|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC).
- SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · logs)
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.
- SlimVirgin refuses discussion about policy changes to WP:V.
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.}
- After a series of edits on Wikipedia:Verifiability, authored by SlimVirgin, and about which consensus hasn't been established yet (see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Self-published sources and BLP for overview), SlimVirgin refuses further discussion with me: "I can't argue with you about this anymore"
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.)
- An overview of the diffs showing that the "Self-published sources in articles about themselves" section of WP:V (and predecessor and derivatives) are exclusively authored by SlimVirgin, was drafted on the WP:V talk page by Francis: 23:44, 24 June 2006
- SlimVirgin asks for clarification: 23:51, 24 June 2006
- Clarification given by Francis: 23:59, 24 June 2006
- SlimVirgin's next edit contains "I can't argue with you about this anymore" 00:11, 25 June 2006
- ...after which SlimVirgin continues reverting the WP:V policy page: 00:13, 25 June 2006
Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines 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}
- --Francis Schonken 08:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Other users who endorse this summary
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.
- "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed". And only Francis has signed. So no RfC. Yandman 14:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Slim Hasn't commented here yet, but I will. I've found Slim's use of policy and policy discussion pages to be patient, clear, non-confrontive and very productive. Policy is our most important foundation, without stable policy we simply cannot produce quality. Slim responds in sensible ways and works around confrontational issues. If Francis Schonken finds he cannot communicate with her about an issue, or if he finds that she cannot communicate with him about an issue, I would say the thing to do is to communicate with or through a disinterested third party. Of course some individuals (myself included) have difficulties communicating with some other individuals. I don't know a way around this element of human nature, but Slim's history of non-confrontational handling of policy is quite good, whereas I've found Francis Schonken to be a little more disputitive than is really necessary for the issue at hand. Terryeo 17:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC) (Consensus or assimilation, make your decision today !)
I have not observed SlimVirgin or FrancisSchonken to be confrontational. But, I do know of a problem user who seems to stir up problems wherever he appears. This same user has a history of difficulties in communicating with other users and engages in a lot of false PR in an attempt to manipulate Wikipedia policy.--Fahrenheit451 03:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- This RfC would need the information presented that 2 editors (besides the involved parties) had attempted to resolve the dispute which Francis raises. Why do you introduce another subject? User:Fahrenheit451? How does your informational contribution imply that effort ? Terryeo 03:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
{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:
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.}
- {The instruction is slightly confusing. I don't really understand the procedure regarding endorsement. I hope I'm doing it right. Let me know I got something wrong. I will try to fix it.} Anyway, I'm currently having an edit dispute with SlimVirgin in unrelated article. And I'm having a similar problem with SlimVirgin in regard to a photograph of caged monkey placed in the intro. She revert without participating in the debate, which, IMO, is not civil and counter to the spirit of this site. I'm fine with opposing arguments. What I can't stand is edit without argument. Vapour
- She posts about that issue on the talk page here and in at least 3 other posts to that page. She speaks of the appropriate policy and its reasoning in a civil manner. She uses, "with respect, you've understod it" which is certainly civil. It is possible I misunderstand what this is about. A first glance at the situation tells me that discussion is taking place on the article's discussion page. User:SlimVirgin is discussing on the discussion page. And, other users have made comments in line with Slim's statements. It looks to me like there is no issue for an RfC. Terryeo 14:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
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.