FB's constant complaints about the SPLC are nearly all straw man arguments. There is next to nothing left in the disputed articles that cites to SPLC as a source. Nearly all of the SPLC criticisms can and are cited in mainstream sources as well. FB's paranoid vision of an SPLC conspiracy is a straw man that he habitually raises in order to avoid dealing with the specific issues at hand in good faith. Verklempt 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Of the editors certifying the complaint, I suppose I am not one of the three described as "massive POV pushers" and alleged SPLC partisans. FWIW I am a critic of the institution and its incessant direct-mail campaigns, and a skeptic about some of its claims. I have other points of agreement with the "Southern history and heritage" crowd. Nevertheless, I have found it difficult to work with User:Fix Bayonets! and have patiently endured a variety of insults from him. I have tried to reach an understanding with him by emphasizing our points of agreement and things we have in common as individuals. There seems to have been one insurmountable difference, however: I do not view Wikipedia as an opportunity to proclaim my opinions (whether well informed or not) and to suppress all others. -- Rob C (Alarob) 20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to this from Fix Bayonets!:
- The procedural charges. This Rfc meets the procedural challenge, as it does contain "evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute", namely the Sons of Confederate Veterans dispute. This is evidenced by the SCV talk page, where multiple users were involved, and the diffs on Fix Bayonets' talk page (the messages from Will Beback) which were also related to SCV. Thus, far more than 2 users have tried and failed to resolve the dispute (if need be, I'll provide diffs from SCV). The fact that this RFC also mentions other disputes that users have tried and failed to resolve with Fix Bayonets is evidence of the need for this Rfc, not a defect in it. The rfc guidelines also say "The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it." That's certainly the case here, though perhaps too many users have certified the dispute instead of merely endorsed the summary. Finally, nothing in the Rfc guidelines says that a single user conduct Rfc cannot address multiple disputes with the subject user.
- The substantive charges. I agree with other editors that have commented so far that have noted that accusing other users of POV-pushing is not a defense to charges of POV-pushing of one's own. This Rfc is not about content, it is about the conduct of a particular user, Fix Bayonets!, which has consistently violated Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
· j e r s y k o talk · 03:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a note that Talk:Naming the American Civil War has been archived, so passages under consideration here will now be found in last year's archived discussions. -- Rob C (Alarob) 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
FB's constant complaints about the SPLC are nearly all straw man arguments. There is next to nothing left in the disputed articles that cites to SPLC as a source. Nearly all of the SPLC criticisms can and are cited in mainstream sources as well. FB's paranoid vision of an SPLC conspiracy is a straw man that he habitually raises in order to avoid dealing with the specific issues at hand in good faith. Verklempt 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Of the editors certifying the complaint, I suppose I am not one of the three described as "massive POV pushers" and alleged SPLC partisans. FWIW I am a critic of the institution and its incessant direct-mail campaigns, and a skeptic about some of its claims. I have other points of agreement with the "Southern history and heritage" crowd. Nevertheless, I have found it difficult to work with User:Fix Bayonets! and have patiently endured a variety of insults from him. I have tried to reach an understanding with him by emphasizing our points of agreement and things we have in common as individuals. There seems to have been one insurmountable difference, however: I do not view Wikipedia as an opportunity to proclaim my opinions (whether well informed or not) and to suppress all others. -- Rob C (Alarob) 20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to this from Fix Bayonets!:
- The procedural charges. This Rfc meets the procedural challenge, as it does contain "evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute", namely the Sons of Confederate Veterans dispute. This is evidenced by the SCV talk page, where multiple users were involved, and the diffs on Fix Bayonets' talk page (the messages from Will Beback) which were also related to SCV. Thus, far more than 2 users have tried and failed to resolve the dispute (if need be, I'll provide diffs from SCV). The fact that this RFC also mentions other disputes that users have tried and failed to resolve with Fix Bayonets is evidence of the need for this Rfc, not a defect in it. The rfc guidelines also say "The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it." That's certainly the case here, though perhaps too many users have certified the dispute instead of merely endorsed the summary. Finally, nothing in the Rfc guidelines says that a single user conduct Rfc cannot address multiple disputes with the subject user.
- The substantive charges. I agree with other editors that have commented so far that have noted that accusing other users of POV-pushing is not a defense to charges of POV-pushing of one's own. This Rfc is not about content, it is about the conduct of a particular user, Fix Bayonets!, which has consistently violated Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
· j e r s y k o talk · 03:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a note that Talk:Naming the American Civil War has been archived, so passages under consideration here will now be found in last year's archived discussions. -- Rob C (Alarob) 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)