Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany

Is User:Irishpunktom's certification proper? He's not directly involved in the affair, and seems to have signed purely as an offer of support. --Calton | Talk 08:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

He signed because

• an admin with an explicitely stated extreme bias
• blocked a user who opposes said bias being pushed
• for over 24 hours
• for a violation of 3RR that didn't exist. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marvelous. Every single bullet point was completely irrelevent to my question, which was about Irishpunktom's standing to be a co-signatory. Or is zeal about sticking to rules tossed aside whenever you find it convenient? --Calton | Talk 19:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

My zeal applies to people who act out of POV (in this case UninvitedCompany's self admitted "extremley anti-Islamic" POV) rather than out of propriety. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your zeal apparently doesn't include answering direct questions, nor does it seem to include following rules that you assidously demand others follow. --Calton | Talk 21:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Irishpunktom's certification is questionable indeed. However, as I have stated elsewhere, I welcome this opportunity to discuss my actions and would hope that no one would close, de-list, or delete the RFC solely on such a technicality. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this RFC is UninvitedCompany. The RFC is on the subject of the appropriateness of his use of blocking, particularly given his explicitely stated extreme bias.

There is a lot of off topic discussion.

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for a developer to check to see if Ril posts from an address in Iowa? Without revealing his address. Zoe 23:50, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• You're not suggesting that Ril is our friend of olden time, the inimitable Adam Rinkleff, Mr. Anarchosocial-communism himself, AKA User:Lir, User:Pizza Puzzle, user:Ril, user:Dietary Fiber, [[user:I've probably forgotten a dozen more, are you? It couldn't be. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been suggested before. Mel Etitis is convinced of it, and asked David Gerard, who has the ability to check IP addresses, to check it out. I am from the UK, and post in the UK - I don't know if you've noticed that I use UK spelling and grammar, not US spelling or grammar. David Gerard confirmed this - its in the WP:AN archives now, the question was raised some months ago. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 00:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for evesdropping, and far be it for me to stick up for -Ril-, but I've little doubt that he's from the UK. His British perspective (although perhaps not manners) is consistent. Of many things he may be guilty, but not the dreadful crime of being from Iowa. --Doc (?) 00:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa is that bad? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 01:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I read a book by Bill Bryson, and I certainly didn't fancy it :{ --Doc (?) 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And this is still completely off the topic of abuse of adminship. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 00:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But completely on-topic regarding the motives, methods, purposes, and even standing to use this process in the first place. Since this is a request for comments, any and all editors can make whatever comments that please them which are relevent to the topic, which is UninvitedCompany's response to your behavior. This is not your personal process and Jimbo Wales did not die and leave you in charge, so you don't get to control the discourse. --Calton | Talk 01:09, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I am restoring these comments that Ril has persistently deleted. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I am going to let someone else handle this. At the beginning of this page -Ril- reverted my comments erasing them completely 2 TIMES. Now, -Ril- has reverted part of my comments 3 TIMES. These are my comments he is reverting. Does anyone want to take a crack at this? --Noitall 19:05, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. --Noitall 20:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

As -Ril- requested, further comments about him can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Ril-. --Noitall 14:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ril is gaming the system. He has engaged in an edit war, instead of collaborating on making an unbiased and accurate article. His insistence on twelve minutes being long enough to make a 4th unexplained and peremptory revert is simply untenable. It is in fact disruptive.

Furthermore, by using the flimsy excuse of it wasn't 24.0 hours but 24.3 he is using the letter of the rules to defeat the purpose of the project which is supremely disruptive.

All we are trying to do here is organize and present the world's knowledge. Edit warring is an obstacle to this goal, which is why it is forbidden. UC was trying to enforce the policy against edit warring, and HOW DARE THE VIOLATOR OF POLICY ACCUSE THE UPHOLDER OF POLICY?!

I would simply block Ril myself, immediately for this disruption, if it were not for two things:

1. UninvitedCompany wants this issue to be discussed, and is thus willing to let Ril drag this thing out; and,
2. UninvitedCompany has gotten me to promise not to try to settle matters like this apart from consensus.

It is thus only at UC's behest that I tolerate this insufferable disrespect for Wikipedia, its policies and for UC himself. Uncle Ed 14:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC)