Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep. Trying to force a closure of the discussion does not help Guy's case, it is better to continue in a single venue Salix (talk): 21:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3[edit]

Procedural issue. The individuals certifying this RfC did not attempt to "resolve the dispute", the dispute was raised by Abd in multiple venues and dismissed in every one. Durova tried to intercede between Abd and me in a bilateral disagreement, Dan Tobias tried to stoke it not resolve it, Petri Krohn took some part in the dispute but did not try to resolve it. This is a content issue, and a stale one; multiple users in good standing have identified it as such in the comments. As such it is not a properly certified RfC. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that the proper way would be challenging the certification at WT:RFC --Enric Naval (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will admit I am not an expert on the deletion policy, but something seems a little bit, um, iffy about nomination a RfC of your questionable behavior for deletion. Basket of Puppies 20:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose over this nomination violating WP:POINT by nominating one's own RfC for deletion after many good faith edits have gone into it and put forth good faith criticism that this nomination shows that the nominator will not listen to. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Ottava. UIS ^{Editor Review} 20:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you asking for a WP:CBLANK ? Unomi (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose venue-shopping by JzG. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Certified user-conduct RfC currently in progress. Nominator is the subject of the RfC. RfC is properly certified. Abd brought this RfC not about a content dispute, but specifically about the issue "use of tools while involved". It has also been certified by Petri Krohn, who tried to resolve the dispute here ("I can see that you (User:JzG) are involved in this issue in at least three different roles") and by Durova, who tried to resolve it here ("...you had a role in the content dispute itself, as well as acting in an administrative capacity. It's important to maintain a separation of function between admin and editorial roles.") and by Dtobias who tried to resolve the dispute here ("But my objection here is less to the specifics of that site or its owner than to the concept that adding things to the blacklist can be done unilaterally without discussion by one admin, while removing them or making exceptions to them requires consensus"). (Poster of outside view and endorser as "other user" in the RfC) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very inappropriate to be MFD'ing your own RFC imo, and should have been left to a more neutral party. Majorly talk 21:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any argument about the content should be made within the RfC. There is nothing here that even needs a courtesy blanking. 152.91.9.190 (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a certified RfC, and there are other parties with differing views presented. Also, RfC's are part of a voluntary dispute resolution process whose findings are not compulsory. Other than to further exasperate certain critics of JzG's alleged cherry picking of WP policy and procedure in furtherance of his particular agenda (whatever it may be), I see no purpose to this MfD. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Inappropriate use of MfD. Ronnotel (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.