Shem and Heraclius, the RfC rules say that diffs must be supplied showing separate attempts by both editors who certify the RfC to resolve the same dispute i.e to resolve the issue (in this case) of alleged personal attacks, incivility, POV pushing, and original research. The diffs you've provided do not show attempts to resolve these issues (or any other), and as such this RfC remains uncertified. Do you have other diffs that each of you can supply? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- The rules on the page say: "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." This means that each of you must provide evidence that you have tried and failed to resolve the issues you cited, either directly with Tomer or through a third-party (e.g. a mediator). Without that evidence, the RfC will be deleted as uncertified after 48 hours.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 01:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Removing personal attacks, only to have then re-inserted, is a failed attempt at resolving said personal attacks. That you see Tomer's behavior as defensible, and are playing the system against a very simple RfC (created to remove conflict from a semi-heated article), is worrisome. You defended the remark "You want to characterize him as a bloodthirsty Zionist Jew-pig" as "ambiguous" -- with that in mind (and that you have been involved with the conflict on the Talk page), I do not feel you should exercise sysop authority over this RfC. Shem (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Shem, regardless of your or my view of Tomer's remarks, the RfC rules have to be adhered to, and they say that both certifying editors must have made attempts to resolve the dispute, and failed. I don't see that you've produced diffs to show you did (removing a comment from a talk page isn't attempting to resolve the dispute), and Tomer apologized to Heraclius, and the apology was accepted, so that dispute is over. In addition, none of the diffs you've given show a policy violation.
- Without evidence of dispute resolution, the page will have to be deleted after 48 hours.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 23:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with your assessment that there are no violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility here, as well as your standards for "adquate" Talk page resolution, and ask that you recuse yourself from sysop involvement here. I believe you to be personally involved in the conflict. Shem (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- Without evidence of dispute resolution, the page will have to be deleted after 48 hours.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 23:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not involved in this dispute, Shem, and don't even know what it's about. (And having read the RfC, I still don't know.) I posted to Heraclius that I thought a sentence he was offended by was ambiguous. Tomer apologized for it, and Heraclius accepted the apology, so that dispute is over. I have no idea what other disputes there are, or who they're with. Whether or not I think there are policy violations is irrelevant to the issue of certification and whether the page is deleted, and I'm sorry, I won't recuse myself.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 02:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- You have participated extensively at Talk:Eden Natan-Zada, and this RfC is neither confusing nor ambiguous. You are not accepting valid proof of attempting to resolve Tomer's personal attacks. This seems quite inappropriate now, as someone involved on the page where the described conflict has taken place is steering the RfC for deletion. This page was properly certified prior to your suggesting Tomer's comments to be "ambiguity" (which is all Tomer apologized for, "ambiguity"), and I (again) suggest that you recuse yourself. Shem (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not involved in this dispute, Shem, and don't even know what it's about. (And having read the RfC, I still don't know.) I posted to Heraclius that I thought a sentence he was offended by was ambiguous. Tomer apologized for it, and Heraclius accepted the apology, so that dispute is over. I have no idea what other disputes there are, or who they're with. Whether or not I think there are policy violations is irrelevant to the issue of certification and whether the page is deleted, and I'm sorry, I won't recuse myself.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 02:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Shem, you're mistaken about me having participated extensively at Talk:Eden Natan-Zada. If you check the history, you'll see I've hardly posted to it, and I genuinely don't know what the dispute between you and Tomer is about. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I did accept Tomer's apology, but the larger dispute between him and Shem hasn't been resolved yet. In all honesty, I don't have the diffs you're asking for that you would consider proof of trying to resolve the dispute with him. Shem gave you an explanation above about removing and reinserting the comments, but you didn't accept that as proof. I am really not interested in fighting over RfC's, and Tomer's not that disruptive of an editor, so do what you like. Heraclius 03:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for your input, Heraclius. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I've deleted the page, because Heraclius has accepted Tomer's apology, doesn't have evidence of a further dispute, and doesn't seem to mind about continuing with the RfC; and also because Shem's diffs don't show clear evidence of trying to resolve the dispute (but even if they did, we need evidence from two editors). Shem, if you approach Tomer directly, he'll probably be glad to sort out whatever the remaining issues are. Let me know if I can help. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Shem and Heraclius, the RfC rules say that diffs must be supplied showing separate attempts by both editors who certify the RfC to resolve the same dispute i.e to resolve the issue (in this case) of alleged personal attacks, incivility, POV pushing, and original research. The diffs you've provided do not show attempts to resolve these issues (or any other), and as such this RfC remains uncertified. Do you have other diffs that each of you can supply? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- The rules on the page say: "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." This means that each of you must provide evidence that you have tried and failed to resolve the issues you cited, either directly with Tomer or through a third-party (e.g. a mediator). Without that evidence, the RfC will be deleted as uncertified after 48 hours.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 01:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Removing personal attacks, only to have then re-inserted, is a failed attempt at resolving said personal attacks. That you see Tomer's behavior as defensible, and are playing the system against a very simple RfC (created to remove conflict from a semi-heated article), is worrisome. You defended the remark "You want to characterize him as a bloodthirsty Zionist Jew-pig" as "ambiguous" -- with that in mind (and that you have been involved with the conflict on the Talk page), I do not feel you should exercise sysop authority over this RfC. Shem (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Shem, regardless of your or my view of Tomer's remarks, the RfC rules have to be adhered to, and they say that both certifying editors must have made attempts to resolve the dispute, and failed. I don't see that you've produced diffs to show you did (removing a comment from a talk page isn't attempting to resolve the dispute), and Tomer apologized to Heraclius, and the apology was accepted, so that dispute is over. In addition, none of the diffs you've given show a policy violation.
- Without evidence of dispute resolution, the page will have to be deleted after 48 hours.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 23:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with your assessment that there are no violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility here, as well as your standards for "adquate" Talk page resolution, and ask that you recuse yourself from sysop involvement here. I believe you to be personally involved in the conflict. Shem (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- Without evidence of dispute resolution, the page will have to be deleted after 48 hours.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 23:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not involved in this dispute, Shem, and don't even know what it's about. (And having read the RfC, I still don't know.) I posted to Heraclius that I thought a sentence he was offended by was ambiguous. Tomer apologized for it, and Heraclius accepted the apology, so that dispute is over. I have no idea what other disputes there are, or who they're with. Whether or not I think there are policy violations is irrelevant to the issue of certification and whether the page is deleted, and I'm sorry, I won't recuse myself.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 02:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- You have participated extensively at Talk:Eden Natan-Zada, and this RfC is neither confusing nor ambiguous. You are not accepting valid proof of attempting to resolve Tomer's personal attacks. This seems quite inappropriate now, as someone involved on the page where the described conflict has taken place is steering the RfC for deletion. This page was properly certified prior to your suggesting Tomer's comments to be "ambiguity" (which is all Tomer apologized for, "ambiguity"), and I (again) suggest that you recuse yourself. Shem (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not involved in this dispute, Shem, and don't even know what it's about. (And having read the RfC, I still don't know.) I posted to Heraclius that I thought a sentence he was offended by was ambiguous. Tomer apologized for it, and Heraclius accepted the apology, so that dispute is over. I have no idea what other disputes there are, or who they're with. Whether or not I think there are policy violations is irrelevant to the issue of certification and whether the page is deleted, and I'm sorry, I won't recuse myself.
SlimVirgin
(talk) 02:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Shem, you're mistaken about me having participated extensively at Talk:Eden Natan-Zada. If you check the history, you'll see I've hardly posted to it, and I genuinely don't know what the dispute between you and Tomer is about. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I did accept Tomer's apology, but the larger dispute between him and Shem hasn't been resolved yet. In all honesty, I don't have the diffs you're asking for that you would consider proof of trying to resolve the dispute with him. Shem gave you an explanation above about removing and reinserting the comments, but you didn't accept that as proof. I am really not interested in fighting over RfC's, and Tomer's not that disruptive of an editor, so do what you like. Heraclius 03:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for your input, Heraclius. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I've deleted the page, because Heraclius has accepted Tomer's apology, doesn't have evidence of a further dispute, and doesn't seem to mind about continuing with the RfC; and also because Shem's diffs don't show clear evidence of trying to resolve the dispute (but even if they did, we need evidence from two editors). Shem, if you approach Tomer directly, he'll probably be glad to sort out whatever the remaining issues are. Let me know if I can help. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)