Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Shakehandsman

old discussions from first phase of RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Harassment I'd like to take this opportunity to highlight the following Wikipedia rules found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users: "RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack". Additionally "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors". Can these polices please be enforced ASAP. Editor Exok's assessment on this exercise [2] is as follows: "Delicious carbuncle, this is an obvious and disgusting attempt at a WP:WITCHHUNT. What is the policy issue you are seeking to address, you have not mentioned it? If all you're attempting to do is to assert your disapproval of what WP:WIKIHOUNDING has persuaded you about a particular editor's ideology then it's certain to rebound on you, and rightly so."Shakehandsman (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC) <MOVED FROM MAIN PAGE> Good faith concerns about your additions to BLP articles is not harassment - do you intend to, or declare to, take more care and edit closer to policy, especially in areas against living people you have a declared opposition to, such as feminists? Youreallycan (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC) You are not even supposed to be editing in this section. Strike the above comment immediatley please. I have fully responded to all the evidence above and will not be making further comment in that regard other than adding diffs.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Do you assert you edit neutrally the articles of people you are opposed to ? Will you make a statement to stop editing the articles of people you are an opponent of ? I have watched you go about your attacking work for a couple of years now. Skirting policy and adding as much attacking content about your opponents as possible - with undue weight and any citation that suited your POV - please make a declaration to stop editing BLP articles. - Youreallycan (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC) </MOVED FROM MAIN PAGE> Closure This RfC failed to receive appropriate certification within 48 hours and should now be closed. Keristrasza (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC) User:Shakehandsmans resignation statement - User:Shakehandsmans resignation statement As usual with resignation statements we will have to wait and see how it develops as we know it's quite common for users to return after retiring whilst a bit upset. - Saying that, it's a bit disappointing and not what anyone here was hoping for as a desired outcome from this RFC. User:Shakhandsman's position appears to be, I have made only fantastic contributions and these three users are harassing me so I am off. Whereas imo and from my perspective, these are good faith complaints in regard to his editing patterns, a look at the deletion discussion of a woman he created an article about makes it clear there are issues with his contributions and his focus on people he is opposed to. A much better outcome imo would be that the user took a look at the complaints and perhaps accepted there are some issues and a simple commitment to avoid certain practices or to be more BLP compliant and NPOV considerate when editing personal details about living people or an offer to avoid adding such details to topics he has a declared real life involvement in. Youreallycan (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I request reopening of the RfC/U

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Upon his return Shakehandsman has renewed accusation of harassment against the editors who started this RfC/U [3]. Given that he previously made the same claim in the RfC/U itself, it is clear that the dispute is not solved. The RfC/U should continue, so that uninvolved editors may weigh in on it. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

of course that was done with the assumption that you actually had something to say about this matter. Since nothing at all has transpired here since you requested re-opening, the RFC is now closed. Not back on hold, closed. If anyone wished to pursue these matters in the future they may open a new RFC or seek whatever other dispute resolution required. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.