Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig

For a December 2004 deletion debate over this page see Votes for deletion/Requests for comment Jwrosenzweig

Comments
I tend to doubt you've made repeated attempts to resolve this issue when it appears to have occured less than an hour ago, expecially because he explicitly denies that it was such an attack. However, if this is a recurring problem, please provide earlier examples so we can examine this on its merits. Cool Hand Luke  00:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I am allowed to comment here.
 * However, if I am, then I will say
 * Whether someone denies an Ad Hominem is an Ad Hominem or not, does not affect the truth of the fact it is.
 * A single incident of this form is unacceptable for an Arbitrator.
 * Arbitrators have the power to dictate content and behaviour and rules to the rest of wikipedia.
 * Arbitrators MUST be beyond suspicion.
 * If it was not an arbitrator I would not be making the complaint.
 * CheeseDreams 00:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I too am unsure if I am allowed to comment here, but I will do so purely to note for the community's benefit that arbitrators are expressly forbidden from using their position to dictate content on any article and from creating any new policy. We merely enforce the policies already established by the community, and we have a good number of people to monitor us if we accidentally (or intentionally) stray from this purpose. This is still, of course, a position that requires those who hold to do their absolute best to be above reproach -- I heartily concur with CheeseDreams on that point. Jwrosenzweig 03:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll comment. "Ad hominem attacks" are not the same thing as personal attacks. An ad hominem is merely an attack on credibility, while a personal attack is an insult (profanity, name-calling, etc). Personal attacks aren't allowed here, but neither Jwrosenzweig or I used personal attacks. You told me I was "acting like a childish bully," which is the closest thing to a personal attack in that RFC. So I really don't know what all this fuss is about "ad hominem attacks." Show me a Wikipedia policy which prohibits "ad hominem attacks." If I attacked your credibility, I promise you it was with good reason. If I distorted the facts, please point it out. But frankly, this isn't the debate team. I'm allowed to attack your credibility. I'm allowed to point out that you broke the rules first. I'm surprised that someone has yet to block you for your flagrant three revert violation. And Jwrosenzweig has done nothing but explain a rule to you. Hey, what a splendid way to thank someone who was just trying to help. Rhobite 04:53, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * I consider ANYONE making Ad Hominem attacks to be acting like a childish bully. CheeseDreams 19:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Further, I note that rather than explain his perception of 3rr to me on my talk page, an acceptable location, he did so in the discussion of Slrubensteins abuse of adminship. Thus it was an indulgement and continuance of the Ad Hominem. CheeseDreams 19:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Please point out the Wikipedia policy prohibiting "ad hominem attacks." Rhobite 19:27, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Civility. CheeseDreams 19:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No personal attacks CheeseDreams
 * Amongst other rules they state that prohibited practices include
 * "Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is. " (i.e. Ad Hominem attacks)
 * "More serious examples include....calling for bans and blocks"
 * Which I seem to remember either you or some of your supporters doing. CheeseDreams 19:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, I did call for a block, because you violated the three revert rule. Did you not? Rhobite 20:03, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * For information, whilst "Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is." is quoted in No personal attacks, CheeseDreams' second example "More serious examples include....calling for bans and blocks" does not and I'm not aware of it ever being included on that page. jguk 20:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * For information, the second example is in the Civility policy. CheeseDreams 11:05, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Invalid rfc
Where is the evidence that at least two people tried and failed to resolve the dispute? Cheese dreams you are abusing the dispute resolution process with trivial rfcs. Please bring this page in line with policy or i will delete it out of hand.(See Requests for comment/Example user for details Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 06:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If you delete it before 48 hours are up, you will be in violation of policy yourself. CheeseDreams 08:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No I'm not but never mind - Sam makes a good point below.
 * I would ask that you not delete this, or at least that note is made of it, since it seems to be particularly clear evidence against cheese himself. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * OK I agree it should be kept as evidence against CD. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've added a notice to the top of the main page about this. I've suggested protecting it, should it fail to be certified. -- Netoholic @ 04:45, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
 * At some point, though, it should be delisted from the main RfC page. -- Netoholic @ 19:31, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
 * Give it the full 48 to delist. Should we also undelete his RfC against Eequor? Cool Hand Luke  19:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * We should probably get Eequor's opinion. -- Netoholic @ 19:56, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
 * Was that deleted? How long was it allowed to stand? CheeseDreams 19:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * About 53 hours. I don't even know if Eequor was aware of CheeseDream's dispute, much less the RfC. Someone might have to give her the text. Cool Hand Luke  20:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Expired
I removed some comments added after the expiration date. I hope that's not too contraversial. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. Could always put them on the talk page under "comments added after RfC close" or something if anyone complains. Antandrus 22:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we should protect these CheeseDreams RFC pages that are being deleted for not getting certified. That would allow them to be preserved without the danger of them continuing to be used to beat up on users when they've failed. (Full disclosure: I am the subject of a similar RFC that is about to expire). john k 01:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sorry. I was startled to see my comment gone at first, but I hadn't noticed it had expired, so it was probably my fault. [[User:Dbachmann|dab ( T ) ]] 11:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)