Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn

message: The above request is in my opinion biased and unfounded. The above request is a reaction on the incident reported by Petri Krohn earlier today. Support for Petri by me and other editors can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Independent_view. I have first hand experience of edit warring and incivility by requesters Digwuren and Alexia. Otto 20:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it back. Sorry. Misread the instructions myself. work needed on the form tho.--Alexia Death 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Otto ter Haar]] objection moved from page dor misplacement

message: This latest escalation in accusations started when I updated my user page by adding Liberation of Europe (a redirect to Allied occupation of Europe) to the Redirects section. Half a day later User:Digwuren started a massive attack against the :Category:Allied occupation of Europe by first removing all articles from it, then nominating the category and its main article Allied occupation of Europe for deletion.
I commented on the AfD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied occupation of Europe:
Some time later, he responded by an "comment" on my talk page, with an even fancier collection of shortcuts to Wikipedia guidelines, which I dismissed as trolling.
Digwuren has presented the rest of the timeline someplace else. -- Petri Krohn 23:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline and history 

message: On the RFC page Bishonen stated quite categorically that This RFC will be deleted unless some real attempt at dispute resolution is made within 48 hours of posting it. You are saying you require evidence that a new attempt being made within 48 hours. Other approved articles seem to have a lower burden of proof, for example the approved RFC Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sarah777#Evidence_of_trying_and_failing_to_resolve_the_dispute presents only 4 diffs of past attempts as evidence. Can you clear up this confusion. Martintg 00:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've addressed this issue above. Bishonen | talk 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make it clear, what you are asking for is evidence of a new attempt that is made or started within 48 hours, rather than asking for additional evidence of any previous attempt to be posted within 48 hours? Is that interpretation correct? Martintg 02:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict with Alexia.) I don't care if it's old or new, in principle. But the additional evidence that has been proposed so far has been evidence of the wrong kind of thing: of perpetuation of conflict, of attacks and aggression. I've been offered, as examples of dispute resolution, some very angry and uninhibitely rude and insulting messages to Petri Krohn. That's what's been wrong with what I've seen of what you call previous attempts—not the fact that they're "previous," as such. From what I've seen, I do believe that there are no acceptable previous attempts, or they would have turned up by now. Therefore what I'm asking for is in practice a new attempt, yes. The nominators involved here seem to be new users—that's my impression, I haven't checked—and, well, to have difficulty encompassing this aspect of wiki culture. (I know you're not new yourself, but perhaps you're new to this kind of thing.) That's why I keep saying they should enlist the help of somebody with experience, and with more feeling for what "dispute resolution" involves, to contact Petri on their behalf. The nominators have had no comment on this advice, or given any sign of trying to follow it, but I hope they have been. I'm always ready to give newbies special consideration, but I wish these would take on board my best advice.  Bishonen | talk 08:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually looked in on the rules involving mediation Cabal as soon as you suggested it. they presume theres an article debate is about. There is no such one article here. If you could suggest an experienced mediator for this, Id love to take the problems to him/her for help. All I personally care about is that these hostilities stop... I did not and still do not know what methods other than this procedure and ArbCom(that Petri has threatened us with for a month) exist for making the current situation end.--Alexia Death 09:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ive made a request on administrators noticeboard to look in on this. Bishonen, It is not an action against you. Just a request for some more people to look in.--Alexia Death 08:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good, Alexia, I was just thinking of asking for input on WP:ANI myself. And thank you for letting me know. Bishonen | talk 08:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ive actually been waiting for him to fulfill his threats of ArbCom For some time now. I just hope he does it soon.--Alexia Death 12:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] asking for here? 

message: Taken from the project page:
#Jehochman Talk 15:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for doing this. --Alexia Death 10:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments to "Outside view by Beatle Fab Four" 

message: I will be commenting on this later, it is getting late! -- Petri Krohn 03:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue?

message: I just noticed that Digwuren has unilaterally moved the RFC back again from "Candidate pages" to "Approved pages", without mentioning the action in the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" or anywhere else on the project page. (Or to, for instance, me.) I have to say I'm not impressed. Clearly nobody doubts that Digwuren finds the dispute resolution sufficient, as he has been arguing all along that it already was. He's not the right  person to approve the page. However, I'm not going to revert the move at this point, and I'll ask Petri Krohn if he is prepared to waive further requirement for  DR. Bishonen | talk 14:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anything wrong with that?  My understanding is that the move to 'certified' is a question of fact, and the facts appear to be sufficient for such move. Digwuren 14:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the page is deleted, and Petri hasn't replied positively to the attempt at mediation before then, may I suggest that the accusers write a civil, neutral and polite message to Petri with the proposal and see whether he responds? That should demonstrate an attempt at DR, and may even lead to resolution. DrKiernan 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the feeling that an important aspect of the clash between me and Bishonen is that our understandings of what we consider 'neutral' differ considerably.  Thus, I would appreciate Bishonen pointing me towards three or four similar such attempts from past that she approves of. Digwuren 11:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Petri has replied to the proposal, I don't think it is necessary to draft a message. DrKiernan 11:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Over and above what you've already posted on his page, you mean? In any case, of course I wouldn't delete anything while things are moving, the way they are now—I'm not a 48-hour bot! Nothing like that will happen until Petri responds, at the very earliest. Bishonen | talk 15:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  This does seem a smart idea but it is doomed to fail if Petri does not at least indicate a willingness for discussing the issues with us and at least drop the name calling...--Alexia Death 15:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not believe that Digwuren doing the move is politically correct, but for now I agree with his reasons for doing so. If it is reverted I plead Digwurren not to do it again, as it does not help getting the disputes resolved... However I would really love to see Petri's responses to proposals above. --Alexia Death 15:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Digwuren approves his own page

message: I could not help but notice that, although "pro-Petri" crowd tend to be different on different pages devoted to resolution of this long-simmering dispute, his attackers are always the same - Korps!, Verkrumba and marting. Not a slightest variation. I guess those pages have to be kept in wikipedia's archive as schoolbook examples of Meatpuppeting and stalking RJ CG 12:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at their edit histories with more attention, and you will see how "unrelated" to each other Petri's supporters are.Colchicum 12:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meatpuppeting and stalking 

message: In the section Outside view by Cmapm, it is stated: 
: Since Digwuren joined Wikipedia I see POV pushing in almost each of their edits. This should be not too bad, if they should not delete alternative POV. 
Are we talking about a single user here, or several?  If the former, why use "they" and "their" when referring to a unique person?  If the latter, who are the other users falling under this common name?  Turgidson 04:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The use of the neutral pro-nouns "they" and "their" is simply preferred by users, such as myself, who dislike grotesque neologisms like s/he and hir. It does not imply, in this case, plurality. DrKiernan 09:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some have suggested 'person' as the gender-neutral third person pronoun; the possessive form would be 'per'.  For future use, however, it may be useful to know that I happen to be male. Digwuren 09:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Digwuren, for the clarfication.  And, for the record, what I found grotesque is the use of "they" or "their" to refer to a single person (s/he and hir are equally grotesque).  Why sacrifice clarity, logic, and the beauty of the English language on the PC altar?  But OK, I digress -- it's just one of my pet peeves. I guess I'm The Last of the Mohicans in trying to hold on to standards on this one...  Turgidson 12:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many Digwurens are there?