Talk:Requests for comment/Bensaccount/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Requests for comment | Bensaccount
You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between August 22, 2005 and October 17, 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Wikipedia Talk:Requests for comment/Bensaccount/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. FuelWagon 20:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

choice

Bensaccount, you said "I won't even bother any more" in your response. The point of this RFC isn't to run you off the articles so you no longer contribute. The point is to get you to contribute within NPOV policy. If you refuse to follow NPOV policy and stop contributing, that's your choice, but another option is to make your contributions so that they also follow policy. That's another choice available to you. It means you'll have to learn the policy and understand what you need to change to follow it, but it's a choice available to you if you choose it. FuelWagon 16:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Bensaccount, I can understand why you are angry, but it saddens me to read this:

It is just too much work to constantly battle these POV pushers and their attempts to erode and twist NPOV. Why should I care if the Creation science article is misleading, anyways. I won't even bother any more. Bensaccount 04:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you see that there is room to believe that some might think it is you pushing POV?

certification withdrawn

(copied from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment)

Will an admin please delete the RFC against Bensaccount? [1] Two editors have withdrawn certification to allow it be deleted. Thanks. FuelWagon 21:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

This looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you, and I'm concerned that you're using these, and the subsequent withdrawal of certification, as a way of controlling content. This RfC wasn't properly certified in the first place, in my view, because two of the certifiers are supposed to supply evidence of unsuccessful attempts to resolve the dispute — not evidence of the dispute itself, but of attempts to resolve it. Most of the diffs supplied show you engaging in the dispute. The others (one from Robert and one from Parker Whittle) aren't really appropriate, because Robert wasn't a certifer, and because both diffs show comments about the dispute, not dispute resolution. An attempt to resolve it would be, for example, an agreement to search for a compromise, which was rejected by the other party. I encourage you in future to think twice before filing another RfC on someone, and to search harder for ways to resolve disputes between yourself and other editors, before proceeding to this stage. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I also certified the RfC, and I think you should assume good faith on the part of both Fuelwagon and myself. My certification referred to a response I made to and RfC on the article that (if my memory is correct) occurred before Fuelwagon became involved on the page. That I was answering an RfC shows that I was attempting to resolve the dispute - but more specifically, I asked for citations to support the disputed statements. It was the inclusion of these citations that Ben objected to, both in my case and in Fuelwagon's. In this case the RfC has had the effect of putting an end to the edit war and interminable discussion. I still think that the RfC was entirely appropriate; I have withdrawn my certification for a very specific reason - in order to encourage Ben to edit again, but within the NPOV guidelines. I made that clear when I made the alteration.
Perhaps you should leave your baggage behind you, and look at the evidence anew. Banno 08:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by baggage. As for the evidence, I saw no diffs from you showing a prior attempt to resolve the dispute. Trying to resolve the dispute is not the same thing as engaging in it; and answering an RfC is not an attempt to resolve the dispute prior to the RfC, obviously. However, if I missed a diff from you or misread one, by all means post it here, and I'll take another look.
An attempt to resolve a dispute would be, for example, a good-faith attempt to find a compromise, or a note to the editor saying that you're considering filing an RfC, but want to make one final effort before doing so.
As for the RfC putting an end to the dispute, yes it did, but only because Ben withdrew from editing, so that can hardly count as a success. RfCs are ways of attracting comments from elsewhere about an editor when nothing else seems to have worked, and where the editor is continuing to cause a problem. It's not supposed to punish people, drive them away, bring up old issues that are no longer causing a problem, or be used to settle content disputes that could be solved in some other way. Sometimes editors leaving because of an RfC is unavoidable, and I realize that, but that's why it's so important to make a real effort with the editor to resolve the dispute before it reaches the RfC stage. It's for this reason that the rules say evidence is needed, within 48 hours of filing, of prior dispute resolution efforts (separate efforts; same dispute) from two of the certifiers; otherwise the RfC is regarded as uncertified and may be deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
It was you who referred to this being "another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by fuelwagon" (my emphasis) - I assume you are referring to some other correspondence with him: this is the baggage to which I referred.
I have no intention of defending my actions to you, nor to make amends for your lack of attention. I responded to an RfC by offering a reasonable compromise that involved providing citations, but was rebuffed by Ben. This was the basis on which I supported this RfC. I am insulted and angered at your lack of good faith in my actions, which you impugn along with Fuelwagon's. Since the RfC is now closed, I do not intend to further discuss the issue. Banno 09:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you don't want to discuss it, I'm not sure why you raised it. I apologize if you feel insulted or angered, and want to assure you that none of my comments were directed at you personally, or were intended to question your good faith. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Ben didn't raise it. You did, Slim. You've decided I'm an evil person, publicly declared will will assume no good faith on my part, and now you're going around looking for evidence to support this skewed view of reality. "See! See what an evil person FuelWagon is?!?! He withdrew certification of an RFC! He didn't provide the right diffs!" You are biased against the editor who filed this RFC. you are involved. And now you're usign this as ammunition to prove to wikipedia what a horrible, bad-faith editor I am. Go away. You don't care whether procedure was followed for this RFC, you are looking for mud to sling. FuelWagon 15:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


"Ben withdrew from editing, so that can hardly count as a success." LOL!!! Wow, Slim. That's an interesting assessment. So, if THREE editors leave wikipedia immediately after a dispute with YOU, is THAT a success? Duckecho left wikipedia and specifcally cited you as a reason. What have you done to bring him back? Bensaccount left wikipedia, and I'm willing to see this RFC deleted as an attempt to bring him back. Neuroscientist is GONE. And Ghost is too. That can hardly be counted as a success, can it? Look in the mirror for once. FuelWagon 15:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I withdrew my certification, as well. In regard to the appropriateness of the RfC, with such utter belligerence having come from Bensaccount, and unwillingness to engage in a reasoned discussion, I'm rather at a loss to determine how one might have even suggested a compromise, other than to attempt to resolve the dispute, as the links provided showed. An assertion is either sourced, or not. The compromise efforts involved attempts to rephrase clear POV statements with proper attribution, and that developed into the dispute, itself. Not much left to do at that point, when dealing with an editor so clearly unwilling to negotiate.Parker Whittle 16:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I have some experience of Ben, and I know he has a strong POV. I suppose all I'm saying is that I deal all the time with editors who have strong POVs because of the areas I tend to edit in, but I've never found it necessary to file an RfC on any of them. There are other ways to deal with content disputes; calling in uninvolved editors, for example, or an admin, if you can find one prepared to help out (if you feel the opposition constitutes disruption, but I don't know whether it was bad enough for that). Article RfCs are appropriate for content disputes, but user conduct RfCs should be about something more serious: rampant POV pushing over a number of articles, serious personal attacks, serial reverting, that kind of thing. If every content dispute were to end in an RfC, we'd all be filing them. Anyway, as I said, I've undeleted the RfC, so if you want to take a look at it, and check that there are diffs from two people showing separate attempts to resolve the dispute, I'm happy to leave it up for you if that's what any of you want. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:16, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin has now twice deleted my comments on her behaviour here, once declaring them a "personal attack" and once simply saying "reverting". [2], [3]. Can someone explain to me how comments on an editor's BEHAVIOUR as an editor qualifies as a personal attack? Can someone explain to me why anyone would "revert" comments on a talk page? SlimVirgin is now suppressing criticism of her behaviour on the grounds that it is a personal attack. She has publicly declared she will not assume good faith on my part, and so her questioning the legitimacy of this RFC cannot lead to any other conclusion from her other than it being an illegitimate RFC. She is biased. She is now suppressing criticism of her behaviour as an editor. FuelWagon 16:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, stop it. You're being extremly petty. -- Ec5618 16:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

no delete

I am withdrawing the request to delete this RFC at least until the dispute with SlimVirgin is figured out. If a request to delete, archive, or delist the RFC is made in the future, SlimVirgin should not be the admin to handle it. For the moment, I believe the RFC can be "delisted" from the current list of active RFC's. We can get a neutral admin to figure out if it should be archived or what. But at the moment, I don't want this page deleted until this dispute with SlimVirgin is handled, hopefully somewhere OTHER than this RFC talk page. FuelWagon 17:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


Puzzlement

I think that I am confused. If I am not confused, then I am confused in thinking that I am confused.

It is not clear to me why the signatures to this RfC are being cancelled. There appear to be two different explanations being presented. There are statements here that Bensaccount has stopped editing. There appears to be a statement on the main RfC talk page that they are instead being cancelled because of a good-faith effort by FuelWagon and Bensaccount to resolve things. Which is the situation?

I recently offered to cancel my signature to a certified user conduct RfC. That was a mistake. I have learned from that mistake. Offering to cancel a signature from a user conduct RfC will be seen as a sign of weakness or indecisiveness by warriors or trolls. In retrospect, it is my conclusion that no signature to a user conduct RfC should be cancelled unless there was an actual error, and that no user conduct RfC should be deleted unless there was some procedural error. SlimVirgin says that she does not see any evidence to resolve the dispute. I disagree. She and I and FW can disagree as to whether the efforts were sufficient. I certainly do not think those disagreements warrant deleting the RfC.

If the editor in question has left Wikipedia, then I agree that the RfC should be archived rather than deleted. If there has been an effort to resolve the dispute, then I would suggest that it be left open for a while and then archived if the dispute is resolved.

SV writes: "As for the RfC putting an end to the dispute, yes it did, but only because Ben withdrew from editing, so that can hardly count as a success." As a matter of terminology, SV is correct that having an editor withdraw is not a "success", but there are disputes in which having an editor withdraw voluntarily is the least undesirable outcome. I agree withParker Whittle that all plausible efforts at compromise had been tried and had failed.

SV refers to the dispute as a content dispute. It originally was a content dispute (as most disputes are), but there was also the issue of whether the user in question was even willing to discuss the NPOV issue. Article content is negotiable, but NPOV is non-negotiable. There was an impasse. SV writes: "Article RfCs are appropriate for content disputes, but user conduct RfCs should be about something more serious: rampant POV pushing over a number of articles, serious personal attacks, serial reverting, that kind of thing." The article in question had been the subject of an article RfC for months. Whether there had been "serial reverting" is a matter of opinion. I think that there had been. SV and I can respectfully disagree. There had been multiple continuing attempts over months to explain NPOV to the editor in question. There had been ongoing efforts to compromise on content, but FW and Parker Whittle and I could not compromise on whether the CS viewpoint was entitled to the dignity of being recognized as a POV.

I am not sure whether SV thinks in this specific case that some specific intermediate step should have been taken before filing the user conduct RfC, or whether she thinks in general that content disputes should be subject to a liberum veto. The one step that probably should have been taken prior to the user conduct RfC might have been mediation. That illustrates a flaw in the statement of the order in which dispute resolution procedures should be followed. The instructions on requests for mediation state that an RfC should be used prior to an RfM. They were. In any case, I doubt that mediation would have worked.

I do notice that diff 37 listed in the RfC included a suggested resolution by Robert McClenon prior to the time of the filing of the RfC. I therefore should have certified the RfC rather than only endorsing it. If my endorsement is changed to a signature, there will be two certifying signatures.

I certainly do not think that this RfC should be deleted. It probably should be archived. Robert McClenon 17:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Robert, please note that I have no interest one way or the other in seeing this kept or deleted. My only interest in procedural. If you can show me diffs of the dispute resolution by the certifiers, I won't delete it, and I won't quibble with you either, because I trust your judgment. Are there diffs on the page which, in your judgment, show prior attempts at dispute resolution by the certifiers?
As for what else you could have done, I can't say because I didn't watch the dispute. But for example, there's a dispute going on at the moment over original research - an editor who has been reinserting the same passage into an article for weeks, actually for months, and others delete it and explain that it's original research, and so he tweaks it and reinserts it, and sometimes he tweaks it in the right way and it gets closer to not being OR, and then he tweaks it back again and makes it even worse. And on it goes. Other editors have arrived at the page, most agree it's OR, though occasionally someone arrives and agrees with him. What I'm finding, as annoying as all the tweaking and reverting is, is that I'm learning more and more about OR, so it's all to the good, and things remain civil, and the editor is editing in good faith, as much as I disagree with him. I think perhaps that's where I personally would draw the line: if I see an editor as acting in good faith, no matter how irritating, I don't think I would file an RfC. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:03, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Diff analysis and comments

Many of the diffs by FW are argument rather than attempts to resolve the dispute. Some of them are a combination of restatements of the NPOV policy and explanations of why the subject's edits violated NPOV. Diff 35 by FW is simply a restatement of the NPOV policy. Diff 36 by FW states that the next policy violation will go to dispute resolution. That was not an effort to compromise, but it was a statement that there is no compromise about NPOV. Diff 37 was a reminder about the importance of NPOV. All of the diffs by Parker Whittle are both restatements of the NPOV policy and explanations of how it applies.

There were efforts by three editors to resolve the dispute by reminding the subject of NPOV. It was therefore a properly certified RfC.

In retrospect, mediation should have been tried, but the current (flawed) dispute resolution guidelines state that RfCs (including user conduct RfCs) are less formal than mediation and should precede it.

In the example that SV gives, the editor in question is editing in good faith, and the talk pages are civil, if lengthy and tedious. I agree that a user conduct RfC is not warranted. In the case in point, civility had long since been forgotten, except by the certifiers and endorsers of the RfC. I agree that an RfC should not be used if there is any progress at all being made, however slowly. No progress was being made here. There had been a timely warning that dispute resolution would have to be used.

I still do not understand why any of the certifiers cancelled their certifications. I would suggest that the RfC be archived, but it should not be deleted. Robert McClenon 19:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Robert, I wonder whether there's confusion between engaging in the dispute and trying to sort it out. Bear in mind that this was not an article RfC, but a user conduct RfC, which means attempts should be made to resolve issues surrounding the user's conduct. So for example, if there has been incivility, then there would be diffs trying to stop that, and so on, and that's what I don't see. I agree with you that, ideally, mediation would precede an RfC, because it's less brutal, but it's a question of manpower. I'm going to ask another admin to take a look at the diffs, and I'll reread the ones you've mentioned. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
"I still do not understand why any of the certifiers cancelled their certifications." Because Bensaccount stopped editing completely, and I would rather him return and follow policy than to leave completely. I was willing to withdraw certification in an attempt to get him to come back. Whether he sees that as a sign of weakness or not, I won't attempt to predict. I am willing to give him a chance to demonstrate how he would react. FuelWagon 19:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Many of the diffs by FW are argument rather than attempts to resolve the dispute. First of all, I attempted several times to take Bensaccount's edit and turn it into reporting the viewpoint of mainstream science. He refused to allow it, saying that "opinions" are different than "facts". So I tried working with him. Second, SlimVirgin is expressing her opinion as to what constitutes sufficient evidence to show attempts to resolve a dispute such that an RFC is "valid". And behind her opinion that this is about "content" or that this doesn't have the right "diffs" or whatever, is the fact that she's got a grudge against me. So, any subjective interpretation that she takes to turn this into a bad faith RFC on my part needs to be viewed in that light. FuelWagon 19:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

More Questions

I am still not entirely sure what SlimVirgin's view is on exactly what should be considered an effort to resolve a content dispute that has turned into a civility issue (or a content dispute that has turned into a claim of ownership of the article). I am also not sure that SV agrees that sometimes a dispute over a single article does become a conduct issue. She writes: "Article RfCs are appropriate for content disputes, but user conduct RfCs should be about something more serious: rampant POV pushing over a number of articles...." What about rampant POV pushing and claims of article ownership in a single article that make consensus editing impossible? Is she saying that if only one article is in question, there is no conduct issue? If so, does that mean that one editor who claims ownership of the article has a liberum veto? In this case, to be sure, the editor was not claiming ownership, but there was serious POV pushing disguised as NPOV/SPOV, and the article was at an impasse due to churn.

I am not really sure exactly what SV is stating. Is she stating that there should be certain rules about how to try to resolve an article content issue that has become a conduct issue, and that these rules were not followed? Alternatively, is she only stating that judgment must be used, because a user conduct RfC is a drastic step? If so, then perhaps she disagrees with FW and with me as to whether the step was appropriate, but if that is a judgment call, then I still think that the steps were procedurally taken properly. Can she please clarify? Robert McClenon 12:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Robert, lots of good questions. You're asking two types of questions: about the procedural issue, and then about my opinion on RfC procedure generally. First the procedural: any certification of an RfC has to be done within the first 48 hours. It can't be done after that. The point of this is simply to protect editors from having the thing hanging over their heads for a long time while others gather support for the RfC. So that's the clear cut off point.
To certify it, it must be signed by two editors directly involved in the same dispute, and they must provide evidence (e.g. diffs or evidence of e-mail correspondence) showing that each of them separately tried to resolve the dispute (the same dispute) with the subject of the RfC, but failed. Once again, this evidence must be supplied within the 48 hours or the RfC is deleted. I like to see this adhered to strictly because I believe in the importance of due process, and I sense you do too.
Your other questions are harder to answer, but interesting. First, what should be considered an attempt to resolve the dispute? The rules don't say, and it's an interesting question, because how do we distinguish between the dispute itself, and attempts to resolve it? In my view, an attempt to resolve it would be posting a note on the editor's talk page suggesting a compromise, or sending an e-mail assuring someone of good faith, or making helpful suggestions about where they could find a source for their edit. What is your view of the difference between engaging in the dispute and dispute resolution attempts? We might perhaps try to formulate something about this for the RfC page.
You also asked about the difference between a content and conduct dispute. It becomes a conduct dispute when the editor violate a conduct-related policy e.g. makes personal attacks, causes disruption, uses sockpuppets. You also asked: "What about rampant POV pushing and claims of article ownership in a single article that make consensus editing impossible?" That's harder, in part because I don't see how one editor can exercise ownership if s/he's opposed by several, so I'd need a concrete example.
Regarding Bensaccount, I've starting reading Talk:Creation and so far haven't seen any conduct issues on his part, though I haven't read it all yet. I can see ways in which the content issue could have been resolved, and I admit to being puzzled as to why it went to an RfC so quickly, though perhaps when I've finished the reading, that will be clearer. The other admin I asked to read the diffs hasn't had time yet, by the way. I hope this answers some of your questions. Thank you for your helpful input. I'm finding this exchange quite useful as it speaks to some of the issues going wrong with the RfC process in general. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:37, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Robert, the other admin I asked has said the diffs in this case are in a grey area. While they appear to him to be diffs showing the dispute itself, you would be able to argue that they were in fact efforts to resolve it, and so following that advice, and your own comments about preferring to see it archived rather than deleted, I've decided not to delete it. The other problem is that you didn't certify it within 48 hours, and so strictly speaking it is now uncertified, as there's only one signature certifying it that was placed there within 48 hours of filing. However, if I were to delete on those grounds, all you'd have to do is recreate it, so there's probably no point (though I hope you'll see that the result is a bit of a mess regarding the rules, which is unfortunate). I'll leave a note for Bensaccount to let him know it's not being deleted.
I'm going to try to formulate something about the difference between engaging in the dispute itself, and engaging in efforts to resolve it, to avoid this grey area in future. Your involvement in coming up with a reasonable description of what might count as dispute resolution would be much appreciated. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


Please take your discussions regarding "the RFC process in general" to a more appropriate page. This is not the place for fixing "issues going wrong with the RFC process in general". FuelWagon 19:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] was not discussing "the RfC process in general", but was saying that the discussion of this RfC was informational about the RfC process. Discussion about the RfC process can be at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment or at User talk:Robert McClenon/Crisis. The comments that SV made were relevant to this RfC. Robert McClenon 22:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin declares she can assume no good faith of me [4]. I post a request to delete this RFC [5]. An HOUR later, SlimVirgin jumps on it and replies "looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you," [6]. Given her declared bias against me, given that she saw this RFC as "ANOTHER" inappropriate RFC, she should not have acted as an admin to delete or restore the page, she should have deleted my earlier comments about her behaviour, and she should not be making ANY comments about this RFC, whether they're relevant or not. She is biased. FuelWagon 23:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Two days ago, SlimVirgin tells me "I can no longer assume any good faith of you." [7]Later that day, I post a message to teh RFC page asking for an admin to delete Bensaccount's RFC. SlimVirgin quickly responds "This looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you" [8]
You need to look at SlimVirgin's attempts to question and attack the legitimacy of this RFC through the lens of her bias against me. She cannot assume no good faith of me and see anything I do as anythign other than causing trouble. She has attacked the RFC as "another example of an inappropriate RFC by me". She has called this a content dispute. She questions whether the requirements for diffs for dispute resolution have been met. All of this must be viewed through her bias against me. If my name hadn't been on this RFC, she probably wouldn't have batted an eye at it. But my name is on it, and she is attacking me by attacking the RFC.
Bensaccount was consistently violating NPOV policy. This isnt' about content. this is about policy. Several editors tried to deal with him. I tried writing his stuff so that it would fit NPOV policy. He refused to allow it. We filed an RFC. This is all completely legitimate. The only mistake I made was thinking that Bensaccount had withdrawn because of a change of heart. His recent reappearance and posts indicate that wasn't the case. The only reason SlimVirgin is attacking this RFC is because my name is on it. FuelWagon 15:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon: If you can't say anything civil to or about SlimVirgin, then please don't say anything to or about her. I had been engaging in a civil dialogue with her about what are and are not proper Requests for Corrective Action (officially still known as user conduct RfCs). Please take your quarrels with her somewhere else. Robert McClenon 15:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I have been civil. Telling you she declared she can "assume no good faith" of me is not uncivil. It directly affects whether she can involve herself with this RFC in any neutral way. Admins are not supposed to act as admins with editors they have long-standing disputes with. We have a long-standing dispute. She needs to withdraw from sniping at this RFC. If there is a procedural problem with this RFC, it will need to be handled by a neutral and uninvolved admin. SlimVirgin does not qualify as neutral or uninvolved here. FuelWagon 17:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

SlimVirgin, given your declared bias against me, I'm going to ask you to remove yourself from this discussion completely. FuelWagon 19:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

unresolved

Well, Bensaccount has made clear the dispute is not resolved. Given that, I've recertified so that this can find some sort of resolution. FuelWagon 20:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

FuelWagon: Why did you decide to archive most of this talk page? I think that it is still a subject of discussion. If you really just want to resolve the antagonism between FuelWagon and SlimVirgin, please post a request for mediation or a request for arbitration. I do advise posting an RfM to try to resolve these issues. Trying to archive this history does not help at this point. I know why you did it, but it was a mistake. Robert McClenon 01:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you know why I did it, do you? I did it because the bulk of the talk page was filled up with chatter about whether or not the RFC is legitimate, had the right diffs, had proper evidence, crossed the correct T's, dotted the proper I's. Since SlimVirgin's anonymous admin friend has declared the RFC to be acceptable, all that chatter is just taking up space. On the off chance that Bensaccount actually comes back, it would be good if we could deal with the dispute with him. SlimVirgin brought her issue with me to this RFC, and that didn't belong here in the first place, let alone after another admin declared this RFC to meet wikipedia requirements. At this point, reverting this talk page does nothing but keep unrelated discussions around that shouldn't have happened here in the first place, that shouldn't have been SlimVirgin's business to interfere with in the first place, and you achieve NOTHING but to satisfy yourself to revert the archiving. none of this has anything to do with the actual behavioural problem with Bensaccount. You want to help resolve some of the issues with SlimVirgin, clear out this talk page and put it back in the archive. She shouldn't have been here in the first place. un-archiving this mess was the mistake. FuelWagon 03:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Talk%7ERequests_for_comment_Bensaccount_Archive01_2f1d.html"