Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ned Scott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] dispute with Freakofnurture

I think I found what has gotten me on the bad side of Freakofnurture. It appears to be this discussion regarding a POV statement being used in the Essjay article[1], [2]. See Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 10#Do we need the "Catholicism for Dummies" reference?. Other than that, I can find no other conflict that I've had with Freakofnurture. Take it for what you will. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dispute with User:N

See User talk:N#RfC and User talk:N/Archive 3#Episode template, as well as talk pages of WP:TV-REVIEW, WP:EPISODE, if you wish to know more about the background. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] misleading "evidence"

For full disclosure, I will note that I have removed some of the misleading "evidence" provided by Cat. [3] Posting block notices completely unrelated to the disputes he lists is down right low and dirty. I'll make it very clear, I was never once blocked for a dispute I was in with White Cat. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And I would have not removed them had they not been in the section titled "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". Although it is pretty clear that this RfC is nothing more than the sig dispute. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocking is a preventative measure. It is NOT a form of punishment. The MfD and my userpage was protected and it became unnecessary to block you as a result - at least according to the admin closing both of the 3rr cases. Lack of a block is not a license of innocence nor is its presence a license of guilt.
I merely linked to a few random examples of your interaction with others from your talk page. The reason of this RfC is self evident in your comment ("low and dirty").
-- Cat chi? 11:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, a lack of blocking would indicate that I have done nothing wrong. Again, you say nothing of the admins who've been doing the same thing. My point is you listed it under "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute", which is completely misleading. If you wish to link to those blocks as evidence of my general behavior, you are welcome to, but you are blatantly making it sound like I was blocked because of something related to you.
This entire thing is just about those sig changes, an issue you've taken to the extreme. I have absolutely no respect for you or any of your concerns presented here. You're an immature and disruptive editor who throws fits when he doesn't get his way, and this is another example of that. However, like I said in my response, I will use the opportunity to listen to anyone else and see if I can improve myself or clear up misunderstandings. So no, making this RfC will not let you go and change your sig. -- Ned Scott 21:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reply to the "partial and qualified endorsement" by Durova

The point of the complaint isn't about the particular view Ned Scott has on an RfA. No one should be watchlisting someone else's rfa prior to its creation. No one but the creator and the nominee should be aware of the RfA until it is listed for that matter. There is a reason why rfas are listed. If a user is disruptive that user should be dealt with according to the wikipedia policies. WP:DR should be observed and whatchlisting someones future rfa is not a part of WP:DR. -- Cat chi? 11:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Elonka had posted to her user page that she hoped to try for adminship again so it wasn't a secret that the page could get created. It seems like a fine point to call him out on that. She's a prolific editor and her nomination has gotten a lot of attention. If anyone wants to comb that RFA for unduly aggressive behavior, Ned's not the foremost. He has a strong opinion and he wanted it to be seen. Really, I don't think he crossed the line there. DurovaCharge! 16:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It is perfectly fine to watch the RFA nom page. Then you are watching for RFA's in general; commenting on them in general. Focusing only on users you dislike (or like) is not the purpose of RFA or any other measure for that mater. I would find "unduly aggressive behavior" of any kind to be disruptive. Just because several people act worse should not be a license for lesser problematic behaviour. The acceptable behavior in dealing with any problematic user is the seeking of community attention or seeking dispute resolution. However lurking to ambush the specific user is not acceptable. I do not know if Elonka is a disruptive individual or not, but I do believe he or she deserves better... -- Cat chi? 16:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, two other individuals did pretty much the same thing - one in support and another in opposition. All three reverted themselves, so it's water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. I respect your right to feel differently. DurovaCharge! 16:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It is the watching of the page before its creation that bothers me. That particular incident alone of course wouldn't warrant an rfc. The complaint is the pattern of the behaviour. I welcome the difference of opinion. :) -- Cat chi? 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I wished to be notified when she ran for RfA, and that was one way to do it. There's nothing wrong with watching such a page for that reason. -- Ned Scott 21:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From User talk:Thatcher131

The following discussion is taken in part from User talk:Thatcher131: 03:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

" I agree that Ned Scott appears to be stalking White Cat for reasons unrelated to editing his sig in old archives,"

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thatcher131&oldid=148495983#RfC ~ Riana ⁂ 15:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trimmed this quite a lot

With White Cat's permission I've trimmed this RfC a lot, removing a lot of the irrelevant stuff and replacing bald text listings with links to the wiki histories and whatnot. Hope this helps. --Tony Sidaway 22:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the main issue is resolved. Not to mention that no reverting has been happening since the last AN/I thread, and there's not much point in me trying to justify past actions. But I do appreciate that you've cleaned out the irrelevant stuff. Thank you. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that. Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 08:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I take this as an OK then, I can continue working on my sigs. -- Cat chi? 09:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You can take it that I won't do anything more about it. Personally, I would not call that an OK for you to keep doing it. -- Ned Scott 09:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ned Scott responds to Pascal Tesson's endorsement comment

Endorsement copied from main page, and Ned's response moved here also
  1. Endorse I came here after warning him about this reinsertion of unnecessarily rude comments on Elonka's RfA which SlimVirgin and I had removed. Wikipedia cannot hope to survive without ensuring that civility is upheld as a core principle. Pascal.Tesson 03:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    This warrants a response here. Matt is getting a little hot under the collar, but his message there was not particularly "uncivil", it simply dealt with a negative concern. I don't doubt he could have worded it better, but "gaming the system" was a valid point. I'm actually confused as to why you guys felt strongly enough to remove it. -- Ned Scott 03:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is closed

This is closed. I believe that we have all resolved this to our personal satisfaction and with appropriate mutual regard as fellow Wikipedians. I have removed this RfC from the listings of open RfCs. --Tony Sidaway 20:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)