Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mitsos

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A question:

[edit]

It seems like there's a LOT of Wikilawyering going on here, mostly via amicus curiae. Is this normal for an RfC? -- weirdoactor t|c -- 16:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And another question: what is the aim of an User-RfC? I mean, is any kind of sanctions discussed, or is it just about defining the problem so as to move the case further (such as arbitration)? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They way I see it, there are 1 or 2 incoherent unsubstantiated self-contradicting rants that have been initiated by disagreeing users in order to either promote their POV or ban Mitsos' POV (a POV I do not share, and emphatically oppose btw). I demand answers to my polite questions, and revision of these outside views. A good start would be striking those of the 30 diffs presented as "evidence" (the scare quotes are intentional) that are out of place. If it is not done by the (how should I put it?) accusers, then I'll do it myself here. Waiting for a move showing good will. (It will save the embarrassement too) NikoSilver 20:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we all understand...you "demand" answers to your "polite" questions, or you will "embarrass" the "accusers"? And you want all of the "evidence" thrown out as a "good start"? -- weirdoactor t|c -- 21:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me the irony and refer to the section below. And, yes, I couldn't be more polite. NikoSilver 21:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to spare you the irony if you spare us the incivility. Deal? -- weirdoactor t|c -- 21:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Framing someone with a long list of lies is highly disrespectful in my book. I stand back every word I wrote. Accusing someone of incivility while he comments on other people's (fraudulent) arguments is WP:ABF. Just go ahead and do the same for my comments. Take this further if you persist. NikoSilver 22:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. You really don't believe that demanding answers and threatening to embarrass other editors is incivil? Pull the other one. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. With 5 out of 5, I think I've made my point (not WP:POINT :). I am not going to do other people's work, and I am not claiming Mitsos is a saint. If you have found something bad in all these diffs, just go ahead and post it below. It is the one who accuses who has to produce the evidence and this list has lost its credibility. As I said, I support punishment for Mitsos's actions that deserve it. Can you point them out? NikoSilver 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My problem at this point is not with your diffs; it is with your incivil demands for answers and threats of embarrassment. You can bang your shoe on the table all you want; it won't make us want to listen to you any more, if at all. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 22:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your real problem is you have nothing concrete on Mitsos. Oh, where did I threaten btw? I also like the civil way you chose to respond. :-) NikoSilver 22:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting us nowhere, and wasting our energies. Pax? -- weirdoactor t|c -- 22:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pax. You're right on that one. Let's focus on what the poor guy actually did, shall we? NikoSilver 23:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally seeing the talk page been used;-). As I have already said in my view, many of the diffs provided as "evidence", can be anything, but that... I refered to some of them, and i can also do for others. Btw, if i will begin "hunting", i am sure i will find many such diffs for a considerable number of editors. As for user Mitsos's userpage, it seems fine to me now, since the long essays have been removed, unlike other wikipedians' userpages... So, in its current status, i see nothing wrong with it, or, to be precise, nothing worst compared to other editors' userpages. It is not a matter of "agreement"... There is no way that all users will agree with everyone else's POV. it is clearly a matter of censorship. Hectorian 21:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hectorian; you do realize that this is an RfC for Mitsos, and not for a "considerable number of editors", "other wikipedians" or "other editors", yes? And when one throws out the POV argument, one is left with the clear incivility argument, which is difficult to disprove based on the contribs I've seen. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors don't post messages with headings of "fuck you" and get away with it. Other editors don't have essays of that variety on their userpage - I have never seen an example as bad as Mitsos' page in its former state. --SandyDancer 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree if that is the case. I just want all irrelevant diffs (as illustrated below) removed. Then we can focus on what Mitsos really did, and what punishment he really deserves. NikoSilver 21:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weirdoactor, you also do realize that Mitsos is not the only Wikipedian who has done punishable actions, right? Dragging a user and accusing him here for things he has done and said, is something that i can understand and support; but dragging here a user and accusing him by providing POV arguments (and diffs of provoked comments) is something that i find ridiculous. If u accuse him of incivility, I am with u; if u accuse him of his ideas, plain and simple, I am not... (unecessary to say once more that i do not share the same ideas with Mitsos, but that i also strongly oppose censorship). And about other users, even if this RfC is only for Mitsos, when similar cases, based on this one, will appear, I will ask u, personally, to take sides, in a democratic and civilized way, with justification of any "evidence" , so as to see if u will follow the same standards for all... (u may consider this a "threat", though it's not, since as a democratic person-that i have no reason to believe that u are not-u will be willing to add your two cents).
SandyDancer, I know that Mitsos has been incivil, and I also do know what his userpage looked like... As a matter of fact, I also said which punishment would seem logical to me, id est 2-3 days for personal attacks and topical ban from some article(s) for a specific period of time. IMHO, permabanning, is certainly not a solution. I understand why (apart from the personal attacks), some users felt offended by his comments and userpage; however, i have also been offended by other users' comments and userpages, but i have not overreacted (so far)... Hectorian 23:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hectorian: If you know of other users who have violated policy, you have the ability to start RfCs for them; show me convincing diffs, and I'll provide an outside view for those RfCs, as I have done for this RfC. But I hope you understand that the "everyone else is doing it, why am I being persecuted?" defense is not a terribly effective one. I too am strongly against censorship; but Wikipedia users must follow policy...this makes for a delicate balance. From WP:NOT:
  • Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published
  • Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals
  • Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes.
If one can live within Wikipedia policy, and not bend said policy to make a point, and still be bold...well, we're back to that delicate balance. I believe that WP:TRI sums it up quite nicely. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 23:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, I do not want to start a RfC about a user, cause: i) I am not offended that much, ii) I do not have much time, iii) it would seem as WP:POINT, or worst as "revenge". If i will ever start one, i will surely ask for your feedback, as i've said. The three wikirules u've posted above, do not fit in this RfC:
Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts...->Mitsos has cleared his userpage from all these things (perhaps after the said discussion in his talk)
Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges...->for every issue that has arosen between Mitsos and another wikipedian, for his personal attacks, etc, there are rules. and if this is the problem, he can punished according to them.
Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political...->clear enough, but can't see what does it have to do here; if u thought of this cause of the democratic i said above, i should had cleared out that i was not refering to voting, but to dialogue, freedom of expression and understanding (fundamental values for a democratic person). Hectorian 23:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See precedent. A practice widely applied in WP, even by the WP:ARBCOM. NikoSilver 00:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing precedent is one thing; attempting to excuse a violation of policy by pointing at the policy violation of others is another.
  • Example of precedent: Person A kills Person B, and is charged with murder. Person A contends that it was self-defense, citing prior case law and precedents for acquittal of murder in self-defense. Person A is acquitted of the murder of Person B.
  • Example of your defense: Person A kills Person B, and is charged with murder. Person A contends that Person C has also murdered, but has not been charged. As the case at hand is not about Person C, this defense is ineffective. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 00:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate been politically correct, and knowing that i am walking on "dangerous" ground, i would say off the record, that Person A should not been charged, unless Person C (and those who helped him escape persecution) would severely be persecuted (for murder+misleading the authorities, taking advantange of their position, bla bla bla). If law had not applied for Person C, i see no reason for it being applied especially for Person A (always having in mind that the cases are identical, or, at least, similar). Hectorian 03:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh. Thanks to Hectorian and Nikos for proving my point about amicus curiae wikilawyering. Note to self: don't get murdered in a jurisdiction controlled by Hectorian. -- weirdoactor t|c 17:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Is that what u understoond? and a note to myself: don't even live under a juristriction controlled by Weirdoactor... Choose one where the laws apply equally for all! Hectorian 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Choose one where the laws apply equally for all...ah, but you contradict yourself here. In your example, the victim of murder does not enjoy the same protection of law as the murderer. To dis examartein ouk andros sophou ("To commit the same sin twice is not a sign of a wise man"), yes? The user you defend has committed the same wrongs as others; and your defense is that he should be forgiven those wrongs because others have not been punished for the same offenses. I have called upon you to start RfCs for these offenders, and instead of backing your words with deeds; you quote WP:POINT, and claim that such an act would be "revenge". You claim "precedent", without naming the points of precedent; indeed, if you have witnessed such acts that you might use as "precedent", and not reported said acts/started RfCs for the users committing these acts, that makes you as guilty as those users. I have tried to make the point that "others are doing bad things and not being punished for them" is an insufficient defense for ANY of Mitsos’ actions; and you have responded with rhetoric and ad hominem. I now understand that my time would be better spent talking to a wall. I wish the best of luck in future discussions such as these…I can only hope you never have to defend yourself in an RfC, for your sake. I apologize if this statement is uncivil; but it’s terribly frustrating to argue intelligent points only to be responded with nonsense and off-topic defenses. Good day to you. -- weirdoactor t|c 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT misleading diffs presented as "evidence"

[edit]
  1. First, a collection of instances where the user removed completely justifiable NPOV tags: 1,2, 3, 4, and 5. User discussed his removal in the talkpage (thread here). Please ban me too for doing the same in other articles (and most others here I presume).
  2. Early example of page move used to avoid negative stigma. User justified his move as used by other encyclopedias. See for example Britannica. He did not persist when he was reverted. Note that the user was 7 days old, and this was his 7th edit (!) in WP.
  3. Note revisions that limit any mention of Turks, as well as misleading edit summary. Not "misleading" at all (warning for 3rr), not "limiting for Turks" at all (re-addition of removal of text regarding Greek majority in Smyrna before 1922). Content dispute, and actually he was right. The version today is still including the bits that Kertenkelebek removed. Also check Kertenkelebek's block log.
  4. Some clear OR as can be seen in edit summary "I don't think..." What is WP:OR is the WP:OR interpretation of the edit summary. The article today does not include islamophopic and includes anti-capitalist. User suggested to 'read the site' of Hrysi Avgi. Hrysi Avgi actually supports Muslim groups!
  5. Another move which violates NPOV. The article today is (properly) called Allied war crimes during World War II. "Allegations" (in previous title) is a WP:WEASEL and WP:WTA. Personally, I like how my (winning) side is being criticized by this article. I would like to help in expanding it and correcting several exaggerations, but WP would sure be poorer without Mitsos' initiatives to expand it.

These are the first five. Don't make me continue. The applicants (obviously) started browsing Mitsos' contribs, and then went on to select those diffs that they thought were wrong. I'll revise my proposal for exemplary punishment of the applicants for misleading evidence in an RfC. NikoSilver 21:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Please continue. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 21:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I won't. 5 out of 5 seriously discredits the whole list. You point out which diffs are significant and constitute real evidence. I'll go along once we sort this out, but not like this. NikoSilver 22:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. User "discussed" his removal two weeks after his first attempt; and continued to remove the tag during said "discussion", with no clear concensus. Re: Please ban me too for doing the same in other articles (and most others here I presume); this is an RfC for Mitsos, not you or "most others".
  2. Ignorance of policy is not an excuse for violation of said policy; if it were, no blatant "one day vandal" would ever ger banned. Re: User justified his move as used by other encyclopedias; Wikipedia is not other encyclopedias, it is Wikipedia. From WP:NOT: This also means you don't have to redirect one topic to a partially equivalent topic that is of more common usage. A "See also" section stating that further information on the topic is available on the page of a closely related topic may be preferable.
  3. I agree with your assessment here.
  4. I agree with your assessment here.
  5. I agree with your assessment here.
So, I agree with 60% of your points here; would you like to continue, perhaps with five more points? Am I being fair thus far in my assessments? -- weirdoactor t|c -- 22:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WA, (if I may call you that for short), in #1 he discussed immediately after his second attempt, plus the disputor (i.e. the one who adds an NPOV tag) is supposed to actually state what the tag is disputing (and the disputor hadn't). Mitsos very politely asked him to say what he objects to in talk (as he should have before inserting the tag). The guy chose to repond days later, and from then on, you see excuse/revert/excuse/revert in sequence. That's definitely not an offence, and it's been done in most {{NPOV}} tag disputes I've seen. As a side note, me, others, etc, are very relative because they establish precedent. In #2 these topics are treated as one in other pedias, and anyway (sheesh!) we can't accuse a guy for bringing that up and being bold! As I said, he didn't insist when he was directed to discuss! Regarding the rest, no, I won't go on. I'm really bored of this. I need concrete evidence (like the 'fuck you' thing) pointed out. Not bits and pieces of content disputes in which we're all involved more or less. NikoSilver 00:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikosilver. The fact that some of the diffs listed by you can, if taken in isolation, be characterised as legitimate does not discredit the whole list. Other items in the list contain racial abuse, messages to other users headed as "Fuck you", misleading edit summaries and blatant edit warring.
The less offensive diffs are present, I would imagine (I did not prepare the list but endorse the summary), to establish a pattern of behaviour, a clear backdrop of unconstructive behaviour against which the flagrant rule breaking took place.
Your threats are not welcome here. --SandyDancer 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SD, the diffs I posted here, are not a biased selection to provide excuse. They are the first five of the 30. Looking at that, I may safely assume that the rest of the list is WP:Complete bollocks too. We are not supposed to browse through 30 diffs to locate the one or two incriminating ones. This huge list aims to create an impression and is very tentative. This constitutes a WP:POINT violation, and should be dealt with accordingly. Supporting this list (especially after it's been discredited) makes you an accomplice. Please remove all irrelevant diffs so that all users can focus on the actual problem. I will go along, if you do this properly, without exaggerrations. Now where's the threat? NikoSilver 11:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crikey, you really do have a bone to pick, I am not sure who with. Lower the volume please. This argument that because you personally would characterise the first five diffs - when taken completely in isolation and ignoring the rest of the list - as being acceptable does not somehow mean it was OK for Mitsos to have behaved the way he has.
And for someone who was complaining about wikilawyering, calling me an "accomplice" because I pointed out that there are incidences of this person racially abusing people and heading up talk pages with "fuck you" is ridiculous. --SandyDancer 16:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He stopped on the fifth because he obviously has no time to deal with apparent WP:Complete bollocks. If he intended to isolate, he'd have chosen the least acceptable diffs. This whole RfC is wikilawyering, and you orchestrated it with your wikifriends/"advocates" [1][2] (talking about ...wikilawyering!). And there's a lot coming from your neck of the woods to provoke those reactions. You all might just as well need equal treatment to Mitsos' in this, as I see it. Check what happens to alleged "innocent victims" here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman ... (Oh, and at least respect this page and the users commenting here. I would take issue with your ad hominem/straw-man "bone" remarks). 201.24.28.226 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the party, "201.24.28.226". You have an oddly strong grasp of Wikipedia for such a "new" user. You mention WP:Complete bollocks, as did Niko; interesting, as that isn't policy or a guideline; and seems to chiefly be an essay about creating useless articles, and has no bearing whatsoever on this RfC. I suppose you might be using it in the pejorative sense; but that would be a personal attack, wouldn't it? Oh, and I think I found the WP law book you, Niko and Hectorian have been using. Har. Hmmmm. Weird. I smell socks. Why is that? -- weirdoactor t|c 23:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ABF, LOL! Me thinks Santa Claus will not be coming to someone this year ;-) //Dirak 00:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WA, if they smell, try Dr. Scholl's Odor Destroyers Foot Deodorant Spray! :-) Then, apologize (for that too). NikoSilver 12:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think everybody needs to calm down a bit here. Weirdoacter, words like these will only dishonour you and your cause, apart from being clear violations of key policies like WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:NPA. And SandyDancer, honestly speaking, you're language is unacceptable; maybe it's time all for a cup of Tea? Obviously, this doesn't mean that we really have to believe that the anon. is really a newbie, after all there's WP:UCS, and my common sense tells me there are very few chances that a newbie would casually appear hear and especially have good knowledge of such an old arbcom case. As for WP:RFCU, I highly doubt it is possible in this case, as it is with those linked to Mitsos: the guys over there almost always refuse anon. verifications, and anyways the IP brought up by Damac are too old, as, I believe, accounts with edits over one month old are too old for checkuser.
Returning to the main issue, Mitsos, I must say that while the evidence is questionable, the pattern of behaviour I have observed through many months is that of one of the most confrontational and uncivil pov-pushers I have the misfortune to see in action. The question is not that of Mitsos' political opinions, but he seems unable to understand that wikipedia is not meant as a battlefield where one rams home his pov. The article moves is indicative of the general pattern of his behaviour: instead of proposing a move poll, he simply tries to imposes his pov by unilateral moves. I do not advocate banning Mitsos, because I think he should be given another chance; but I feel that if he won't mend his ways, it's only a question of time before he will meet the end of Greier, a user whose behaviour had striking similarities with that of Mitsos, and that at the end exhausted the patience of the community.--Aldux 14:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At last, an 100% sane comment! I too hope Mitsos will try and mend his ways. He has already been punished for vandalism, disruption, NPA, 3RR, and block evasion, and this recent RfC will teach him a lot. Obviously the anon is not a newbee (and I bet he/she didn't want to hide experience). I'd say he/she is someone who didn't want to disclose their identity. WHOIS says Montevideo. Another clear case where we Epsilonists used our secret means of transport just to post a comment we could very well say ourselves... NikoSilver 15:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aldux:
  • I have no "cause", thus nothing to be "dishonored". I simply disagree with defending the policy violations of one user by pointing at the non-punishment of other users for similar violations; especially when combined with unwillingness to pursue said punishment on the part of the defenders, claiming that they don’t want to get their hands dirty in those cases. It would seem to indicate that those making such a defense do not actually care about those other violations, and are simply intent on defending Mitsos.
  • I don’t think that Mitsos should be indef banned. I think he should be banned for a month, followed by six months of probation. I think he just got caught up in his passion for his edits, and let his civility get away from him.
  • Interesting that you called out "violations" by myself and SandyDancer, but seemingly ignored similar "violations" by Hectorian and Niko...I guess you agree with my assessment of the "others are doing bad things, so I should be allowed to do bad things" defense. Ha.
  • I'm having tea RIGHT NOW. Spooky. -- weirdoactor t|c 15:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What this is really about

[edit]

This is not about trying to censor an editor for his personal views. It is about Mitsos' counterproductive and insulting behaviour in his edits and in his interactions with other editors on talk pages. Yes, he has made excuses for his poor behaviour, but those excuses are weak, and do not justify his actions. He has shown no evidence that he will change his bad-faith edits and personal attacks unless he faces some kind of sanction. The examples given in this RFC are just a cross-section of offences, and in no way represent the complete list. Spylab 11:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I cannot distinguish that "poor behavior" through all this garbage. Care to please point out which of these 30 diffs are "offences"? I am not supporting the guy (I hate racism, nazism etc). I just cannot focus. NikoSilver 11:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I can't speak for all of the examples, but here is the original list I compiled, some of which appear in the RFC, and some which were not included. If you have any questions about my descriptions, go ahead and ask. Spylab 14:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Violation of 31 hour ban; used anonymous IP to make edits.
  2. Unjustified partial revert which deleted legitimate tags, re-linked name with no Wikipedia article and reversed corrections to punctuation, factual claims and verb tense.
  3. Unjustified deletion of necessary disclaimer in sentence, and reversal of legitimate improvement to grammar in sentence
  4. Unjustified and unproductive revert that re-started edit war, right after the article was inexplicably unprotected
  5. Unexplained deletion of group from list based on personal bias. The list comes from the book that the article is about, so this edit caused the article to be incomplete.
  6. Unexplained blanking of message that someone left on his talk page
  7. Incorrect descripton of his (legitimate) edit; it removed uncited factual claim, but Mitsos described it as "rm POV".
  8. POV pushing using a biased reference that doesn't even back up the claims in the sentence. He then re-added the claims with a Greek language reference, which is useless for non-Greek speakers.
  9. Added biased reference that didn't actually back up what was being claimed (reference link was expired when re-checked Dec. 2, 2006)
  10. The final version of a repetive revert, which deleted a justifiable neutrality tag, re-inserted uncited opinion, linked name with no article, gave link a Greek language title when article linked to has English title, used tense that predicts future behaviour, and split similar topics into separate sections when they really should be in one section
  11. The same revert (or almost exactly the same, with a comment denying the extensiveness of the revert
  12. Same (or very similar) revert
  13. One of the other reverts that was the same, or close to the same as the ones listed above
  14. Deleted a legitimate 3RR warning on his talk page
  15. Apparant personal attack - accusing another editor of supporting murder
  16. Deleted the same 3RR warning on his talk page again
  17. An earlier unjustified revert to same article linked to above (and which the 3RR warning was for)
  18. Personal attack including insulting racist language
  19. Example of political bias - changed neo-Nazi to nationalist to avoid stigma and other wording changes to sneak in political agenda
  20. Personal attack - accusation of drug use and lack of education
  21. Deleted legitimate warnings on his own talk page
  22. Personal attack, including the use of profanity and caps (yelling) Spylab 22:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SandyDancer stop lying

[edit]

I 'm not going to intervere further in the discussion, I just want everyone to know that SandyDancer is lying again. He wrote as a response to other (neutral) Wikipedian's comments: "Other editors don't post messages with headings of "fuck you" and get away with it." I guess the fact that I was blocked for 24 hours doesn't mean anything to you. Plus, I was highly provoked. Mitsos 16:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I lying? Are you denying that you posted a message headed fuck you?
You have made another personal attack. --SandyDancer 13:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are lying because you say that "I got away with it". And before I did that, you had made a personal attack on me. I was having a discussion with you, you ignored my arguments and said that "Modern Greek people have nothing to do with the people of the classical Greece" (while I had already explained you why this isn't true) and called me "a wanna-be white person". Mitsos 14:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't say you got away with it I said "Other editors don't post messages with headings of "fuck you" and get away with it." I was making the point that, despite what someone else about was saying, other users aren't allowed to get away with this conduct. You aren't being singled out. You are being treated fairly. --SandyDancer 15:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The one who got away with "you are a wanna-be white person" and "Modern Greek people have nothing to do with the people of the classical Greece" ([3]) which are IMO severe WP:NPA and more importantly racial slurs, is you, not him. I would suggest you stop attracting attention on your conduct, or you will be treated fairly as well. NikoSilver 15:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Niko: I suggest less threats, and more tea. Don't make me tickle you. Hee. -- weirdoactor t|c 15:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WA, no hard feelings, but I think you're full of theine. It's quite a strong stimulant, you know! :-) I am in no position to threaten (not a sysop), you are constantly taking it the wrong way. SD must read pot calling the kettle black, and then we can all have a milk. Quite relaxing... (oh, and I really appreciate the humor! :-)) NikoSilver 15:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NK. Here's a personal attack. Engaging with you is very boring right now. You seem to have this strange idea that one person's conduct cannot be criticised if others may have done something else that can be criticised ... Goodbye. --SandyDancer 21:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results?

[edit]

Wow, what an incredible waste of time this was! Haber 21:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure what the end result of Request for Comments are supposed to be, but User:Mitsos has been banned a few times since this was created, and his most recent ban was for a few weeks. At the very least, this page has alerted some editors and administrators about the kinds of policy violations Mitsos has committed on Wikipedia — and will likely continue to commit if he starts editing again after the current ban is lifted. He has even violated the most recent ban by editing Wikipedia without signing in. It seems that some people just don't get the message. This page can be used as evidence if other disputes come up regarding the editor. Spylab 17:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Mitsos&oldid=1136044078"