Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig

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, 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: 00:44, 2004 Dec 3), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC).

Note to readers

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.

Note to admins - There has been a request (on the talk page to preserve this RfC even after the deadline so it may be used as evidence against the submitter. Should the 48 hour deadline be reached without a second certifier, please protect this page, rather than delete it.

(Jwrosenzweig | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Description

Jwrosenzweig indulged and continued an Ad Hominem attack on me, irrelevant to the discussion of the topic, in an RfC

about someone else
about a different issue

Jwrosenzweig is a member of the Arbitration committee, and as such is one of those people whose behaviour must be able to be trusted as fair and NPOV. Personal attacks and Ad Hominem are in violation of this principle.

When asked for the comment to be removed or struck through, it was refused.

It is not acceptable for a member of the Arbitration committee to behave in this manner.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

indulgance of and continuation of the Ad Hominem - [1]
further continuance of the ad hominem - [2]

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

my request to not commit ad hominem attacks, especially with regards to his position as an abritration committee member [3]
further continuance of the ad hominem - [4]
my explanation of why it is an ad hominem and warning for him to retract it/strike through it (in accordance with Wikipedia:No personal attacks) [5]
his refusal to stick to the discussion on the talk page and continuance of the ad hominem instead [6]
my second request for him to retract it [7]
his refusal, and statement of his unwillingness to remove the offensive ad hominem [8]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

CheeseDreams 20:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

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.

I really have very little to say. In the page CheeseDreams refers to above, there was a dispute between CheeseDreams and another user (Rhobite, as I recall) regarding whether or not the three revert rule had been broken at a particular article. My comments were limited to clarifying what the three revert rule actually states. It appears to me that CheeseDreams considers Rhobite's comments to be an ad hominem attack, in that they were an allegation of wrongdoing on CheeseDreams's part in an RFC against Slrubenstein; it further appears to me that CheeseDreams regards my remarks about the three revert rule as ad hominem purely because they were initiated by Rhobite's remarks. I regard this assertion as ludicrous -- I made no allegations of any kind about anyone's argument, and simply offered, in my own words, the force of the three revert rule. I have done nothing wrong, and I have to regard CheeseDreams's assertions here as either an attempt to cast aspersion on me (and a poor one, at that: I have made mistakes at Wikipedia, that I fully acknowledge, so the thought of being brought here when I have done nothing wrong seems especially odd) or a more general attempt to increase dissent and argument at Wikipedia (which has been my general experience in interacting with CheeseDreams, though I certainly hope it will not continue to be in the future). Jwrosenzweig 03:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I will add, as the point has been raised by CheeseDreams, that I did consider raising the point on CDs talk page rather than on the RFC page. I chose not to, however, as CD had stated her version of the policy as though it were factual -- if I responded on CDs talk page rather than on the RFC, I felt the misunderstanding might spread to users who read that page. I don't know if this needed explaining, but I thought I would note why I chose not to use the talk page -- had CD asked if the rule applied to sides rather than individuals (rather than asserted her understanding), I feel confident I would have left the note on her talk page. Jwrosenzweig 20:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Jwrosenzweig 03:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) (assuming I need sign here as well as above)
I have gotten the strong impression that cheese is trolling, rather than trying to push a POV (which many have assumed). His antagonism towards Jwrosenzweig seems an especially obvious example of this, and is of course utterly without merit. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I find very hard to imagine James making ad hominem attacks, and going through the link provided indeed i found none. Its interesting to note that the complaining user does not point one particular edit or difference to illustrate the so-called attack. muriel@pt 12:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 12:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
These are the only four edits Jwrosenzweig has made to CheeseDreams' talk page. [9] [10] [11] [12]. This page is also relevant: [13]. I can't see how any of them can properly be described as an ad hominem attack (for which I think the UK equivalent is "playing the man, not the ball"). Nor do I see those links as being evidence of anything other than Jwrosenzweig acting entirely properly.jguk 13:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Slrubenstein 18:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) On the basis of the "evidence of disputed behavior" alone, I think Jwrosenzweig should be given a barnstar for good citizenship.
Cool Hand Luke 19:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
JWR did nothing wrong. -- Netoholic @ 19:59, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
Not only has Jwrosenzweig done nothing wrong, he has conducted himself with exemplary skill, diplomacy, tact and restraint, and he ought to be commended. Antandrus 21:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Decumanus 21:27, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
JDG 04:36, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) Another tedious diversion of people's time and energy by CheeseDreams.
Very Verily 08:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) Clearcut.
G Rutter 09:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) Jwrosenzweig has acted entirely properly and with civility- in spite of CDs rudeness.
Proteus (Talk) 09:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Mackensen (talk) 20:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
—No-One Jones ^(m) 20:57, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Piling on. . .) I find CheeseDreams' hostility bizarre. I can understand how she would fight with some of our more eristic users, but JWR has never been anything but polite and diplomatic.
I'm probably not allowed to comment here, but I wish to point out that it isn't hostility as such - it is a specific issue of persuit of an ad hominem against me and the refusal to retract it, action which violates the principle that the arbitration committee must be above suspicion, and must set standards rather. CheeseDreams 22:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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.

{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 (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.