Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Marvin Shilmer


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 12:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
The user has shown bias against Jehovah's Witnesses, particularly regarding their translation of the bible, their stance on blood transfusions, and their status as 'Christian', in many edits over an extended period of time both at Wikipedia and other websites (e.g. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com), including drawing conclusions not supported by his own research, but claiming to be an active elder of the religion when challenged.

The user has made accusations of gossip about me, in reference to discussion with users already involved in current discussion. Various users have taken issue with the user's approach regarding condescensions and other behaviour e.g., including his exceptions to statements by arbitrators and admins.

Any recent attempt to discuss any matter results in personal attacks and claims of 'character assassination'.

Desired outcome
To call a 'truce'. To maintain objectivity in dealing with unrelated disputes and suggestions. To refrain from condescending speech.

Description
As per 'Statement of the Dispute'

Evidence of disputed behavior
Included in 'Statement of the Dispute'

User_Talk:Marvin_Shilmer (User:John Carter)

User_Talk:Marvin_Shilmer (User:IronMaidenRocks)

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UP#Copies_of_other_pages
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarvin_Shilmer#Regard
 * Because of previous disputes with the user, when I addressed a recent issue of three users with user subpages of their own archived copy of an article with links to Category namespaces, I indicated to the user that the message was given to all 3 and not specifically targetting him.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
As per 'Statement of the Dispute'

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}



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.'' ''

Jeffro77 attempts to assassinate my character by constantly characterizing my remarks here as condescending. He makes this accusation of me despite his own aggressive and insulting language toward other editors.

I have already wasted enough time trying to dialogue with Jeffro77. He seems to place a priority on characterizing my remarks above discussion of subject matter. Though a few editors here would undoubtedly agree with Jeffro77 that my remarks are condescending, there has never been such an accusation of my language from editors other than those at odds over content issues, or in Jeffro77’s case perhaps a personal issue rooted in something I am unable to penetrate.

There once was a volunteer here by the name of Seddon something (I have no reason to look it up for reference) who attempted to resolve a content dispute involving me and a one-article-only editor named Cfrito. The effort by Seddon was inept and I expressed that along with my reasons. The content issue ultimately ended where it should have ended, which happened to be what I asserted from the beginning.

If Jeffto77 desires an outcome of '''“To call a 'truce'. To maintain objectivity in dealing with unrelated disputes and suggestions. To refrain from condescending speech”''' then all he has to do is stop stalking me with his personal characterizations my language. I am an academic at a major university and the language I use here is the same language I use on campus with students, peers, administrators and employees. Jeffro77 needs to cease making his impressions of an editor a focus for discussion and should, instead, focus on content and presentation issues. If what Jeffro77 says is his desired outcome is indeed his wish, then fulfillment of his desire is entirely in his control. All he has to do is cease his actions against my person.

Until recently I had refrained from expressing myself too strongly about Jeffro77’s attempts to assassinate my character. But I have no reason to continue helping him hide what he is doing.

For the record, not once have I thought in terms of condescension when addressing fellow editors here. Jeffro77 reads condescension into language when no condescension is intended.

I will not waste any more time with Jeffro77 so long as he acts as he does. If he wants me to cease calling attention to his attempts of character assassination, all he needs to do is stop reading his preferential view of my person into my entries and, accordingly, cease haranguing my participation. Jeffro77 seems to have plenty of time to imbed links to his views of me. I do not have that luxury at the time. Of Jeffro77’s links above, I have no doubt that he has taken great pains to build a case against me, and that he has taken equal pain to avoid linking to information that would exculpate me from his assertions against me. When he says I am biased against Jehovah’s Witnesses and that I draw conclusion contrary to evidence, I can only shake my head in disbelief. Either he is unable to decipher evidence, or else he is, yet again, focused on assassination my character.

If an administrator needs more from me all you need to do is ask. But I will not waste more time on replying to Jeffro77, that is until he ceases his misconduct.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

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:

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an 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.

Bias against Jehovah's Witnesses, incivility and condescension, claims of 'character assassination', ignoring Wikipedia guidelines regarding archived articles in User subpages.12:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary
RfC withdrawn after reconciliation at Talk
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.