[WikiEN-l] Strange and unfair RfC/user process

[actionforum at comcast.net]

-------------- Original message -------------- 

> actionforum at comcast.net wrote: 
> > The signed the statement of Dispute and then notified me. They shouldn't be 
> changing it underneath my responses. Yes, I could quote them, because they 
> might delete from underneath me, but what is an RfC/user doing lacking even the 
> basic integrity of a talk page. You were right the first time. It is a 
> blockable offense. But I wanted you to know that some of the community seems 
> to think nothing of this behavior. 
> > -- Silverback 
> 
> (could you turn on word wrap in your email client please). 
> 
> It is a blockable offence to modify other users' statements, not your 
> own. It is definitely dubious if people modify their original statements 
> to make replies by another person sound out-of-place, but not blockable. 
> 
> I think you should quote the original version of the text you are 
> replying to, adding it into your statement. I suggest you ask the people 
> who are changing the text to stop, but I would caution against accusing 
> them of trying to make your replies out-of-context (question the action, 
> not the motive). This also assumes good faith, if you request politely. 

He is modifing statements that have been certified by
4 people, and he is basing his new accusations on my 
responses to items which no longer exist in the certified 
statement, this is completely bad faith vandalism.  Two 
of the others have given him permission on the talk page.

There is no way a procedure such as this can be fair.
I am entitled to revert vandalism, that damages wikipedia's
integrity, as this certified statement changing process does.
He can provide is changes in different response sections
if he wants.  But I shouldn't have to respond to a moving
target, only to have my responses orphaned by subsequent
changes.

If anything good can come out of this, hopefully it is reform
of the system.
                 -- Silverback