THIS IS A DRAFT - THE REAL RFC IS HERE TheronJ 22:15, 31 July 2006 (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 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: _________(UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
user:Hipocrite and I are unable to resolve a disagreement regarding Hipocrite's treatment of a third editor, user:History21.
I would say that I don't mean this RFC as a criticism of Hipocrite -- we're just unable to resolve this disagreement, and I think some outside commentary would be helpful.
As background, Hipocrite has previously accused History21 of taking part in a series of hoaxes, primarily about the "Eire family." (See here).
As far as I can tell, no one has ever posted diffs explaining what History21 did that constitutes a hoax, and History21 denies being part of any hoax. [1]
From the looks of the articles he created on this subject, History21 probably needs a little help with wiki policies on sourcing, but I can't see that he's engaged in any hoax. See, e.g., [2], [3].
I'm not 100% sure which policies apply - it could be that I'm in the wrong here, but I would appeciate an outside opinion. Strong possibilities.
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:
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:
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.
THIS IS A DRAFT - THE REAL RFC IS HERE TheronJ 22:15, 31 July 2006 (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 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: _________(UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
user:Hipocrite and I are unable to resolve a disagreement regarding Hipocrite's treatment of a third editor, user:History21.
I would say that I don't mean this RFC as a criticism of Hipocrite -- we're just unable to resolve this disagreement, and I think some outside commentary would be helpful.
As background, Hipocrite has previously accused History21 of taking part in a series of hoaxes, primarily about the "Eire family." (See here).
As far as I can tell, no one has ever posted diffs explaining what History21 did that constitutes a hoax, and History21 denies being part of any hoax. [1]
From the looks of the articles he created on this subject, History21 probably needs a little help with wiki policies on sourcing, but I can't see that he's engaged in any hoax. See, e.g., [2], [3].
I'm not 100% sure which policies apply - it could be that I'm in the wrong here, but I would appeciate an outside opinion. Strong possibilities.
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:
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:
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.