Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For a December 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Requests for comment Slrubenstein

Contents

[edit] An easy mistake

You appear to be mistaken. I was the last person to edit that page when I put the protected note on it. As far as I can see, it's still protected and there haven't been any reverts by anyone. Please provide some evidence for your claim. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:56, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, no. That's because the revert war is over an article vs. a redirect. You were redirected.

you cvan't add a protection notice to a redirect. It stops the redirect from working. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No it still works, it just means you have to click on the redirect rather than have it do it automatically. Remember, protection is not mean't to endorse either of the versions of the page, and as such, cannot endorse the redirect by preventing the announcement of the disputeCheeseDreams 20:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] personal attacks

Has this page been certified? This does not seem to follow the standard format for RfC pages. john k 04:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not only has this page not been certified there has been no evidence presented that two wikipedians have tried and failed to resolve the dispute. Cheese dreams appears to be abusing the rfc process here and unless evidence is forthcoming I will delete this page as invalid. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 06:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually Sam spade has made a point on cheese dreams rfc against James so I wont delete it.
Not a single contributer bar me to this page out of the 4 who have so far has actually addressed the issue of Slrubenstein's abuse of adminship. CheeseDreams 08:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it is abuse. You created a page with the comment "I did not write this page. It was written by Slrubenstein." You appear to have done this in order to cause trouble, the edit war over the redirect was plain stupid and you were trolling. Slubenstein ended a stupid and pointless war by protecting the page. The rules on admin behaviour are there to stop admins pushing thier own POV's they are not there in order to aid you in baiting an admin into making a mistake. Slubstein was not pushing his own POV by redirecting the article and even if he was a rfc should not be your first port of call. As far as I am aware you have started three trivial rfc's recently because an admin did something you didn't like. You are abusing the dispute resolution process which was set up to deal with genuine and serious disputes, not to give people a chance to throw their toys out of the pram everytime they don't get their own way. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I created the page to avoid a conflict. Slrubenstein did create the text - ask him if you like. I wanted to explicitely state that although I was creating the article, I was in no way endorsing its state as being well written or NPOV. CheeseDreams 20:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Further, this page is not allowed to be deleted for 48 hours after its creation.

[edit] Irrelevent Ad Hominem Attack against CheeseDreams

CheeseDreams broke the three revert rule twice on that page. By my count, no other editor broke the rule. Is there any reason not to block her for 24 hours? Rhobite 23:02, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

John Kenney and Slrubenstein are operating as a "tag team". They made 4 reverts at least. CheeseDreams 23:14, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That may be, but as far as I know they are two separate people. You are the only editor on that page who broke the three revert rule. I'm not going to block you because I know that others are more familiar with the disputes you have been involved in. My advice is for you to stop breaking the three revert rule. Rhobite 23:37, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
The revert rule applies to sides as well as people. CheeseDreams 23:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Without commenting in any way as yet on the case at hand, I would like to point out to CheeseDreams that the Wikipedia:Three revert rule explicitly states in its introduction that it applies to each "person". The word person is bolded for emphasis. Prior to a week or so ago, the word person was merely italicized for emphasis. As far as I know, that is how the rule had read for at least the past few months, if not longer, unless it was changed briefly (and erroneously) by someone. Certainly as an administrator and an arbitrator, I have always taken the three revert rule to refer to individuals, and that it the only reversion policy that has been approved by this community. I'm sorry if someone else gave you the wrong information, CD. Jwrosenzweig 00:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would like to point out to Jwrosenzweig that
  • That is not the case at hand and should not be discussed here
  • That is an Ad hominem attack, and I do not expect this pathetic behaviour from an Admin and especially not from a member of the arbitration committee. I consider Ad Hominem attacks by a member of the arbitration committee a resigning matter.
  • The 3 revert rule applied to groups last time I looked at it. If it has changed in the intermediate time, then I would ask who changed it, and for what POV did they do so.
CheeseDreams 00:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, CheeseDreams, I assumed that if you continued to discuss it here, you didn't mind it being discussed here. I'll stop if you like. It certainly isn't an ad hominem attack -- even if you thought I was accusing you of breaking policy (which I am not -- I am unaware of the particulars here, and was only referring to the rule in general), that would not constitute an ad hominem attack, according to the article you link to. I am sorry, however, if you were offended: again, I was only talking in general terms. I looked at several earlier versions of the Three revert rule page and did not see anything but emphasized reference to "person". I may very well have missed a version such as the noe you describe, and would be very happy if you supplied a link to that version of the page. Thank you, Jwrosenzweig 00:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is a discussion of ME not Slrubenstein, as such it cannot be anything other than an Ad Hominem given the subject of this page. Either retract it (by striking through/deleting the comment), or I will make an RfC for Ad Hominem by an arbitration committee member. CheeseDreams 00:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I didn't discuss you at all, except at the end where I apologized if you had been misinformed (I assumed someone had told you an untrue version of the three revert rule...I would still apologize if you had read the policy while it incorrectly stated that the rule applied to sides and not individual people). All that I did besides that remark was to clarify, given my knowledge of policy and with direct reference to the policy page in question, what the three revert rule actually applies to. If you would like to file a request for comment over my doing so, you are free to do so, but I confess I cannot understand why. Jwrosenzweig 00:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The discussion of the 3RR rule instigated by Rhobite is 100% about me. Therefore commenting on it is Ad Hominem. Your retraction please. CheeseDreams 00:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm awfully accomodating, but I won't retract a factual statement (lest it appear that I claim it to be untrue), and I won't admit that I made an ad hominem statement because I did no such thing. Clarifying a policy issue that arose as a result of an ad hominem argument (and I won't comment on whether or not Rhobite's comments were ad hominem) is not an ad hominem attack. I have nothing else to say on the matter on this page. Jwrosenzweig 00:36, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To Mr/Mrs/Miss Rhobite. this is about Slrubenstein's abuse of adminship by reverting then protecting a page he was himself in a revert war over. It is not about me. Please stop acting like a childish bully committing Ad Hominem to avoid the argument, and address the issue of this page or take your comments elsewhere. CheeseDreams 23:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The facts don't appear to support your interpretation of the situation. Your act of creating a duplicate article with a confusingly similar name, then breaking the three revert rule, was what necessitated action. Without your action, slrubenstein wouldn't have had to resort to a protected redirect. The court system has a doctrine of clean hands, and I believe it applies here. I'm a man by the way, but you can just call me Rhobite. Rhobite 00:15, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
This is NOT a discussion of whether reverting or protecting that article was right or wrong.

[edit] Calling for a ban

Can I remind everyone calling for a ban what the Wikipedia:Civility policy has to say about doing so. CheeseDreams 18:01, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Announcement concerning the page in question

At the request of another editor I have unprotected the page. I continue to believe that CheeseDream was wrong to create a duplicate article under a new title, and wrong to revert repeatedly other editor's attempts to redirect it back to its home page. I believe that there should be a redirect and that the redirect must be protected, as CheeseDream will revert any redirect. But since I am involved in a dispute with CheeseDream on another page -- and despite all the support of other editors on this page, which I truly appreciate, I think it is in the best interests of Wikipedia that someone else protect the redirect. I made a formal request here [1]. Thanks, Slrubenstein 20:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note, CheeseDreams went back to reverting, and began creating new namespaces with the same article. I redirected and protected, so I guess we are back to square one. Slrubenstein