not previously had any contact with any of the users or topics involved in this RFC. I have no particular interest in the topics.

What does interest me is fair and appropriate process - and I don't see that here. There should be specific charges and specific evidence with diffs that show the disputed behavior. Instead what we see is links to previous RFCs or ANIs. Those are evidence of previous disputes - not evidence of disputed behavior by the accused. Most of the content of those linked items is comments by other users, not comments by the "accused". So all they show is what other people thought of him, not what he did himself.

But let's take a look at those previous RFCs. The first one was closed with no action. Closing comments (by uninvolved editors) include:

  • I gave two examples to show that it was possible to resolve differences with Whig and that Whig was not disruptive. I am in favour of styles before the name, but have not found Whig an abusive or disruptive opponent!

  • Whig's action have almost always civil, albeit sometimes confusing, and this RfC shows that some dialogue between the involved parties has happened.

So I fail to see how this RFC is evidence of Whig's disputed behavior. The second RFC doesn't have any closing comments so it is hard to draw any conclusions. I see lots of negative comments against Whig but again those comments are evidence only of other editors' conclusions. In other words they are hearsay, they do not have evidentiary value in this RFC.

Then there is the subsection, "Whig is already under editing restrictions". And it is followed by evidence that he is in fact under restrictions. But that in itself is not evidence of disputed behavior for the current RFC. It certainly implies that he engaged in bad behavior at some previous time, for which he was restricted. That bad behavior has already been punished. The fact that restrictions exist is not evidence that he currently or recently engaged in bad behavior.

The remaining "evidence" also proves very litttle:

  • He submitted an AFD, which was quickly rejected. All that proves is that he was wrong about that particular article, not that his behavior was bad. A great many AFDs are rejected, many even with SNOW results. Is every such submitter guilty of bad bahavior? If Whig had submitted a great many rejected AFDs that might be evidence of bad-faith submittals, but a single AFD is evidence of nothing.
  • There is a diff about being in trouble for edit warring, but the diff actually points to a comment about the AFD, not about any edit warring so it is not evidence of anything.
  • The purported evidence of "tendentious claims of Personal attacks on other users" is meager. I do not see anything "tendentious" in what Whig wrote. To paraphrase the final comment "No, it is not a tendentious claim of personal attack, unless you are trying really hard to feel attacked." And this is but a single piece of evidence. If Whig is guilty of "claims" (plural) then show multiple diffs of those claims.
  • The claim that Whig was a collaborator in an RFC against the bringer of this RFC seems to be at the heart of this RFC. Are we going to have repeated cycles of RFCs against the person who brought an RFC against the person who brought an RFC? In any case, there is no evidentiary value here.
  • In the first of "applicable policies" there is the claim that Whig is under probation and the fact that Whig denies he was under probation is evidence of Wikilawyering. My first reaction was to go to WP:Probation. Since Whig has not been the subject of an ArbCom hearing and is not on the List of users on general probation, I'd say that it is very reasonable for Whig to deny that he is under probation. I'd almost say that the accuser's claim that he is under probation is itself an example of Wikilawyering.

My bottom line is that an RFC should always have specific accusations with specific and multiple diffs as evidence to support each accusation. This RFC should be closed for lack of evidence.

Whig might be guilty of bad behavior (but a cursory glance through his contributions does not show it) and there might be evidence of lots of bad behavior. If there is evidence then show us the evidence. Disputes should be resolved by evidence and not by bad feelings.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Abridged talk 22:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Peter morrell 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Endorse. And not just show us the evidence, but even if you can, show us the recent evidence. I've made a cursory glance at the evidence, and at the very least, whig seems to be equally correct with those he disputes. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. In lieu of a direct response, I endorse this summary fully and completely. —Whig (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Lara❤Love 04:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Well researched and well stated. Endorse. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. docboat (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Dlabtot (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Endorse. Also note that the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" is from May & Oct. 2007. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    The first RfC was from May 2005, btw. —Whig (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.