Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mike Rosoft and Jimfbleak

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

Mike Rosoft and Jimfbleak deleted pages on 11.30.2006 in violation of the Deletion policy. they deleted pages under speedy deletion that clearly did not meet the speedy deletion criteria. I want their actions reviewed by a larger group and I propose that they be placed on suspension for a period of 2 weeks for having violated Wikipedia's own guidelines. For more information, see the deletion review page for 11.30.2006, and look for the section for "DUMBA". (Here.) Jasonfb 18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

The editors delete pages under speedy deletion that did not meet Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria and should have been given a standard 5-day AfD review process.Jasonfb 18:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

See Wikipedia:deletion policy Jasonfb 18:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

I have made several attempt to get these admins to answer for thier actions. I have emailed them, left demanding messages on their talk pages, and opened a Deletion Review page. I have follow-up thoroughly and yet these admins don't seem to care very much about their actions or how innappropiate they were in the context of the proper procedure that I was attempting to follow. See deletion review page for 11.30.2006. Jasonfb 18:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

As far as I can see, the only case he has against me is that I had deleted his article and he doesn't agree with that. And for this, he wants me blocked for two weeks. I am shaking, I am shaking. - Mike Rosoft 21:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Only later did I discover what the conflict was about: he requested undeletion of DUMBA, and the article he actually wanted undeleted was Dumba (page titles are case sensitive). Neither I nor Jimfbleak deleted the latter article; it was Brookie who did. - Mike Rosoft 00:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only just found this in the articles for SD list, I won't delete since it appears to mention me, jimfbleak 17:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that he doesn't intend to continue with the RfC: during the (now abandoned) conflict I received an e-mail from him, reading (in part):
Regarding the unlinked RfC page on you, I do not intend to pursue it unless I have to. Since you have not answered question #1 (why you deleted the page under speedy deletion when it did not qualify for SD) and I have still not gotten the latest version of the text, I have every reason to continue to be very pissed off at you. Now, if you simply respond to my very clear question (why you deleted the page under speedy deletion when it did not qualify for SD)-- with SOME KIND of response-- (like, I had a brain lapse and thought that the page qualified as "patent nonsense")-- then I'd be happy to drop the RfC.

Mike Rosoft 00:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Simon says no. Empty vessels and all that. Chris cheese whine 04:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How did I never endorse this? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Words fail me, and that doesn't happen very often. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.