Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Edinborgarstefan

• (Stefán Ingi | talk | contributions)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

User:Edinborgarstefan (Stefán Ingi) wrote the following in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names): "Francis likes to argue with strawmen rather than me." . This implies at least two things:

• He considers the other participants in the discussion as strawmen;
• He thinks participants in a discussion should only interact with him.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. diff

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Allegations of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry by Stefan
2. WP:POINT
3. WP:CIVIL

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Part of a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names), 20 or 30 edits from diff to diff in which user:Haukurth, user:Deeptrivia and user:Dbachmann also participated.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

1. --Francis Schonken 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Response

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.

I'd like to quote our article on Strawmen: "As a rhetorical term, "straw man" describes a point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument; the creator of a "straw man" argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous." So when I say "Francis likes to argue with strawmen rather than me" I mean the following: Instead of giving arguments against what I have actually said, he changes the words in my text and argues with the modified text instead. In this edit I point out two examples where he does this. In the first one he changes with to without.

Francis draws two implications which I'd like to respond to:

• He considers the other participants in the discussion as strawmen;

  The strawman I am talking about is the one who maintains the argument I present but with Francis's modifications. The strawman is not an actual person. I don't think anybody supports the modified argument. This therefore does not say anything about the other participants in the discussion.

• He thinks participants in a discussion should only interact with him.

  I am only comparing Francis's willingness to argue with me to his willingness to argue with the strawman. I'm not saying anything about the other participants and I'm not saying Francis should only interact with me but I am saying that Francis should rather interact with me than the strawman.

As for the applicable policies:

1. Allegations of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry by Stefan

   This must be based on a misunderstanding. I don't see any reason to believe that anybody involved is a sock puppet and I have at no point intended to make such an alligation.

2. WP:POINT

   I agree with this policy and I always try and bear it in mind. I'm not sure how Francis feels I have gone against it.

3. WP:CIVIL

   This is a very important policy. I can understand that Francis feels that I have gone against it with the word Strawman. I can only say that I did not intend to be incivil towards him and I apologise for that. I will remove it from my text and I'd like that to be seen as a concillatory effort. Stefán Ingi 20:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Obviously Francis didn't understand what was being said. Gene Nygaard 01:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Yes, seems like an innocent misunderstanding. Stefán used the word "strawman" and Francis understood it to mean something like "sockpuppet". - Haukur 09:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
3. --Masssiveego 03:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view

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 (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

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.