Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Instantnood

Please note that the RfC is a place to discuss behaviour, not whether or not we agree with Instantnood's underlying points. This is not a dispute over whether he is entitled to espouse his view, this is more of a request that he calms down in his enthusiasm over how he presents his view so he is not being disruptive in so doing. Please keep comments restricted to the point in hand, jguk 13:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

His behaviour was no problem. It is more like the problems of some of the people who opposed without reading his points and the conventions. Some people are more disruptive in opposing a point. - Privacy 14:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• revert warring is inherently disruptive and he's been the instigator of that. Also, when concensus has been reached (such as "Hong Kong does not have a capitol city.") then to continue placing it in articles, and to continue discussing it as if there is no concensus - that is disruptive. SchmuckyTheCat 18:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Closed?

Why did Instantnood close and archive the RfC? They are supposed to be open for the longer of 14 days or 3 days after the last new editors comments. If he wants it closed, fine, it's fairly dead as he's brought factual disputes here, but I'll note that it's closed early. SchmuckyTheCat 17:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If there is anyone who has to close pages like this, the last person will the person in question himself.--Huaiwei 17:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry about that. — Instantnood 18:40, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Archive

Can the RfC be archived now? — Instantnood 18:01, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)