In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 15:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC).
Thunderbird2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Since the edits by User:Thunderbird2 on the surface do not appear to be obvious vandalism (even though the claims of the user are untrue this is only demonstrated after reading the talk archives) the normal administrators vandalism forum doesn't seem to be the right choice. Repeatedly misrepresenting other editors with false claims of harassment is actually a violation of WP:NPA. The user has been asked to stop quite a few times by multiple editors but this has had little effect. The user is repeatedly making false claims in violation of WP:POINT and WP:PARENT. Therefore this RfC/U is being posted.
Context (Please read this or you will lose your mind trying to figure what the hell is going on): (Click "show" on the hide-box entitled "Is there consensus for the promotion or deprecation of IEC units?"))
Thunderbird2 is doing the following:
Thunderbird2 will:
Failing that, a block/ban.
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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.}
This drama might seem like a tragedy, except that once the word "farce" has entered one's consciousness, no other term quite satisfies.
It seems unlikely that the underlying dispute can be resolved given the current state of affairs and the conduct of the various parties. For example, consider the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/IEC. See if you can find, from any party, a proposal to change the guideline. Conversely, you can easily find endless verbose repetitions of past arguments, claims that consensus has/has not been reached, counterclaims that an earlier, different consensus should/should not apply, and of course accusations of every sort of improper conduct.
None of this moves the debate forward. More to the point, none of this is relevant to the question of whether Wikipedia should be a venue for such a debate.
I freely admit that I haven't helped resolve this. I've made clear my personal opinion that I feel the current wording of the guideline to be quite balanced and in keeping with our cornerstone policies. As such, Thunderbird2 is perhaps unlikely to take any advice I may offer. Be that as it may, I think they should make an effort only to discuss guidelines and only at the relevant talk pages, and avoid making arguments based on past consensus, since consensus can change.
Users who endorse this summary:
Users who endorse this summary:
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.
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 15:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC).
Thunderbird2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Since the edits by User:Thunderbird2 on the surface do not appear to be obvious vandalism (even though the claims of the user are untrue this is only demonstrated after reading the talk archives) the normal administrators vandalism forum doesn't seem to be the right choice. Repeatedly misrepresenting other editors with false claims of harassment is actually a violation of WP:NPA. The user has been asked to stop quite a few times by multiple editors but this has had little effect. The user is repeatedly making false claims in violation of WP:POINT and WP:PARENT. Therefore this RfC/U is being posted.
Context (Please read this or you will lose your mind trying to figure what the hell is going on): (Click "show" on the hide-box entitled "Is there consensus for the promotion or deprecation of IEC units?"))
Thunderbird2 is doing the following:
Thunderbird2 will:
Failing that, a block/ban.
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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.}
This drama might seem like a tragedy, except that once the word "farce" has entered one's consciousness, no other term quite satisfies.
It seems unlikely that the underlying dispute can be resolved given the current state of affairs and the conduct of the various parties. For example, consider the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/IEC. See if you can find, from any party, a proposal to change the guideline. Conversely, you can easily find endless verbose repetitions of past arguments, claims that consensus has/has not been reached, counterclaims that an earlier, different consensus should/should not apply, and of course accusations of every sort of improper conduct.
None of this moves the debate forward. More to the point, none of this is relevant to the question of whether Wikipedia should be a venue for such a debate.
I freely admit that I haven't helped resolve this. I've made clear my personal opinion that I feel the current wording of the guideline to be quite balanced and in keeping with our cornerstone policies. As such, Thunderbird2 is perhaps unlikely to take any advice I may offer. Be that as it may, I think they should make an effort only to discuss guidelines and only at the relevant talk pages, and avoid making arguments based on past consensus, since consensus can change.
Users who endorse this summary:
Users who endorse this summary:
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.