| Revision as of 22:53, 2 November 2005 editJfdwolff (talk | contribs)Administrators81,547 edits User:Ombudsman | Revision as of 23:45, 2 November 2005 edit undoOmbudsman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,258 edits →Response: complainant's pursuit of sanction consistent with provocative edit summaries and commentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
| ==Response== | ==Response== | ||
| ''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' | ''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' | ||
| :Complainant took it upon himselft to delete a series of links added to various articles. After some of the links were restored, with relatively restrained edit summaries, complainant escalated abrasive rhetoric, disparaging this invaluable archival resource in a manner less than conducive to constructive dialog. After a longer, restrained response was provided to the complainant at ], complainant further escalated the matter with this RfC appeal, rather than pursuing constructive dialog. | |||
| '' | '' | ||
| Line 52: | Line 54: | ||
| Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>): | Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>): | ||
| # ] 23:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| # | |||
| ==Outside view== | ==Outside view== | ||
Revision as of 23:45, 2 November 2005
In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC).
- (Ombudsman | talk | contributions)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
Description
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}
Ombudsman (talk · contribs) has been campaigning the inclusion of external links to a website containing conspiracy theories, speculative material and other issues related to vaccines and vaccination. These links were originally added by an anon (86.128.123.85 (talk · contribs)) on 30 October, and after my removal Ombudsman rapidly restored most of them (diffs below). This has led to edit warring on a number of pages. I have requested explanation and discussion on his talk page, to which I received no response.
Ombudsman argues in edit summaries that inclusion of the link falls under NPOV. After all, all views should be represented. I dispute external links fall under the aegis of NPOV (they never have, sadly), and even if they did the views on this website are utterly fringe and appear to have little support, therefore not requiring coverage on this project. JFW | T@lk 22:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
- diff reinsertion of link on Shaken baby syndrome
- diff ditto on vaccination
- diff idem on chickenpox
Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
(sign with ~~~~)
Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~~~~)
Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
- Complainant took it upon himselft to delete a series of links added to various articles. After some of the links were restored, with relatively restrained edit summaries, complainant escalated abrasive rhetoric, disparaging this invaluable archival resource in a manner less than conducive to constructive dialog. After a longer, restrained response was provided to the complainant at Talk:Shaken baby syndrome, complainant further escalated the matter with this RfC appeal, rather than pursuing constructive dialog.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.