| Revision as of 09:19, 1 September 2005 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →certification withdrawn: reply to Banno← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:49, 15 September 2016 edit undoAndy M. Wang (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users39,857 edits link corr. | ||
| (44 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. | |||
| ==choice== | |||
| If further archiving is needed, see ]. | |||
| '''Previous discussions:''' | |||
| Bensaccount, you said "I won't even bother any more" in your response. The point of this RFC isn't to run you off the articles so you no longer contribute. The point is to get you to contribute within NPOV policy. If you refuse to follow NPOV policy and stop contributing, that's your choice, but another option is to make your contributions so that they also follow policy. That's another choice available to you. It means you'll have to learn the policy and understand what you need to change to follow it, but it's a choice available to you if you choose it. ] 16:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *]: | |||
| Bensaccount, I can understand why you are angry, but it saddens me to read this: | |||
| *]: | |||
| ---- | |||
| It is just too much work to constantly battle these POV pushers and their attempts to erode and twist NPOV. Why should I care if the Creation science article is misleading, anyways. I won't even bother any more. Bensaccount 04:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Can you see that there is room to believe that some might think it is you pushing POV? | |||
| ==certification withdrawn== | |||
| (copied from ]) | |||
| Will an admin please delete the RFC against Bensaccount? Two editors have withdrawn certification to allow it be deleted. Thanks. ] 21:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :This looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you, and I'm concerned that you're using these, and the subsequent withdrawal of certification, as a way of controlling content. This RfC wasn't properly certified in the first place, in my view, because two of the certifiers are supposed to supply evidence of unsuccessful attempts to resolve the dispute — not evidence of the dispute itself, but of attempts to resolve it. Most of the diffs supplied show you engaging in the dispute. The others (one from Robert and one from Parker Whittle) aren't really appropriate, because Robert wasn't a certifer, and because both diffs show comments about the dispute, not dispute resolution. An attempt to resolve it would be, for example, an agreement to search for a compromise, which was rejected by the other party. I encourage you in future to think twice before filing another RfC on someone, and to search harder for ways to resolve disputes between yourself and other editors, before proceeding to this stage. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I also certified the RfC, and I think you should assume good faith on the part of both Fuelwagon and myself. My certification referred to a response I made to and RfC on the article that (if my memory is correct) occurred before Fuelwagon became involved on the page. That I was answering an RfC shows that I was attempting to resolve the dispute - but more specifically, I ''asked for citations to support the disputed statements''. It was the inclusion of these citations that Ben objected to, both in my case and in Fuelwagon's. In this case the RfC has had the effect of putting an end to the edit war and interminable discussion. I still think that the RfC was entirely appropriate; I have withdrawn my certification for a very specific reason - in order to encourage Ben to edit again, but ''within the NPOV guidelines''. I made that clear when I made the alteration. | |||
| ::Perhaps you should leave your baggage behind you, and look at the evidence anew. ] 08:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not quite sure what you mean by baggage. As for the evidence, I saw no diffs from you showing a prior attempt to resolve the dispute. Trying to resolve the dispute is not the same thing as engaging in it; and answering an RfC is not an attempt to resolve the dispute prior to the RfC, obviously. However, if I missed a diff from you or misread one, by all means post it here, and I'll take another look. | |||
| :::An attempt to resolve a dispute would be, for example, a good-faith attempt to find a compromise, or a note to the editor saying that you're considering filing an RfC, but want to make one final effort before doing so. | |||
| :::As for the RfC putting an end to the dispute, yes it did, but only because Ben withdrew from editing, so that can hardly count as a success. RfCs are ways of attracting comments from elsewhere about an editor when nothing else seems to have worked, and where the editor is continuing to cause a problem. It's not supposed to punish people, drive them away, bring up old issues that are no longer causing a problem, or be used to settle content disputes that could be solved in some other way. Sometimes editors leaving because of an RfC is unavoidable, and I realize that, but that's why it's so important to make a real effort with the editor to resolve the dispute before it reaches the RfC stage. It's for this reason that the rules say evidence is needed, within 48 hours of filing, of prior dispute resolution efforts (separate efforts; same dispute) from two of the certifiers; otherwise the RfC is regarded as uncertified and may be deleted. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 09:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:49, 15 September 2016
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.
Previous discussions: