Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SlimVirgin1

Even though I have made several edits to Terri Schiavo and participated in the discussions at Talk:Terri Schiavo I would like to note that I would rather avoid getting involved in this if possible. Jtkiefer 22:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * If this is a genuine request for "comments", then I have commented as well as I can. If it is a sneaky way of "building a case" against an Administrator who is just trying to do her (unpaid) job, then it is no more than Gaming the system in a hypocritical bullying way. (And lest anyone accuse me of "personal attacks", remember I said if.)


 * It's one or the other, genuine or spurious. I suspect the latter, but make no pronouncement. Anyway, FuelWagon is better off dropping this. I expect to be deleting it in about 25 more hours. Uncle Ed 21:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ed, what are you talking about? "building a case" for what? Gaming the system for what? FuelWagon 00:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Btw, thanks for the comments, Ed. Could you comment on the second half here? Most of it is a repeat, but it does ask for comments about whether SlimVirgin's edit qualified as a "reckless" edit, according to wikipedia's definition. FuelWagon 03:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

-

The Diffs to resolve dispute
"the diffs are not proper examples of trying and failing to resolve the dispute."

I've changed the diffs to the two posts from Neuroscientist, since his edits were the best from a technical errors view and also from a "no personal attacks" point of view. The "diffs to resolve dispute" should be considered in compliance with the RFC requirement. FuelWagon 19:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * They should? Well, they aren't. Please see my endorsement of SlimVirgin's summary. Now you do have comments from two editors instead of just one, but you still don't have any attempts at dispute resolution. That's perhaps not to be wondered at, since dispute resolution only fits when there's a genuine question of user conduct, and this RFC isn't that. It should have been an article RFC. Especially now that you've withdrawn the examples of "personal attacks" that SlimVirgin was supposed to have made (some of those actually made me laugh out loud), it's not in the least about user conduct. You would make yourself more respected if you withdrew the whole thing, you know. Bishonen | talk 01:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

El C
SlimVirgin wrote ''It appears that a small group of editors, currently consisting of User:FuelWagon and User:Duckecho have taken ownership of this page and won't allow others to edit without their consent. This isn't allowed.''

Despite a laundry list of issues with her edit, SlimVirgin refuses to concede any problem with her edit, and instead calls any attempt to refuse to allow her edit into the article as the editors attempting to "own" the page.


 * This is not an accusation. It is (1) an opinion and (2) a statement of policy. Both are permissible. Uncle Ed 20:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Come on, Ed, if I prefixed all my personal attacks with "It appears that you're an xxx", would that excuse it? Or "It is my personal opinion that you are an xxx"? Hedging it under "personal opinion" doesn't change anything. FuelWagon 21:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. Citing official Wikipedia policy is not a personal attack, I challenge. El_C 22:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, the ownership of article page intro is pasted below. None of it applies to me. I was reverting a massive edit on a controversial page with the mediation tag present, an edit which contained many problems listed by a number of other editors. I am not owning anything. Her claim is untrue.

-

I've never "defended an article from all intruders".

Reverting a bad edit does not qualify as crossing "a certain line" or "overdoing it"

Fine by me.

I am not "warring". Plenty of problems with her edit have been brought up by a number of different editors. She has conceeded no errors in her entire edit.

I have never claimed ownership of any page.

FuelWagon


 * I do not subscribe to that interpretation and I find that it misrepresents the facts in this case, for reasons already stated elsewhere. El_C 23:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

appears to be owning
This was on main page. moved to talk. - SlimVirgin wrote ''It appears that a small group of editors, currently consisting of User:FuelWagon and User:Duckecho have taken ownership of this page and won't allow others to edit without their consent. This isn't allowed.''

Despite a laundry list of issues with her edit, SlimVirgin refuses to concede any problem with her edit, and instead calls any attempt to refuse to allow her edit into the article as the editors attempting to "own" the page.


 * This is not an accusation. It is (1) an opinion and (2) a statement of policy. Both are permissible. Uncle Ed 20:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Come on, Ed, if I prefixed all my personal attacks with "It appears that you're an xxx", would that excuse it? Or "It is my personal opinion that you are an xxx"? Hedging it under "personal opinion" doesn't change anything. FuelWagon 21:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. Citing official Wikipedia policy is not a personal attack, I challenge. El_C 22:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * She didn't CITE it. She accused me of violating it, which I didn't do. Citing it would be something like "taking ownership of a page violates wikipedia policy". She just came out and said I've violated it. And if saying "it appears" in front of something gives you a blank check to say anything, sign me up. As for whether or not I did or did not violate "ownership", I answered that on the talk page due to length. FuelWagon 22:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * To me, that appears to be an exercize in sophistry. El_C 23:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for Assuming Good Faith on my part. FuelWagon 23:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Likewise. I never claimed it was intentional, but I feel it is the reality nonetheless, and I am entitled to hold that opinion. El_C 23:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, the reason I filed an RFC was in part because an attempt to work it out on talk simply exploded. I thought that perhaps an RFC could bring in an outside, unbiased voice. SlimVirgin made a reckless edit and she still holds that it should be reinserted. If you want to ignore all the issues on an RFC because one point sounds sophist to you, fine. But I don't need people like you challenging me here. I'm trying to avoid another explosion. FuelWagon 23:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll comment on and direct challenges toward whatever I see fit, I'm not bound by the conditions you set. El_C 00:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I set no conditions. I said I don't need people like you challenging me. If you want to "direct challenges toward whatever (you) see fit", fine. It's good to have a some purpose in life. If you'd like to help keep this RFC non-combative though, I would appreciate the help. If not, whatever. I just made a request. You get to choose. FuelWagon 00:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in responding to that at this time. El_C 00:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

- Fuelwagon, please do not remove other people's comments from the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:24, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * We now have comments (namely my own) from the main page, duplicated more than once on this page, integrated into the same space as talk comments (a superimposed order), as in a single narrative assmebled by Fuelwagon. El_C 03:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon, please stop deleting posts. If you want to withdraw yours, and doing so would leave other comments meaningless, then please strike through yours, using and ; and if you want them on this page, please copy them instead of deleting. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:34, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Not certified
As FuelWagon has withdrawn his certification and there is no evidence of prior attempts at dispute resolution, I'd like to request that this RfC be deleted as non-certified when the 48 hours is up, which is at 22:06 (UTC), July 16. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:07, July 16, 2005 (UTC)