Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Italiavivi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] View by Ryan Postlethwaite

Is this "view" appropriate in the Outside Views section? Didn't you certify this action above? Seems pretty dishonest to act as an outsider after being directly involved in the dispute, IMHO. /Blaxthos 15:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is appropriate, I endorsed that I have attempted to settle the dispute but to no avail, the view that I gave is my own personal perspective of Italiavivi's behaviour, hence why I labelled my comment "view by Ryan Postlethwaite" - not "Outside view by Ryan Postlethwaite". Ryan Postlethwaite 15:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your (User:Blaxthos) comments: This is not a trial. There is no "defendant". Ryan Postlethwaite did not offer an "outside view", he offered a "view". Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Addendum: After reading your comments again, I fail to see how they help the situation at all. Postlethwaite is not the one this RfC is seeking comments for. If you would like to open a separate RfC on his behavior, feel free to do so. Your whole view here can be summarized with the statement you made, "I do not believe that the defendant will receive a fair evaluation." Other than that, it has no relevance. Again, mahalo. --Ali'i 15:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

But this is a trial, one with a heavily stacked jury and an already-stated desired verdict. Almost every editor I have ever disagreed with on any given dispute (the Virginia Tech massacre, Fred Thompson's age difference, the "Obama" redirect) has been contacted, regardless of their own transgressions, to scrutinize my User page and a barrage of mischaracterized diffs. Hu12 decided to rally every person who's ever had a dispute with me, and many editors are making comments seeking or endorsing blocks ("not the place for Italiavivi"). I'm not too worried about it, though; it'll make great content for my user page. As was the case at Hu12's MfD against my User page, most outside observers who come in can see this entire charade for what it is: A jury of pots trying to put the kettle on e-trial. Italiavivi 19:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. I don't see how the jury is stacked. I, for one, was not contacted by anyone other than yourself.
  2. What is the already stated verdict? All I see is "Desired outcome recomended should be achieved in the form of consensus. (to be determined)"
  3. You imply that everyone else is a "pot" trying to call the "kettle" black. Where have I been uncivil to you? Sbowers3 23:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
A few points:
  1. An RfC is not a trial. It's a request for comments on a particular topic, action, or individual. Basically a "Here's the situation, please post your own thoughts and/or endorse those already posted." That's it. This is not arbitration.
  2. Any consensus achieved here will only result in a suggestion for a change in behavior, an apology, or something else not absolutely binding. Yes, if there's an overwhelming consensus for one thing, it's in your best interest to seriously consider that final suggestion, and seriously consider implementing it (whatever it may be). However, you can choose not to do so. Just keep in mind that if a very large number of people are stating that they see a problem that could be corrected, a problem likely exists.
  3. People who comment are not a "jury", and you're welcome to try to bring in as many random people as you want as long as you don't try to influence their opinions when inviting them. A simple, "As an uninvolved party, I invite you to come participate in this RFC. Thank you."
  4. Just because you disagree with a process doesn't mean that it's a charade. You seem to characterize a lot of discussions as that, though, when you disagree with them. I suggest taking a step back, and trying to look at it without getting all upset about it. As I stated above, if there are this many participating people who think there is a problem, there very well may be, and it may be a great idea to at least consider taking a close look and seeing if there just might, by some small chance, be room for improvement. None of us are perfect, and we can all improve (myself included). This may be a chance for you to do so.
Again, as I stated in my view on the main page, I hope you take my comments as constructive critique rather than criticism, as that is the spirit in which they are given. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "defendant" - perhaps not the best choice of terms. I wasn't sure of what word might be more appropriate. Regarding "Outside view", since it is posted under the section Outside View, which clearly states "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." /Blaxthos 16:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hence why I labelled mine "view" not "outside view". Also, let's not get cut up with instruction creep Ryan Postlethwaite 16:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others: (From Italiavivi's response)

  1. The quote from Hu12 is badly mischaracterized - the full statement looks moderate and reasonable. I did receive a post from Hu12 at my user talk page regarding this RFC. To the best of my knowledge the only reasons for that were because I was Hu12's admin coach and nominated him at RFA, and because this is Hu12's first RFC and I have experience in this area. Hu12 in no way asked for my support. Italia, if I have opposed you in some some past dispute please post diffs; I can recall no such dispute. DurovaCharge! 18:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Please provide a diff where I have ever accused you of being "espousing sensationalism". This is completely incorrect and I have done nothing of the sort. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to view by Shamir1

Impossible. One user cannot solely disrupt a mediation that would have proceeded fine without them. The other users had the option of ignoring the user (whether that would have been just or not). If they did not and the mediation was disrupted, then the disruption was caused not solely by the one user, but also by the reactions of the others. --Coppertwig 14:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Shamir knows well what tanked that mediation. All User:Jayjg had to do was identify himself as a past participant in the Talk page dispute and formally join the mediation instead of pretending to be an "outside view." That was all I asked; instead Jayjg edit-warred to preserve his "outside" status and started challenging the mediator over the mediation's structure and repeating his past Talk page arguments. Jayjg tanked that mediation, not myself. Italiavivi 17:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: Shamir1 may be unable to respond currently; he was blocked today for 48 hours for violating 3RR on the Israel article. Italiavivi 06:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from Response by Italiavivi

Let's get your facts straight: Jayjg tanked that mediation, not myself. I don't care how established he is, he doesn't get to run around masquerading as an "uninvolved party" during mediations where he's clearly been a participant. Italiavivi 18:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poorly constructed RfC

I'm leaning towards endorsing Italiavivi's response, but it's hard to be sure what's going on when there are long lists of diffs given, many of them irrelevant or from months ago, and they are not even provided in order of date. I will say that the evidence has not been presented in a coherent or easily readable format, and that as far as I know this is not a valid RfC because, as far as I know, it is not about a single dispute and because it is not clear (without a lot of detective work among the diffs given) that genuine attempts have been made to resolve the dispute or that problems have continued after such attempts. Furthermore, Italiavivi contends that there has been canvassing for this RfC; I'd like to see a proper response to that, i.e. a list of people contacted, the messages they were contacted with, and how they were selected. --Coppertwig 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See User:Hu12's contributions from September 2nd, when he created this RfC. He contacted ten editors:
  1. 19:49, 2 September 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:ElinorD‎ (rfc)
  2. 19:47, 2 September 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tariqabjotu‎ (rfc)
  3. 19:44, 2 September 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Italiavivi‎ (RFC/USER discussion concerning you)
  4. 19:42, 2 September 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Heimstern‎ (rfc)
  5. 19:41, 2 September 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite‎ (rfc)
  6. 19:40, 2 September 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jayjg‎ (rfc)
  7. 19:39, 2 September 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Nihonjoe‎ (rfc)
  8. 19:39, 2 September 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Ali'i‎ (rfc)
  9. 19:37, 2 September 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Zsero‎ (rfc)
  10. 19:34, 2 September 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Isotope23‎ (rfc)

Myself plus nine editors from my User_talk page's history, but only editors who have had disputes or disagreements with me in the past. Hu notably skipped any editors or sysops I normally edit alongside or get along with. Twenty-four hours later he contacted his admin coach User:Durova, to ask Durova what he should do should I refuse to participate in the RfC. Ten editors other than myself total. Italiavivi 19:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If wikipedia seems to consist of teams of people for and against you, as you are constantly inferring, then, maybe it is time to take a step back and look at what the project is really about, and how your philosophies mesh with the project goals. This is not a social networking site, nor is it a battleground of teams. It is a place where volunteers are contributing to building encyclopedic knowledge. In two years of editing, I have never encountered such a mentality of "us versus them" in any other article, or by any other editor; nor do I believe that that attitude is particulary productive. Projects I am involved with have had controversies, but, they have always been resolved amicably – and, though I've disagreed with some of the consensus, this is not my wikipedia that is being written; but, everyone's. Neier 02:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
That's quite an impressive placement of your words and characterizations into my mouth, Neier! What I said above is that this RfC was canvassed (cherry-picked from my User_talk page) for users with whom I have had disputes or disagreements, thus it has become a perfect example of using the system to further (rather than resolve) conflict.
That aside, I don't need a lecture on team spirit and the project's goals from someone who has engaged in such deceitful edit-warring as yourself. I have not forgotten your extensive revert warring or use of misleading edit summaries, nor will I allow such a WP:POT make any accusations toward this particular kettle while he pretends to be a saint. Italiavivi 04:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Neutrally worded notifications ("Friendly notices"[1]) were sent to a small number of editors, mainly administrators, who attempted to contact, resolve and correct the active and concerted disruption occurring on various project articles by Italia. This Seems to be another example by Italiavivi to mischaracterize other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable or improper. "Friendly notices" are in no way a violation of any policy or guidelines. Neier has stated it well, Italia views wikipedia as teams of people for and against him, and has failed to understand what the project is really about. Mischaracterizing other editors' actions, inferring common Strawman arguments such as "content dispute' wikilawering, stalking, disagreements and edit-warring against editors with differing opinions when it's not true is inappropriate, deceptive and gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation, I see very little evidence that Italiavivi understands this. Ongoing insults, harassment, and intimidation whith those whom Italiavivi believes he has a disagreement with is evident in the diffs provided on the main page. Continued refusal to 'get the point'; Italia has perpetuated disputes by sticking to allegations or viewpoints long after they have been discredited, repeating the same accusations without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Wikipedia is based upon collaborative, good faith editing, and consensus. When a users stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to "get the point" despite clear statements of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then this refusal to get the point has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point. Italia has repeatedly assumed bad faith with almost all editors he has been involved with, And it appears he is unwilling or unable to work harmoniously with others, for the benefit of the project, this type of editor should be regarded as irredeemable, and politely but firmly removed.--Hu12 20:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
All that text and you hardly addressed the main point: did you only (or predominately) ask users who had a dispute with Italiavivi to comment here? There has been, to my knowledge, some dispute as to what canvassing is (whether friendly notices qualify, or not). It makes a difference in who you contact, not just what you say. If you contact 10 people, who you believe will say a certain thing without you having to spoonfeed it to them (to the exclusion of other points of view) it's not much better than saying "hey come over here and vote this way". Consider the summary (I assume you placed it) on this project page: "WP:CANVASS Sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to influence a community discussion." Your "Friendly notices" seem to do that here (Or it has the appearance of seeking "to influence", if you prefer). R. Baley 22:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
(edited to add), this RfC doesn't seem to be constructed well. There are 250+ links to all kinds of things. That makes the case(?) look weak. I clicked on a half dozen links at random, and didn't see anything all that bad (or people giving as good as they got). Because of all the links (and the lack of notation in general) the RfC here favors people who have inside knowledge, and not outside views. This isn't good because encourages only comments from people who may (appear to) be less than objective. R. Baley 23:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hu has openly stated his desire to "firmly remove" me from the project (alongside Ryan's insinuation that "Wikipedia is not the place for me"); his selective canvassing was obviously made to achieve those ends. These two administrators are completely disregarding the standards outlined at WP:RFC in order to keep this invalid page listed. It is a perfect example of an RfC being abused as an implement in conflict rather than a good-faith attempt at resolution. Italiavivi 23:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Italiavivi, what is your goal? Is it to continue to be on this website? And most importantly, does your above response help you towards that end? Don't get me wrong, I don't think much of this RfC (I still haven't found the kitchen sink yet, but it's in there somewhere), but in the end, all you have to do to "win" is choose to bring an extinguisher to the fire, and not more fuel (and definitely not a match!). Learn to de-escalate situations and I don't see how anyone can ever "remove" you from the project. The people I admire most on wiki have learned to do that in spite of the most obvious baiting, or insulting comments (not saying that anyone has done that here). If you find yourself irritated at a comment, reply however you like, then walk away for a few minutes and forget about it. Look it over (later) before hitting "Save Page" (you may decide to refactor or not save it at all).
I hope the above is helpful to you, please understand I'm not trying to attack you or make you feel worse. But in general you've got to find a different/better way to express yourself; especially if you feel like you're perpetually on the defensive against multiple admins, and defended by none. I really hope that you have more fulfilling wiki-experience in the future. Be well, R. Baley 00:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It is 100% impossible to de-escalate conflict with User:Hu12 and Ryan when they persistently follow me around creating conflicts. If one thing settles down, Hu files a request for deletion against my User space. When his request for deletion fails, he creates an invalid RfC against me. Ryan has stated that after this divided RfC, he intends on going even further and creating an RfArb. You cannot de-escalate a conflict with editors who follow you around openly stating their abandonment of good faith and desire to "firmly remove" you from the project. Hu, Ryan, and Zsero are not interested in resolution whatsoever. Italiavivi 02:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppetry on this RfC.

User:Avruch (who just endorsed Ryan's view [2]) is a four-month old account with only 40 edits, whose edits are largely limited to Daniel Goldhagen and Hitler's Willing Executioners. This is suspicious. I personally suspect this account to be a sockpuppet, possibly of a user is who currently limited by CSN to one account.

This RfC already clearly fails the requirements set forth at WP:RFC; now it is receiving votes from suspicious accounts. An outside neutral observer needs to come in and set this RfC straight, both on its blatant lack of compliance with WP:RFC and the possible use of sockpuppets here. Italiavivi 18:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have a concern, the proper location to report it is at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, not here. --Ali'i 20:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that suspected sockpuppetry on this RfC should not be mentioned here? Italiavivi 23:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Mentioning it is fine, but you should report it at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, not here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
My question was to Ali'i, who chided me for even making mention of it here, as if it were somehow improper to note at all. There is a marked lack of concern about the potential use of sockpuppet voting here. Italiavivi 02:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, everyone is out to get you after all. ;-p
Seriously, though, you need to stop reading so much negativity into people's comments. Tone is remarkably hard to convey in plain text discussions such as this one, and it's very likely that Ali'i was merely suggesting that the better place to report it was over there rather than here. You are, of course, welcome to believe everyone hates you and wants you out of here. but that doesn't make it the truth. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You're really funny, Joe. You're so willing to make uncivil characterizations of others, yet so frequently complain against incivilty. (Whose comments should I stop "reading negativity" from, Joe? Maybe Hu12's "firmly removed" line, edit warrior Zsero's "I abandon WP:AGF here," or Ryan's "this project isn't the place for people like you.") I note concerns about sockpuppetry, and the only two responses are chiding over the "proper place" to note it? This RfC is nothing but negativity. Italiavivi 03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
There's not really anything else to say. No matter how carefully couched the words, you insist on reading into them your own interpretation even when that interpretation is blatantly wrong. I rarely "complain" against incivility, but you seem to bring out the "best" in people.
As I wrote above, you're welcome to read whatever you want into anyone's comments, but that doesn't make it true. Yes, there are some people who see nothing redeemable in you (based on their comments). That doesn't mean that you need to fulfill their opinions by continuing down the same path. I recommend doing something unexpected and toning down the rhetoric. It takes two (or more) to clash, and if you go out of your way to not butt heads with them, it's very likely things will calm down.
Trying to deflect scrutiny of your own actions by pointing out others who may be acting in a similar manner is a cop-out. Negative actions by others do not excuse any negative actions on your part. If you take care of your own actions rather than constantly pointing fingers at everyone else you think is acting badly, then and only then will things begin to change.
Again, please take this as constructive critique rather than criticism. I'm not looking to smack you around here, and I don't want you to leave Wikipedia. I think you have a lot of good to contribute. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Your comments weren't "carefully couched," you characterized me as "everyone is out to get me." That's not civil. I created an article to get away from the Obama redirect conflict, and editors from WikiProject Japan (especially User:Endroit) followed me and tried to use my creating a well-sourced article elsewhere against me. I went out of my way to avoid Hu12 after an article I wrote was deleted and what did it get me -- a deletion request filed against my User space. The deletion request fails and blows over, what do I get -- a poorly-constructed lynch mob of an RfC. I find your insinuation that I have not tried to avoid these people and their conflicts so offensive as to lack words. Italiavivi 03:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP's

Most of the edits from the above IPs are not mine, including from ones Hu claims are "confirmed." Most of these IPs appear to be shared or come from places I have never heard of, I have no control over that. Italiavivi 04:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The "confirmed" IP's have diffs showing you signing the IP's comments[3][4]. All but one confirmed IP are from the same location, same IP range 206.255.0.0-255.255, same articles edited, similar edit summaries...ect[5]. we could Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser.--Hu12 05:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
CheckUser is not for fishing, Hu. There are some of my edits in these IP ranges (the first two IPs you link), and some which are decidedly not. The others from your "Related IPs" are not mine, nor can I control what others on my IP range do, especially not stale IP edits some of which are even two years old. Most of these edits are not mine regardless of what range they came from and I will not be held accountable for things I have not myself written. (I am not surprised to see Obama-bashing coming from IPs in this part of the United States though.) Italiavivi 05:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I will not be held responsible for every edit made during the last two years from the region I currently reside. This is unacceptable broad-brushing, accusing me of two-year-old IP edits and edits which are completely contrary to my own positions. Italiavivi 05:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It still remains, they are your IP's--Hu12 06:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No, they are not. The last two IPs especially have no edits from me whatsoever on them, I have reviewed them exhaustively. You are welcome to CheckUser them, but you know good and well that any such request would be rejected as being both stale and fishing. Italiavivi 06:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This has apparently lead to a block[6].--Hu12 08:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if I explain (to the best of my knowledge) what a "shared IP address" is. It works like this. There are only a certain number of possible IP addresses with a range of 0 to 255 in each of 4 numbers. There are not enough for one for every human being in the world, and they are not distributed equally: I think some individuals control many IP addresses each, or some are not used. Anyway, there are some ISP's (Internet Service Providers) who use/own/control a certain number of IP addresses which is smaller than the number of their customers. Whenever one of their customers goes onto the Internet, they temporarily assign an IP address to them. But later, if that person is logged off and another user goes onto the Internet, the ISP may re-assign that same IP address temporarily to another user. If many users are all trying to use the Internet at the same time, they may keep juggling the IP addresses around so each user only experiences occasional short pauses when the Internet seems to be slow/down/not working for maybe a minute or so, and the rest of the time they're steadily using the Internet -- but they don't notice that their IP address has changed. Anyway, what this all boils down to is that with shared IP addresses, usually or often the contributions coming from one IP address are not all from the same person, and the people probably don't even know each other. They may be from the same part of the same country because they all use the same ISP, but that's it. --Coppertwig 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

That sysop called me a "dick," not the other way around. I was responding to his insult, which can be clearly seen in the diff. Are you really reading these diffs you're indiscriminately putting up now? Italiavivi 06:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Correct your misrepresentation of the diff where the sysop in question called me a dick, not the other way around, immediately. Italiavivi 06:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CANVASS

I contacted every user who had participated in the previous Fred Thompson talk archive, including Zsero's good friend User:Ferrylodge and other editors who opposed inclusion of the age difference. This is a perfect example of how you misrepresent diffs, Hu. Italiavivi 19:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You posted them, how is that misrepresentative? You sent messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to influence a community discussion. "Zsero has resumed his deletion of the age difference ..." is not Neutral and is biased.--Hu12 19:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is quite fair. There's nothing wrong with contacting people to let them know there's a discussion going on, and s/he did contact people on both sides of the question, including Ferrylodge whom for some reason s/he calls my "good friend". You missed the part of WP:CANVASS where it says that only "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion" are considered disruptive. While in these messages Italiavivi mischaracterised what was happening as "Zsero has resumed his deletion..." instead of "I have resumed my insertion...", that's not a violation of CANVASS. So I dissent from this portion of the accusation. -- Zsero 23:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with contacting people in a "Neutrally worded notification...", however "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive ". the message "Zsero has resumed his deletion of the age difference between Fred Thompson and Jeri Kehn Thompson. " Implies you(Zsero) are wrong, and the removal was wrong. A "Neutrally worded notification..." would have been along the lines of "The age adifference between Fred Thompson and Jeri Kehn Thompson is in dispute.... " ect. A walk through the discussion Talk:Fred_Thompson#Age_difference_again illustrates this this. --Hu12 00:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
this edit and edit summary Editors need to see that you are engaging in the exact same deletions as last time, adds to the fact this was in no way neutral, you even edited the section header from "Jeri Kehn's age" to 'Zsero back to deleting Jeri Kehn's age again "--Hu12 07:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive edits]

Please explain how this diff is "edit warring." I renamed my own section to clarify my question, nothing more. Italiavivi 06:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are later diff's showing revert-warring by Italiavivi in WP:ANI, against admins:

All this happened after the admins closed discussions there by consensus, and Italiavivi was not satisfied with the outcome. This is called "disruption" by my definition.--Endroit 13:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close (refractored from project page by ElC)

This RfC is poorly constructed and does not come close to abiding by the standards set forth at WP:RFC. It is neither compliant nor valid, and should be closed immediately.

[edit] Support

  1. Move that it be closed. Italiavivi 05:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. User:Italiavivi has left the project. For no other reason, I support closing this RfC. This does nothing to keep it open at this point. If in the future, Italiavivi decides to return, this may be re-opened without prejudice to anyone who commented or did not comment. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. I agree with the sentiment and reasoning expressed by Ali'i. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per Ali'i. Will (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. He's gone; no point. Sbowers3 00:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Not quite, this is heading for arbitration at the minute. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Italiavivi continues his disruption in articles related to the 2008 presidential campaign. Just yesterday, he engaged in yet another revert-warring at Fred Thompson, then ... believe it or not ... at WP:ANI. Shouting matches continued against more admins yesterday at WP:AN3 and WP:ANI.--Endroit 08:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. This should remain open for the moment. John Smith's 17:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Hu12 20:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Sbowers3 22:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Sbowers3 00:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Why close it when Italiavivi has not only not addressed the problems identified, but actively denies that they are problems? Shape up or ship out, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. ditto. <<-armon->> 09:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. I don't think the RfC is poorly formed, and the core of it is applicable and relevant to the behaviour of the editor in question, however the handling of this by other involved editors completely disregards the RfC process and the whole point of the exercise. ColdmachineTalk 08:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow! Does this happen often?

I was getting ready to post some comments in the genuine hope that they would help Italiavivi improve his civility. The first thing I see is a whole slew of edits by Italiavivi and Hu12, here and on Italiavivi's talk page, and on WP:ANI. They both get blocked, then Italiavivi ups and leaves. He deletes his user page, deletes his talk page, requests an indef block on himself, and says that he will never again contribute to Wikipedia.

Early on in the process of this RfC, Italiavivi wrote "... I won't be participating any further beyond this statement." If he had done exactly that, if he had not participated at all, then the RfC would have died out. It was his own comments that added fuel to the fire as another editor advised him.

I've never seen anything like this but I've been around for just six months or so. Has anyone seen other editors get this angry or even half this angry?

I'm sorry to see a potentially useful contributor leave the project but I'm not sorry to see the controversy go away. In retrospect I wish that someone had advised him to take a Wikibreak, but he probably would not have heeded the advice.

If I see anything like this again, I really am going to suggest that editors take a Wikibreak and try to calm down. Sbowers3 13:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There were a few of us who recommended taking a step back and thinking about the comments being made, but none of the comments seemed to help matters. It's sad, really, as I think Italiavivi had a lot of good to contribute. Hopefully he'll come back and participate in a more mellow manner in the future. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)