User:Cla68/Sandbox/RfC draft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: 22:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC).
- SlimVirgin (talk • contribs • logs)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
[edit] 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.
[edit] Description
SlimVirgin is a dedicated administrator and editor who often does some very good work in helping to improve and administer Wikipedia. Unfortunately, however, she also consistently behaves in a manner — both as an editor and as an admin — which clearly and repeatedly violates several policies and guidelines and are inappropriate and counterproductive for constructing an open content encyclopedia. Below are some examples of SlimVirgin's problematic behavior.
[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior
[edit] Abuse of administrator privileges
-
- Using admin tools to win a dispute over where to have a discussion: Moves editing content and history related to dispute she was involved in [1] to the animal rights project forum of which she is the founder [2] [3], edit wars over location of discussion, then admin deletes original discussion [4] (visible to admins)
- Protects WP:V policy page during dispute in which she is involved [5] then edits the protected page [6]. Reported to ANI [7]
[edit] Questionable admin actions
-
- Unblocks Zareaph who had been harassing SandyGeorgia [8]. SlimVirgin had previously, along with FeloniousMonk, personally attacked SandyGeorgia (diffs also in personal attacks and incivility section in this RfC) [9] [10]. Then, after the unblock, asks at Psychopathy talk, "The problem here for me is that I'm not aware of the background." [11] and on her own talk page, "hoping someone can explain the dispute to me." [12] During AN discussion of the unblock, SV describes the harassment by Zareaph as a "protracted content dispute" [13]. Arbitrators subsequently and unanimously ban Zareaph for one year for harassment [14] and say that SlimVirgin's unblock was "unwise" but "within her discretion" [15]
- Protects the talk page of Carl Hewitt [16], with the claim that "As the article is currently protected from editing, there's no need for this to be open at the moment anyway" [17].
- Admin deletes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Hewitt for "BLP concerns" [18] [19]. When asked to provide evidence of BLP concerns, does not respond [20] [21] [22] and page is restored [23] [24]
[edit] Personal attacks and incivility
-
- After an editor questions a block issued by Jayjg, SlimVirgin accuses the editor of "stalking" her and Jayjg on the talk page of an article and the editor's userpage and then threatens the editor with dispute resolution and a ban [25] [26] [27]. Criticism of her comments by other editors are deleted by Crum375 [28].
- To editor in which she is involved in a policy content dispute, "I feel almost as though I'm being wikistalked" [29] [30] and accuses same editor of supporting "wikistalking and trolling" [31] [32] and WP:POINT and "childish behavior" [33] [34]
- Personal attack on editor with which she is involved in a content dispute, "I think you're into disruption rather than editing." [35] (Crum375 then soon after archives the entire talk page [36])
- During a content dispute: "It's rather unfortunate to see SandyGeorgia, TimVickers, and Marskell join forces yet again for another attack" and "just because you didn't get your own way doesn't mean there was a conspiracy to deprive you of it" [37]
- During same content dispute: "But will that apply to you too, Sandy, when you ask your friends to turn up to revert and argument and insult other people on your behalf? Or should it apply only to people who get in the way of what you want?" [38] and "Don't start up here, Sandy. This is not a medical article. This is about animal research, and requires very specific knowledge. It certainly isn't helped by enemies arriving with insults about conspiracy theories." [39]
- During same content dispute: "two people who oppose me over other issues have turned up, one of whom regularly wikistalks me", "neither of whom has any specialist knowledge", and "Tim. In fact, it looks like an attempt simply to get some numbers on your side" [40]
- Accuses editor of personal attacks, without providing evidence, saying "It has been going on, on and off, for well over a year" and "be aware that I will take this further" [41], "you and I are going to end up at the ArbCom over this", "stop making personal comments about me, and stop looking for excuses to get another dig in" [42]
- To an editor in which she is involved in a content dispute: "You're just looking for an excuse to remove links to a source you don't like, Tim, and that's a misuse of this board" [43], "Because I fought him on that, Tim became very annoyed with me, and I think resentful, and posted a large number of complaints about me in various places, accusing me of WP:OWN, and encouraging other people to oppose me" and "Tim subsequently wikistalked me to a few articles" [44], "Except that he's been told many times that it's inappropriate, and yet he continues. AGF doesn't involve being deaf, dumb, and blind. Either he knows what he's doing and is deliberately out to cause a problem; or he has so little idea about policy creation and maintenance that he really believes we can (and should) fundamentally undermine NPOV" [45], "as usual I was too busy arguing petty non-issues with you. I don't know where you find the time or energy to engage like this, Tim, I really don't. We are supposed to be writing articles" [46], "All that's happening at the moment is that, because I know sources are not being represented well, I don't trust your edits, so I feel I have to check everything. This leads to endless back and forth between us, poisons this page, and makes us distrust each other. It would be great if I could know I didn't have to check your edits when I see your name crop up" [47], and "Tim is giving us...That's OR, uninformative, and not what's wanted" [48]
- During same content dispute gives false warning of 3RR violation on editor's talk page "If you add that again, you may be reported for 3RR. Please read the policy carefully, as you've almost certainly violated it already" [49] (reported to WP:ANI here [50])
- To editor in which she was involved in a content dispute, "Marskell, you need to stop the poison. This is one of several poisonous threads you've either started about me or gleefully joined in" and "I've had nothing but the drip, drip, drip of toxicity from you" [51] and, "Given your own tendency to follow SandyGeorgia around backing her up in disputes, including disputes of her own making, and attacking people she wants you to attack", "It sometimes feels as though you'd be happy to see certain people driven off the website" and "You are allowed to post insults about me and my friends, but I am not meant to respond, unless I want to risk even more attacks" [52] and, "You follow her around acting as an attack dog" [53]
- To editor in which she was involved in a dispute over a FAR "Sandy, please quit trying to make trouble. You turned up at an FAR insulting the editors who had written it. My suggestion is that you apologize first to FM and the other editors of that article, and that you start writing some FAs yourself instead of only reviewing other people's, because that would give you some much-needed insight into how much work is involved, and how dispiriting it is when that work is aggressively attacked" [54] (Note: SlimVirgin also appears to be supporting an attack by FeloniousMonk on SandyGeorgia [55])
- Removes comment from established editor on her userpage as "removed trolling" [56] Has previously told at least one other editor that "It's a violation of NPA to call someone a troll" [57].
- To editor in which she was involved in a content dispute, "If you want to drive me away from Wikipedia, you, Tim, Sandy, and your little circle of insulting friends are going the right way about it" [58]
- During discussion over creation of Category:Animal rights activists, comments to other involved editors who have a different opinion: "The two users who want to split the category into activists v. everyone else, Viriditas and Lquilter, are not familiar with the animal rights literature" [59], "you make personal attacks, sarcastic comments, and keep repeating the same old claims (claims, not arguments). For once, provide some scholarly sources to back up what you say" and "you must provide a scholarly source that says something different about those terms, or else don't mention it again, please" [60], "You're making a huge supposition there, Safemariner (and so far as I know, false for the most part), and in any event, it's the people editing those pages who understand the issues" [61], "it looks as though you're happy to create a mess and leave it for others to tidy up" [62], "Your posts are so unpleasant that I'm not going to answer any more, and your spamming for support isn't helpful." [63], "I think you ought to try, because it would help you to see the wrongheadedness of the categories you were suggesting" [64]
- During discussion of Animal rights subcats, comments to other involved editors who have a different opinion: "it needs to be done by people who know something about the movement, otherwise we'll have chaos" (diff missing), "It was undone because you made a mess of it" [65], "Please learn something about the movement before trying to involve yourself" [66], "You know nothing about AR" [67], "You're the one who tried to ignore all the regular editors of the pages and leap in regardless" [68], "Please stop the implied threats and the hostility" [69]
- To editor in which she is involved in a topic dispute: "V, you wikistalked me here" [70], "I have the diffs. You've stalked me to animal rights pages" [71], "You seem to think you can act provocatively and it somehow doesn't count (it's just "improving the encyclopedia"), but when anyone else does it, they're in the wrong. That's not how the world works" [72], "Please keep your opinion of him to yourself from now on" [73], "stop attacking people, please, or I will request admin intervention" [74], "whenever you get involved in a disagreement, the talk page turns toxic" [75], "We need some sources for this one because Viriditas has been making them up" [76], "I just wanted to see that we were only adding real acronyms, and that we didn't include the ones you earlier made up" [77], "you point to a previous non-answer in another section, in order to confuse people. I've watched you do this before. All it achieves is that people get annoyed with you" [78], "You're deliberately creating confusion, and have been doing it for days. There's no point, because no one understands what you're saying" [79], "I don't think I've ever been involved in a discussion on Wikipedia with someone who has posted so much and has been so unhelpful" [80], "It's like watching someone commit wikisuicide, to be frank" [81]
- To editor in which she is involved in a content dispute, "You are fanatically anti-PETA, and have been at this for around two years. Please give it a rest" [82]
- In edit summary to editor in which she is involved in a content dispute, "quit stalking me" [83]
- To opposing editors during a content dispute in which she is involved at Factory farming, "the arguments of the last few days have been very damaging, very toxic" [84], "Nathan, the long and frequent posts from you are starting up again. They aren't helping" [85], "Life's too short for silliness and wikilawyering, and you can't take this talk page hostage again" [86]
- Tells editor, "Do not place templates on my talk page" and to talk about the article only on the article talk page, not on her talk page [87]
- States that editor "wikistalked" her without providing evidence [88]
- Tells editor with which she is in a dispute over an image license, "You are being disruptive. Do not edit my user page again." [89] [90]
- Reverts a userbox back to a version containing a personal attack on a living person.[91].
- Asks RfA candidate that she opposes because of his opposition to the rejected BADSITES policy, "I seem to recall your posting something that implied you felt it was okay to link to attack sites" [92], then opposes after he answers stating his opposition to the BADSITES policy [93]. Then states that her opposition is based on his posting to Wikipedia Review, saying, "I fear there's a lack of imagination and empathy in your approach" [94] and says, "People can be poor admins without actually abusing the tools" [95] and to the candidate directly "How utterly bizarre that you'd repeat the opinion of an anon IP and an attack site" [96] and "every reply, every evasion, has deepened my concerns. The last thing we need is another admin who jumps in head first to defend troublemakers without knowing the background" [97] and "During this RfA, you have exhibited exactly the qualities of the part-time, doesn't-inform-himself-before-posting admin" [98]. Then moves responses to oppose votes, even though usually allowed, to the talk page [99] [100] [101]. Later says of candidate, "I fear Gracenotes will be an admin who gives every troll and troublemaker the benefit of the doubt because he's unwilling to inform himself before speaking" [102]
- Attacks an administrator during a image license/deletion debate. First, tries to tell administrator to leave the discussion [103], then accuses him of making an attack [104], then implies that he isn't acting in good faith [105], then attacks him as a "Wikipedia Review contributor and supporter and the very worst of both worlds" [106], and claims that the editor "has a grudge" against her and is conducting a personal attack and trolling [107], repeats that the administrator is "trolling" and adds that he is "out to cause trouble" [108], then asks of the administrator, "is there any need for you to continue to post here?" [109], and then adds, "No, you don't have to post here. Doing so simply deepens the impression that you are, indeed, trying to cause trouble." [110], then refers to the administrator as one of a group of "lunatics and trolls" [111] (Note: Jayjg and FeloniousMonk joined SlimVirgin in making personal attacks during the discussion. Jayjg: [112] [113] [114] [115]. FeloniousMonk: [116] and [117].)
- To editor in a content dispute, "you're here only because you stalked me here, not because you're familiar with the subject." [118] and "don't stalk me, and answer the question on your talk page regarding whose sockpuppet you are" in an edit summary [119]. (Note: Editor was later blocked by SlimVirgin as a sock puppet [120]).
- Without presenting evidence, states in an RfA that the RfA candidate "appears to live in the same state" as a banned editor [121].
- To editor in content dispute, "You are insane if you call my edit vandalism, and I mean that very sincerely and in the literal sense. Stop your propaganda efforts or I will go back to the ArbCom and will formally request that they kick you out of Wikipedia or ask you to stop editing LaRouche articles, which would amount to the same thing because that's all you ever do. You shouldn't have anything to do with Wikipedia. Have you noticed that ALL your edits cause trouble? You are a poisonous troll." [122] and "You are a toxic troll." [123]. Subsequent finding of personal attacks listed in ArbCom decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 and cautioned not to make any more in the future [124].
[edit] WP:OWN and WP:NPOV
[edit] Owning of policy or article pages
-
- Attacks editor who made changes to a policy, saying that the editor's edits "have clearly caused the writing to deteriorate" and that the editor "doesn't have the experience to be going around changing guidelines or policies" and concludes with "It is starting to feel as though I'm being trolled" [125]
- Reverts edit on New antisemitism article even though change had been agreed to in talk page discussion in which she had not participated [126] [127], then, on the talk page, tells one of the actively involved editors, "Just because people don't keep on responding to your many, many posts doesn't mean they agree. Your changes don't improve anything." [128]
- Revert wars at WP:NOR [129] [130] [131]
- Makes significant change to WP:NOR, including removal of entire paragraph, with misleading edit summary [132], discussed here [133] and then reverts other editors' changes, stating that they must have "consensus" first before making the changes [134] [135] discussed here [136] and then reverts changes made from a talk page discussion that she did not participate in [137]
- Makes significant change to WP:POLICY with edit summary of "tweaked writing" [138].
- Reverts edit [139] at WP:BLP, saying "silence doesn't mean assent." Editor had posted proposed wording change the day before on talk page and had been extensively discussed and accepted by other editors except for SlimVirgin [140]
- Reverts a significant amount of material to WP:A and labels edit as "minor" [141]
- Uses strawmen argument at WP:BLP with editors she doesn't agree with "we may as well skip that step altogether, and just allow editors to add their personal opinions about other people to articles directly" [142] [143] [144]
- Edit wars at WP:V against a consensus other editors have formed on the talk page without participating in the talk page discussion [145] [146] [147] reverts editor who made a blank edit- [148]
- Makes significant changes to WP:V with edit summary of "tightened" [149]
- Tag team reverting with Crum375 and Jayjg on COI policy against talk page consensus, SV labels her revert edit as "minor" [150] [151] [152]
[edit] Animal rights POV pushing
-
- Deletes Category:Animal rights activists without discussion [153], then reverts editor who restores it [154], then redirects it to Category:Animal rights movement [155], then redirects again saying, falsely "as agreed" [156], and redirects again [157]
- Move redirects new article List of animal rights activists to Animal rights movement (list) [158]([159] 03:31, 24 December 2006) then redirects to Animal liberation movement without copying over any of the material [160] from the original article [161], effectively making it disappear
- Redirects "ALF" to Animal Liberation Front [162] in spite of evidence that this is incorrect and against policy (WP:DAB) [163] [164]. Community involvement required to correct the redirect [165]. Then, continues to try to fight community consensus by again redirecting [166] [167] and resurrecting the discussion [168] (almost this entire page is her and Crum375 unsuccessfully trying to argue that their redirect opinion on "ALF" is the correct one). During this time, does nine move-over redirects of page [169]. She still didn't give up, requiring intervention by additional editors [170] [171] [172].
- Redirects Intensive farming to Factory farming and labels it as minor edit [173] then, after being reverted [174] redirects again, stating that "no, these terms are used interchangeably; see factory farming talk page; it is absurd to have three articles on the same topic" [175] although there is clearly no agreement on the talk page for this redirect [176] (almost this entire archived page is debate over having Factory farming and Intensive farming as two separate articles)
- Removes cited material during content dispute at Animal testing, saying, "either find more sources that say that (preferably specialist sources) or leave it out" [177]. After second and third confirmatory sources are added, Crum375 tries to POV massage the material [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] including another revert [183] and SlimVirgin helps with more POV edits [184] [185]
- Rejects cited material in a content dispute she is involved in at Animal testing, stating that the "authors have almost certainly just made a mistake" [186] (full discussion [187])
- Removes cited content from an article during a content dispute with an edit summary of "some tidying" [188]
- Removes part of a cited statement by an expert source from article [189]
- Example of POV, "What I would object to is regarding zoos and their supporters as neutral, but the animal welfare or rights perspective as a POV" [190]
- During content dispute at Zoo, "PETA is a perfectly valid source for criticism, especially as they're citing other sources too. You are fanatically anti-PETA, and have been at this for around two years. Please give it a rest and do not remove them again." [191]
- At Zoo, removes cited material because disagrees with the quote and because she doesn't have actual possession of the book used as a source [192]
- Clearly states POV position on animal right's issues, "what I suggest is that you ask a friend to tie you to the end of a rope, and take you out on the streets, where he will use you to beg for money whenever it suits him. Ask him not to let you go no matter how you kick and scream. Ask your local police station to ignore that you're being dragged around as though you were a thing, rather than a living being — tell them it's research for Wikipedia. Ask your friend to be sure not to feed you well, to stick you in a small cage when he's not using you, and not to let you have contact with the outside world except via him. Try to imagine that the situation will last until you die. Then pop back here and let us know whether it makes sense to cite that image as unnecessary cruelty." [193]
[edit] Miscellaneous bad-faith editing
-
- Changes section heading of WP:ANI thread to remove Crum375's name [194]
- Deletes editor's comment from someone else's user talk page [195]
- Deletes another editor's comment during an RfA that she opposes [196]
- Deletes a post from WP:AN announcing the opening of an RfC in which past actions that she was involved in are discussed [197]. When the editor asks her on her user talk page why she deleted the post, she immediately deletes the question without responding, then quickly archives her talk page (these diffs were subsequently admin deleted by Crum375 but the times and text are here)
- Edits the blocking policy to provide support for the block threat [198] made by Crum375 around the same time over the posting of the name of an off-wiki website at the center of a debate in which SlimVirgin is involved.
- After a lengthy tag team revert war on the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals page (involving Crum375), a request for sock puppet investigation of SlimVirgin/Crum375 was deleted by SlimVirgin citing "quit it" [199]
- Deletes almost an entire "list" article and labels the edit as "minor" [200]
- Inserts a negative comment in the middle of someone else's response in a policy dispute talk page discussion [201]
[edit] Lying or other unethical editing
-
- Requests mediation during a content dispute and states, falsely, that "several article RfCs" had occurred previously [202]
- Requested that an RfA nomination that was within three hours of successfully closing be extended by using guilt by association without evidence [203]. After the RfA is extended, she then votes to oppose the RfA, stating, again without evidence, that the RfA candidate had posted on Wikipedia Review [204].
- Redirects Category:Animal rights activists with edit summary "as agreed" [205]. There was no discussion on the category's talk page related to redirecting the category [206] and discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion two months prior was "no consensus" [207]
- Ownership (via reverting, tag team reverting with Crum375, forcing page protect)[208][209] of various animal related pages including People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Zoo, Factory farming. Revert is used often in place of participation in discussion despite many requests to engage in discussion.[210], (references to user's talk page have been deleted)
- Attempt to redefine terms in face of numerous editors, dictionary and encyclopaedic evidence.[211][212]
- Although having edited pages to do with animal welfare and animal liberation: misrepresented the two in order to excuse editing without further discussion.[213]
- During dispute at WP:V claims that opposing editors are "engaged in all kinds of unpleasant tactics, including personal attacks and starting forest fires in an effort to wear people down" without providing evidence, because there isn't any [214]
- During content dispute over "see also" section, accuses editor of, "moving from article to article to remove See alsos that you don't like" [215]. Editor's user history shows no evidence of doing this [216].
[edit] Abusive sockpuppetry
[edit] Not yet classified or collecting full facts
- Tag team editing and reverting [219] (March 2007)
- Quits Wikipedia for a few days in protest of attempt to unblock this editor [220]
- Tag team wheel warring with Jayjg and FM on article deletion/restoration [221] [222]
- [223] question about Crum375's admin deletion of most of SlimVirgin's talk page history
- [224]. SV/Crum375 sockpuppet complaint. Not much evidence provided.
- Diffs related to use of abusive sockpuppet in FAC nomination [225] [226] [227] [228]
- Abusive editing of guideline page with Crum375 [229]
- Ownership of policy pages: Harrassment- [230] [231]; Private correspondence- [232]
- [233]
- [234]
- Use of CyberStalking mailing list to canvass support for or against issues/editors [235] [236] [237] [238] Jimbo's statement- [239]
- [240]
- [241]
- [242]
- 3RR's cited material from Animal rights [243] [244] [245], then, after the cited material is readded, Jayjg protects the page [246], then reverts it to SlimVirgin's version [247]
- [248]
- [249]
- [250] votes to delete banned user's page as an "attack page"
- Deletes RfC [251]
- SV was the one who added the two-person certification rule for user-conduct RfCs [252] (policy was already a community norm, SV just put it in writing)
- SV and Jayjg mutual support in edit war [253]
- ANI thread on SV and Jayjg in content dispute at New anti-Semitism [254]
- [255] (admin deleted)
[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines
[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
-
- Attempts by Cla68 to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [256], [257], [258], [259], [260]. Additional attempts were admin deleted by Crum375.
- Attempts by Mackan79 to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [261] [262]
- Attempt by Cool Hand Luke to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [263]
- Attempts by Random832 to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [264] [265] [266] [267]
- Attempts by CBM to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [268] [269] [270]
- Attempts by Krimpet to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [271] [272]
- Attempts by Crotalus horridus to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [273] [274]
- Attempt by Oleg Alexandrov to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [275]
- Attempt by Avraham to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [276]
- Attempt by John254 to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [277]
- Attempts by Vassyana to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [278] [279] [280]
- Attempts by Mattisse to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [281] [282] [283]
- Attempt by Tony1 to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [284]
- Attempt by Jitse Niesen to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [285]
- Attempt by Fullstop to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [286]
- Attempt by Thegoodson to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [287]
- Attempts by Jd2718 to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [288]
- Attempts by William Avery to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute[289][290] [291]
- Attempt by Mabuimo to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [292]
- Attempt by Messedrocker to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [293]
- Attempt by Alatari to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [294]
- Attempt by Phil Sandifer to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [295]
- Attempt by Gmaxwell to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [296]
- Attempt by David Levy to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [297]
- Attempt by NathanLee to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [298]
- Attempt by Pygmypony to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [299]
- Attempt by Dsol to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [300]
- Attempt by Cyde to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [301]
- Attempt by Radiant! to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [302]
- Attempt by Kool gall1991 to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [303]
- Attempt by Count Iblis to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [304]
- Attempt by Jav43 to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [305]
- Attempt by Matt57 to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [306] [307]
- Attempt by DGG to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [308]
- Attempt by Tom Ketchum to influence SlimVirgin's behavior or resolve the dispute [309]
[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
[edit] Other users who endorse this summary
[edit] 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.
{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:
[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 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.}
Users who endorse this summary:
[edit] 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.