Last word: Nyttend (talk).

Am I allowed to edit the "Desired outcome" as one of those named? There's really only one outcome I desire, that's #1, DP will resign his administrator privilege. There's no "or". Glad you figured out how to call the question. I tried to figure out how any ordinary mortal could institute a recall for an admin, spent a fair amount of time searching the WP: namespace for an answer, then gave up. Msnicki (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for misspelling your username.

I've struck the second clause per your request. NE Ent 18:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Should you also add a signature as the first certifier above mine? Msnicki (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the feedback I've seen, especially on the requirement that it must be "the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users", it seems to me that that single dispute has to be the Barney incident. We both observed it and we both tried to resolve the dispute and we can show the required diffs. That's my only interaction with DP I can recall anyway. I think we should see if can agree on a description of that incident and make that the "Description" in the "Statement of the dispute". We can then each provide our own evidence of trying to resolve the dispute. The history you've documented can be used to show there's a pattern behind this, but our complaint, to satisfy the requirements, is about the Barney incident. Do you agree? Msnicki (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, for the reasons I've explained on J's talk page [1]. NE Ent 01:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have to say, that's a pretty good argument. Msnicki (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did a good thing to raise these concerns so that they can finally be resolved. Multiple editors are following up. To avoid personalizing the dispute, you can just step back and watch. You did your part, now relax and watch as your colleagues finish the job. I predict that one of three things will happen within 48 hours: (1) DP will accept the criticism and undertake to be much more polite going forward, (2) pressure will continue to increase and he will be forced to resign straight away, or (3) things will muddle along and a new RFCU will be filed. Given the discussions that are going on, I think that RFCU will be a lot more critical than the first one. If you don't mind, I will continue to defer your request to undelete the first RFCU page. Jehochman ^Talk 00:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For disclosure, I like DP, and have been openly critical of him previously (the Jimbo incident), so I think my view is moderately balanced here. I don't see him as a saint or a pariah. First, I wasn't expecting the closure, but honestly, I think Jehochman's handling has been center of policy in his actions, and exceptional in his patience while mediating. MrX's discussion is very much on target and strikes the perfect tone. That discussion will absolutely set the pace for what happens next. If DP blows it off, then that would unquestionably serve as the most powerful "attempt to resolve in good faith" you could ask for. If DP gets the message (to your satisfaction) then all the better. If we are focused purely on results, I really do believe this is the best path. As Jehochman says, we are only looking at a couple of days. Dennis 2¢ 00:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's disrespectful and disruptive of the collegial and collaborative nature of the editors who took time to comment. See also Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Blanking_of_RFC.2FU.3F. NE Ent 08:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The loss of their comments is indeed regrettable, which is why I offered to deliver them to anybody who asked. If it would make you feel better I could go leave a message for each editor. Jehochman ^Talk 11:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I was one of those editors that had his comments deleted, and frankly, it was more than a little supported. The deletion doesn't bar you from refiling, but as it stood, it was really a very improper RFC/U, a point I made, and most people agreed with. Dennis 2¢ 14:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "RT Network". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 October 2014.

Msnicki certified issues different from yours: you talked about things such as his username, his use of "fuck off", and his block of Beeblebrox, while Msnicki talked about a separate incident, a single block. Once again, since editors must certify that both addressed the same issue with the person, and since you and Msnicki did not do this, the RFC/U will not be undeleted. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]