Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The perpetrator (Slrubenstein) of the action resulting in the creation of this page has retracted and undone the action concerned. Therefore there is no longer the need for this page. I am not aware though, if it is allowed to be removed even in this circumstance. CheeseDreams 21:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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 sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. 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: 21:34, 2004 Dec 2), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
This RfC failed to meet the requirement for certification within the 48 hour deadline, but was not deleted in order that it may be used for reference in resolving certain disputes with the submitter. Please do not modify this page or endorse sections here. You are free to add comments to the talk page. |
- (Slrubenstein | talk | contributions)
Contents |
[edit] Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
[edit] Description
Slrubenstein was involved in a revert war on the page in question - [1]
Slrubenstein then
- reverted the page to his preferred version
- locked the page
- failed to put a protection notice on the page
Evidence - [2]
Please note I am not User:Amgine, and Slrubenstein is mistaken in thinking that Amgine is the one raising this issue. CheeseDreams 20:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Powers misused
- Protection (log):
-
-
-
- Warning, the above page is protected in the form of a redirect, please check you are looking at the correct page. CheeseDreams 20:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Applicable policies
-
- Slrubenstein reverted the page to an edit war version he wanted as his POV
- Slrubenstein protected this version of the page despite in the revert war
- Slrubenstein failed to put a protection notice on the page despite locking it from editing
[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
-
- Talk:Jesus in a cultural and historical background
[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~~~~)
-
- CheeseDreams 20:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Other users who endorse this statement
(sign with ~~~~)
[edit] Response
This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}
We have not tried to resolve our dispute through the mediation of a sysop. CheeseDreams and I are involved in another dispute that is being mediated, but that is separate from this case. If CheeseDreams requests mediation of course I will agree. SOme have questioned whether this is a valid RfC. It probably isn't. Nevertheless, I will do my part by providing my summary:
CheeseDreams accuses me of protecting a page in which I had been involved in a revert war.
The revert war was not over the content of the page, the revert war was specifically over whether the page should be redirected. The redirect war was primarily between CheeseDreams and John Kenney, although A2Kafir redirect once, and I redirected once (plus the final time, when I protected the page). I do not consider my reverting once to be much of a war. In any event, there are 19 recorded versions; nine of them are redirects by three different people (including myself) and ten are CheeseDreams' reversion of the article [3]. It was clear to me that only one person supported the existence of the article; other participants felt it should be redirected.
Moreover, the one person -- CheeseDreams -- who supported the article, actually did not support it. He did not write any of it. He took the current, protected version of the Cultural and historical background of Jesus article and copied it to this space (this is why everyone else changed the article to a redirect, back to its original source). Moreover, CheeseDream himself posted a tag declaring that the neutrality and factual accuracty of the article was disputed. As he himself explained on the talk page, no one had disputed the neutrality or accuracy of "Jesus in a Cultural and Historical Background." The dispute concerns the Cultural and Historical Background of Jesus.
I see no reason for one article to exist under two different titles. I suspect that this is CheeseDreams' way of subverting the mediation process (in which I am involved) ongoing at the other article. Nine times this article was redirected back to its original home page. Each time CheeseDreams -- and only CheeseDreams -- reverted the redirect. I thought this was a monumental waste of time.
It is ironic that CheeseDream accuses me of reverting the article to a version that represents my POV, when he has stated that the version he keeps reverting it to reflects my POV. In any case, I am reverting to John Kenney's redirect, not to any particular version of the article.
I am not sure how to put a "protection notice" on the page when it is simply being redirected to the namespace from which the article itself comes (which, yes, is protected).
I really do not think any of this needed saying -- I think CheeseDreams is wasting my time, and I apologize for wasting the time of those of you who choose to read this. But out of respect for the process I had to provide a summary of my actions.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
- Slrubenstein 20:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- JDG 04:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) CheeseDreams has now started using the Wikipedia redirect capability to sow more confusion and discord. This should be added to the list of charges against him/her in Requests_for_comment/CheeseDreams. It should also be a leading specific in a proceeding to ban for at least a week.
- Pedant 15:02, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC) Though Slrubenstein is not completely without fault in this matter, CheeseDreams has been generally disruptive and uncooperative, filibustering attempts to reach consensus on more than one page. He also redirected an RfC page to a RfA page. CheeseDreams' intent seems to be to abuse all available processes in an attempt to wear down opponents to CheeseDreams's POV, and labels anyone in opposition a member of a "cabal of fundamentalists", without defining the term. Undefined it appears to me to be a pejorative term. CheeseDreams behaviour is using a lot of person-hours unproductively to the detriment of wikipedia in general. I suggest a voluntary hiatus on CheeseDreams part, minimum of 7 days. Failing that, a ban for a similar period seems appropriate.
- Mackensen (talk) 04:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) This is beginning to seem a tad absurd. I see John Kenney has been RfC'd also, and (another) one against Proteus might be in the offing. Can I be the subject of a sympathy RfC?
- Does anyone have a comprehensive list of frivolous RfC's CheeseDreams has started? Anyone making such list should remember to include Eequor and any others that were deleted for being uncertified. Cool Hand Luke 05:25, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Viriditas 06:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- john k 07:25, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) of course
- Proteus (Talk) 19:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] 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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
1. There indeed was a disagreement over the page in question, which involved CheeseDreams, Slrubenstein, & John Kenney. As part of the mediation that Slrubenstein mentions, I intervened in this disagreement, & warned everyone involved that their behavior could lead to all of them being banned for at least 24 hours. All involved indicated that they understood this; because there had been no prior warning, & because it was no longer possible for me to objectively determine who was at fault, I felt there was no point in banning anyone. And as far as I am concerned, the incident is closed -- unless all 3 parties wish to reopen it.
2. CheeseDreams shortly afterwards (about 1500 PST, 3 December 2004) informed me she did not want my help in mediation between her & Slrubenstein. There is no mediation between them at this time, & I am unaware of any mediation planned between at this time. --llywrch 05:43, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
[edit] Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.
