Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/BenH

Just want to stress part of my comment: it would probably be a good idea to annotate the links in the evidence section to see whether they were additions of inaccurate material, or just violations of the MoS as spelled out in your project.

If it's the latter, he might just not feel like discussing things because he's been slapped around by project members. The link to the history-version of his talk I put in was the first non-template addition to his talk, and none that I saw were much less acerbic. Has he ever been invited to discuss on the project page? SB Johnny 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Being too nice to Ben
I think a lot of these are being wayy too nice to an editor that is ruining WP articles one by one. --CFIF (talk to me) 13:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but this is a request for comment from neutral parties, and what 2 of us have seen seems to be just as much bad behavior from the "plaintiffs" as from the "defendant". For example, in response to my initial comments, user:azumanga wrote:


 * At least some of the dates are indeed false; according to Benny, WLTV signed on in 1960,and was indie for four years after SIN folded in 1984. (WLTV opened in 1967, and SIN simply became Univision in 1988). Count me in for an RFI referral for BenH.


 * When I first read that, I was wondering who "Benny" was (thinking it was another party involved). Just struck me this morning that it was a nickname created by someone who really doesn't like user:BenH.


 * It's rather clear that BenH has not been treated kindly. There might be reasons for this, but the basis for these reasons has not been made clear to me (and I would surmise that this would apply to other disinterested parties as well). Please annotate a few of the evidence links, perhaps pointing to a (non-wiki) source that shows that his contributions are in fact falsehoods. You'll have to do that to make an RFI or Arbitration stick in any case. SB Johnny 14:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That quote above proves it's false. Why should he be treated kindly? His actions don't warrant it. --CFIF (talk to me) 14:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, almost. If you could put it together as: In this edit, User:BenH entered "this false information", which is false [LINK TO SOMETHING PROVING THAT] . At least one or two of those would be fine.
 * I'm not trying to be nice to Ben, just calling it as I see it. I'm not suggesting that you give him foot massages or anything, but there's a civil medium between getting cuddly and being outright mean. SB Johnny 14:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)