| Revision as of 16:36, 1 September 2005 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits deleting personal attack - quit it FuelWagon - YOU were the one who requested deletion← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:49, 15 September 2016 edit undoAndy M. Wang (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users39,857 edits link corr. | ||
| (35 intermediate revisions by 4 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| Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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| ==certification withdrawn== | |||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 Two editors have withdrawn certification to allow it be deleted.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) | |||
| ::It was you who referred to this being "''another'' example of an inappropriate RfC filed by fuelwagon" (my emphasis) - I assume you are referring to some other correspondence with him: this is the baggage to which I referred. | |||
| ::I have no intention of defending my actions to you, nor to make amends for your lack of attention. I responded to an RfC by offering a reasonable compromise that involved providing citations, but was rebuffed by Ben. This was the basis on which I supported this RfC. I am insulted and angered at your lack of good faith in my actions, which you impugn along with Fuelwagon's. Since the RfC is now closed, I do not intend to further discuss the issue. ] 09:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, if you don't want to discuss it, I'm not sure why you raised it. I apologize if you feel insulted or angered, and want to assure you that none of my comments were directed at you personally, or were intended to question your good faith. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 09:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ben didn't raise it. You did, Slim. You've decided I'm an evil person, publicly declared will will assume no good faith on my part, and now you're going around looking for evidence to support this skewed view of reality. ''"See! See what an evil person FuelWagon is?!?! He withdrew certification of an RFC! He didn't provide the right diffs!"'' You are biased against the editor who filed this RFC. you are ''involved''. And now you're usign this as ammunition to prove to wikipedia what a horrible, bad-faith editor I am. Go away. You don't care whether procedure was followed for this RFC, you are looking for mud to sling. ] 15:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| "Ben withdrew from editing, so that can hardly count as a success." LOL!!! Wow, Slim. That's an interesting assessment. So, if THREE editors leave wikipedia immediately after a dispute with YOU, is THAT a success? Duckecho left wikipedia and specifcally cited you as a reason. What have you done to bring him back? Bensaccount left wikipedia, and I'm willing to see this RFC deleted as an attempt to bring him back. Neuroscientist is GONE. And Ghost is too. That can hardly be counted as a success, can it? Look in the mirror for once. ] 15:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I withdrew my certification, as well. In regard to the appropriateness of the RfC, with such utter belligerence having come from Bensaccount, and unwillingness to engage in a reasoned discussion, I'm rather at a loss to determine how one might have even suggested a compromise, other than to attempt to resolve the dispute, as the links provided showed. An assertion is either sourced, or not. The compromise efforts involved attempts to rephrase clear POV statements with proper attribution, and that developed into the dispute, itself. Not much left to do at that point, when dealing with an editor so clearly unwilling to negotiate.] 16:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I have some experience of Ben, and I know he has a strong POV. I suppose all I'm saying is that I deal all the time with editors who have strong POVs because of the areas I tend to edit in, but I've never found it necessary to file an RfC on any of them. There are other ways to deal with content disputes; calling in uninvolved editors, for example, or an admin, if you can find one prepared to help out (if you feel the opposition constitutes disruption, but I don't know whether it was bad enough for that). Article RfCs are appropriate for content disputes, but user conduct RfCs should be about something more serious: rampant POV pushing over a number of articles, serious personal attacks, serial reverting, that kind of thing. If every content dispute were to end in an RfC, we'd all be filing them. Anyway, as I said, I've undeleted the RfC, so if you want to take a look at it, and check that there are diffs from two people showing separate attempts to resolve the dispute, I'm happy to leave it up for you if that's what any of you want. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 16:16, 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: