→same ol' POV pushing which just won't stop: Some facts. |
|||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
:::The Motivation section was there when the Mediation started and it got through a vote for removal around the same time. There is nothing else to add. [[User:BRG~itwiki|BRG~itwiki]] ([[User talk:BRG~itwiki|talk]]) 16:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC) |
:::The Motivation section was there when the Mediation started and it got through a vote for removal around the same time. There is nothing else to add. [[User:BRG~itwiki|BRG~itwiki]] ([[User talk:BRG~itwiki|talk]]) 16:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::Will you please stop lying so blatantly? It's not like this is hard to check. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&oldid=681641378 Here's] the "mediation version" from September as restored (after one of Erlbaeko's attempts to sneak in his POV despite ongoing mediation) by Darouet. No motivation section there and the text was NOT in there. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&oldid=669379023 Here's the version from June]. Now of course Erlbaeko tried to insert this stuff into the article and that's what led to the mediation. But that's the whole point. It should be hashed out there. Not Erlbaeko wearing everyone out by stonewalling then declaring victory and coming here to push their POV again. And in 2013? Well, the whole point of a Wikipedia article is that we *improve* them. This includes removing blatant POV pushing. Some of that material was in there in Sept 2013, but even back then some editors noticed it was a huge [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:UNDUE]] problem and tried to remove it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&diff=next&oldid=575251300]. As that editor says in their edit summary what some people want to do is to summarize the consensus view in a sentence or two and then devote massive paragraphs to various [[WP:FRINGE]] theories. Not going to happen.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<font style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</font>]]</span> 17:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC) |
::::Will you please stop lying so blatantly? It's not like this is hard to check. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&oldid=681641378 Here's] the "mediation version" from September as restored (after one of Erlbaeko's attempts to sneak in his POV despite ongoing mediation) by Darouet. No motivation section there and the text was NOT in there. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&oldid=669379023 Here's the version from June]. Now of course Erlbaeko tried to insert this stuff into the article and that's what led to the mediation. But that's the whole point. It should be hashed out there. Not Erlbaeko wearing everyone out by stonewalling then declaring victory and coming here to push their POV again. And in 2013? Well, the whole point of a Wikipedia article is that we *improve* them. This includes removing blatant POV pushing. Some of that material was in there in Sept 2013, but even back then some editors noticed it was a huge [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:UNDUE]] problem and tried to remove it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&diff=next&oldid=575251300]. As that editor says in their edit summary what some people want to do is to summarize the consensus view in a sentence or two and then devote massive paragraphs to various [[WP:FRINGE]] theories. Not going to happen.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<font style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</font>]]</span> 17:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::::That's not a lie (that is, BRG~itwikis statement is not a lie), but slightly inaccurate. Some facts: |
|||
:::::* On 4 June 2015, the section was in the article. Ref. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&oldid=665540264#Motivation old revision]. |
|||
:::::* On 5 June 2015, removed "My very best wishes" the whole "Motivation" section. Ref. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&diff=665609644&oldid=665540264 diff]. |
|||
:::::* On 6 June 2015, filed Mnnlaxer the mediation request. Ref. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Ghouta_chemical_attack&diff=665828791 diff]. |
|||
:::::* On 22 June 2015, created I a new section on the talk page to see if there was consensus to remove it, ref. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attack&diff=next&oldid=668078349 diff]. |
|||
:::::[[User:Erlbaeko|Erlbaeko]] ([[User talk:Erlbaeko|talk]]) 18:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:This is the revision of 4 June before the edit war started: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&oldid=665540264]. Then my very best wishes deleted a whole paragraph that has been there for two years without giving an explanation[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&direction=next&oldid=665540264][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&direction=next&oldid=665609644], and the edit war started[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&direction=next&oldid=665609709][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&direction=next&oldid=665627141]. Then the mediation was requested (June). And I want to stress the fact that I know this by reading through the history of this mess, because after the first edit I made, someone said there was a mediation, so I read it all. I'm baffled by the lack of any kind of interest in collaborative editing, while it's all just agenda pushing and petty propaganda wars. [[User:BRG~itwiki|BRG~itwiki]] ([[User talk:BRG~itwiki|talk]]) 19:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC) |
:This is the revision of 4 June before the edit war started: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&oldid=665540264]. Then my very best wishes deleted a whole paragraph that has been there for two years without giving an explanation[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&direction=next&oldid=665540264][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&direction=next&oldid=665609644], and the edit war started[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&direction=next&oldid=665609709][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&direction=next&oldid=665627141]. Then the mediation was requested (June). And I want to stress the fact that I know this by reading through the history of this mess, because after the first edit I made, someone said there was a mediation, so I read it all. I'm baffled by the lack of any kind of interest in collaborative editing, while it's all just agenda pushing and petty propaganda wars. [[User:BRG~itwiki|BRG~itwiki]] ([[User talk:BRG~itwiki|talk]]) 19:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
::Your comments, your tone, your familiarity with this article, your references to stuff that's happened on other articles all clearly indicate that this isn't your first account. Like I said, how about you disclose your previous en wiki accounts and then we can have a serious conversation. I don't see why we should waste our time discussing issues with an account which was obviously created for the sole purpose of behaving disruptively and edit warring here.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<font style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</font>]]</span> 19:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC) |
::Your comments, your tone, your familiarity with this article, your references to stuff that's happened on other articles all clearly indicate that this isn't your first account. Like I said, how about you disclose your previous en wiki accounts and then we can have a serious conversation. I don't see why we should waste our time discussing issues with an account which was obviously created for the sole purpose of behaving disruptively and edit warring here.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<font style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</font>]]</span> 19:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:55, 7 December 2015
Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stop to article editing without consensus
We've been involved in mediation, let's please just wait a little bit before all deciding to dive back in. The fact that recent edits have been accompanied by reverts means that we haven't reached consensus yet. Sorry @Volunteer Marek and Erlbaeko: I haven't actually had time to look through Erlbaeko's edits and see if they're what we agree upon in the mediation, but let's go back there and address that before coming here? If Marek does understand the edits and disagrees, obviously there's more work to do. -Darouet (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're saying. You reverted an edit by MVBW because there's mediation going on. Erlbaeko then came in and made much more substantial changes and I reverted them for the same reason. Volunteer Marek 23:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm agreeing with you. -Darouet (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ok. I'm agreeing with you agreeing with me. Also just agreeing with you. Volunteer Marek 00:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Re [1]. Those changes were discussed in the mediation. See Item 3 - Work through the bullet points in "Other evidence" and Motivation in the lead. Since no one objected I assumed consensus. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I thought maybe that's what you were doing. I think that you, VQuakr and I were agreed at least, and even if Marek agrees too, the edits come at an inopportune time, since there's been edit-warring over undiscussed changes. That's why I reverted you without really looking to see if you were implementing some of the mediation discussion changes. -Darouet (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Actually you didn't. Volunteer Marek did. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Uh, I don't see how the discussion in mediation relates to these changes. For example, where in the mediation was it agreed that we should change the phrasing "has characterised attempts to say the rebels were responsible as unconvincing, resting in part upon "poor theories."" to "stated that the Syrian government provided no explanation for how rebel forces would have acquired chemical weapons"? That's just you and Darouet agreeing. Since the two of you - and this isn't meant in a negative way - are "on the same side" in the mediation, a proper agreement would obviously involve getting someone on the other side to agree. No one has. So this looks like an obvious attempt to jump the gun and WP:GAME mediation. Volunteer Marek 18:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I was not trying to game anyting. Since no one objected I assumed the rephasing was ok. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- In that thread you have couple people saying that the phrasing is fine as is. Volunteer Marek 18:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- True, but that was before I pointed out that he was misrepresented. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Marek when you get a moment why don't you look at the Sellstrom interview where he uses the phrase - it seems to me like he's saying that the Government hasn't been able to explain where the rebels would have gotten access to the CW, and continues that the've only provided poor theories to explain this. -Darouet (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. The current text does not accurately represent what Sellstrom said. "Several times I asked the government: can you explain – if this was the opposition – how did they get hold of the chemical weapons? They have quite poor theories". He is criticising specifically the Syrian government's explanation of from where the opposition might have obtained CWs. The current sentence can read as any "attempts to say the rebels were responsible" are unconvincing. A very different interpretation indeed. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Marek when you get a moment why don't you look at the Sellstrom interview where he uses the phrase - it seems to me like he's saying that the Government hasn't been able to explain where the rebels would have gotten access to the CW, and continues that the've only provided poor theories to explain this. -Darouet (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- True, but that was before I pointed out that he was misrepresented. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- In that thread you have couple people saying that the phrasing is fine as is. Volunteer Marek 18:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I was not trying to game anyting. Since no one objected I assumed the rephasing was ok. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
same ol' POV pushing which just won't stop
Just to note on the talk page here (I've brought it up at the mediation page as well) that there's clearly no consensus for including this text, which was discussed here and at them mediation and opposed by several editors. This is just the latest round of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attempts to over represent a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, give WP:UNDUE weight to the same and to POV the article. Please remove it. Volunteer Marek 14:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- The key elements of a crime are means, motive and opportunity, so I can't see why a paragraph about possible motives should be out of place here. Especially considering that most of the article is not about the fact per se, but about international reactions (by interested parties, by the way) and about what random people from around the world think about it. BRG~itwiki (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
By the way you said that there's no consensus for including it, but I can only find this discussion where there's no consensus on its removal. So, for now, it's safe to keep it. BRG~itwiki (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- And here come the brand new throw away accounts to help out in the edit war. Anyway, motivations *already are* mentioned in the article. Volunteer Marek 14:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ad hominem arguments won't help your cause. In the article, besides that paragraph, there are only brief mentions of possible motives provided by interested parties, i.e. Russia, UK and USA. There is not another reasoning on the causes of the attack in the whole article. If there's some undue weight, that is the collection of foreign propaganda. BRG~itwiki (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- See WP:DUCK. Volunteer Marek 15:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, this smells rotten as hell. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you mean the attack, we may finally agree about something.... Erlbaeko (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, the behavior of some editors - yourself foremost among them - on this article. Volunteer Marek 15:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Please, comment on content, not on the contributors. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- We've commented more than enough about the issues at hand at the mediation, but you didn't listen. When the contributor is behaving disruptively it's perfectly appropriate to comment on that. Volunteer Marek 17:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Please, comment on content, not on the contributors. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, the behavior of some editors - yourself foremost among them - on this article. Volunteer Marek 15:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you mean the attack, we may finally agree about something.... Erlbaeko (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ad hominem arguments won't help your cause. In the article, besides that paragraph, there are only brief mentions of possible motives provided by interested parties, i.e. Russia, UK and USA. There is not another reasoning on the causes of the attack in the whole article. If there's some undue weight, that is the collection of foreign propaganda. BRG~itwiki (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
In general I would support the inclusion of this text, but I'm not getting involved in this dispute without the participation of outside, neutral arbitrators (official or unofficial). First, Erlbaeko, the appearance of a new editor already willing to get involved in this rather specific issue is highly suspect. Second, Kudzu1 and Volunteer Marek, I'm dismayed to see people so willing to edit war here, now, when only very recently they could hardly be brought to participate in a talk and source-based mediation. Whatever - peace. -Darouet (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support, Darouet, but the appearance of a relatively new editor is not a good reason to suspect sock puppetry. Nor is this talk page the correct place to bring up accusation like that. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- We did participate in mediation but then Erlbaeko essentially 1) hijacked it with walls of text and 2) ignored what anyone was saying to them. Volunteer Marek 16:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, I did not. Please stop attacking other editors. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's exactly what you did. You posted long walls of text, waited till everyone got sick of repeating the same thing to you and stopped paying attention, then came back here and snuck your preferred text back in. Then edit warred, aided by some brand new throw away account, to keep it in there. That's pretty much textbook case of WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:CRUSH. Volunteer Marek 17:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, I did not. Please stop attacking other editors. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comments, Darouet; however, I will note I made one revert to the page today, per the WP:1RR rule in place on this article, after Volunteer Marek's self-revert (which was appropriate due to the 1RR restriction). Erlbaeko clearly lacked consensus for his/her suggested changes during the mediation, and it is improper to try to insert them now and then edit-war when they are removed due to said lack of consensus. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
No, I did not, and please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes you did. And it's not the first time you tried this tactic. You tried exactly the same thing previously here, here, here, here, and here (and probably in a few moreinstances) and you did this even while mediation was ongoing. This pattern of behavior is exactly what makes this WP:TENDENTIOUS, disruptive and bad faithed.
- And I am not "attacking" anything. I am criticizing your editing behavior. And this criticism is more than well deserved. Please stop trying to bully others through intimidation. Volunteer Marek 17:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Bullshit. I asked several times for your input, and I waited almost a month for your policy based arguments. I still haven’t seen them. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Volunteer Marek and Kudzu1 that there does not appear to be consensus for this change. VQuakr (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I provided my input. You ignored it. I provided policy based arguments (as I have done again), you kept repeating the same thing and claiming that you "debunked" my statements or something. No one else at the mediation agreed with you. Discussion died out. You waited for a week then came back here and put your controversial edits back in even though you knew very well (especially since, as my diffs above show, this has happened several times in the past) that these were not supported and they did not have consensus. What exactly is "bullshit" here? I provided numerous diffs which clearly illustrate that you've been using this WP:TENDENTIOUS strategy for awhile now. Volunteer Marek 21:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
With the decline in participation in the mediation and lack of edit waring over the article, I had suggested that we may want to wrap-up the mediation. Now, looking at this discussion, I can see that the dispute is far from settled. I would be willing to continue mediating, either on this page or on the mediation talk page. It seems clear to me that there is a continuing need to resolve this dispute. Comments? Sunray (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Sunray: if you are willing to help, I think that's the only possibility of a solution being reached (that doesn't involve punitive measures or endless argument). -Darouet (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm fine with restarting the mediation, though the article should clearly be returned to the state it was in before Erlbaeko tried to POV it (again). Volunteer Marek 22:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- It would be funny if it were not distressing. It is clear from the tone used that there is a fight going on. However, it is utterly impossible, without prior knowledge, to understand what the fight is about. Vague accusations, made in Wikipedia Newspeak, like WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:CRUSH, WP:DUCK, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT "disruptive and bad faithed" and what not, are leveled at Erlbaeko in an obvious attempt to silence him. However, I can't see any argument on content. I personally happen to know what all this is about and I believe that Erlbaeko's arguments should at least be discussed, not simply dismissed out of hand. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, they can talk however much they want. What they can't and shouldn't do is try to game the system and act in a disruptive manner. Also, did I suggest to you already that getting yourself involved in the very topics which led to your indef ban so soon after it was conditionally lifted is probably not a good idea? Volunteer Marek 22:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Heh, I hadn't seen WP:CRUSH before, but it could have been written about Erlbaeko. Eerie. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I reviewed the history of the article; "Motivation" and "Timing" sections have been here since September 2013, that is the beginning, until June 2015 when an edit war started. Given that a crime is prompted by a motivation, given that a military action is carried out for an objective, given that ostensibly this has been obvious for almost two years until someone decided that it was WP:NOTMYBELOVEDOPINION, it looks to me that: (a) the section is needed and in fact it is present in some form in any comparable article (e.g. Boston Bombing for a crime, e.g. Aleppo Offensive for a military action), (b) if a consensus is needed, that is to remove it. BRG~itwiki (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- It would be funny if it were not distressing. It is clear from the tone used that there is a fight going on. However, it is utterly impossible, without prior knowledge, to understand what the fight is about. Vague accusations, made in Wikipedia Newspeak, like WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:CRUSH, WP:DUCK, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT "disruptive and bad faithed" and what not, are leveled at Erlbaeko in an obvious attempt to silence him. However, I can't see any argument on content. I personally happen to know what all this is about and I believe that Erlbaeko's arguments should at least be discussed, not simply dismissed out of hand. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Given that it is well known who did it, speculation about possible motifs by someone else is simply undue. This has been discussed previously, and discussed a lot. My very best wishes (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- As BRG~itwiki correctly has pointed out, "Motivation" and "Timing" sections have been here since September 2013, and consensus is needed to remove it. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, that's not how it works. Whether or not something was in an article is irrelevant (except for you making controversial changes while mediation is ongoing). Burden of proof is for inclusion and your completely failure to get support for these changes during mediation, combined with the bad faithed and disruptive way you are trying to make them, means that you need to convince others, not vice versa. You might want to try a new tactic - instead of trying to WP:GAME the rule and sneak this in under the radar, how about engaging others in a constructive dialogue? Volunteer Marek 15:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Don't talk if you have nothing to say. It's simple. BRG~itwiki (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Look, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that you're a single purpose account, recently created for the sole purpose of edit warring on this article. How about you disclose your previous en wiki accounts? Then we can try and have a serious conversation. Volunteer Marek 15:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Don't talk if you have nothing to say. It's simple. BRG~itwiki (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Erlbaeko. You recently made this edit with edit summary: "Added motivation section per mediation discussion". Do you mean that you have reached consensus in mediation to include this text? If so, could you give me a link to relevant section of mediation discussion, please? My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- The most relevant section is this: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Ghouta_chemical_attack#Item_4_-_Deal_with_the_rebel_motivation_issue_and_UNDUE_in_the_whole_article, but there is several relevant discussions there. No consensus has ever been reached for your removal. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- As MVBW correctly points out you falsely claimed that the text was being added "per mediation discussion", pretending that there was agreement at mediation to make this change. There wasn't. All the "relevant discussions" involve people objecting to your proposed changes. So this was, at best, a misleading edit summary on your part. The mediation discussion did not support your POV. Volunteer Marek 16:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- As you know, I asked you several times to specify what in the policy and the article text that allowed the "Motivation and timing" section to be removed as "UNDUE". I then waited almost a month for your reply, and I then said "If there is nothing in the neutral point of view policy (or any other policy) that allow the suggested "Motivation and timing" section to be removed, I will go ahead and make the change.", before I made the change, so it is very much a change that is made "per mediation discussion". Erlbaeko (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- As MVBW correctly points out you falsely claimed that the text was being added "per mediation discussion", pretending that there was agreement at mediation to make this change. There wasn't. All the "relevant discussions" involve people objecting to your proposed changes. So this was, at best, a misleading edit summary on your part. The mediation discussion did not support your POV. Volunteer Marek 16:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- The most relevant section is this: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Ghouta_chemical_attack#Item_4_-_Deal_with_the_rebel_motivation_issue_and_UNDUE_in_the_whole_article, but there is several relevant discussions there. No consensus has ever been reached for your removal. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
This is spiraling out of control. Can we all agree not to insert contentious material into the article until consensus develops? It doesn't matter whether you think you're "right", it matters whether consensus has been established. That's the way Wikipedia works. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- While I doubt that it is spiralling out of control (at least not yet), I agree that consensus is required before major changes are made to the article. All the more reason to re-start the mediation imho. Sunray (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I do also agree that consensus is required before major changes are made to the article, and I am fine with continuing the mediation. However, the Motivation section should stay in the article as long as no consensus is reached for removal. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- The Motivation section was there when the Mediation started and it got through a vote for removal around the same time. There is nothing else to add. BRG~itwiki (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Will you please stop lying so blatantly? It's not like this is hard to check. Here's the "mediation version" from September as restored (after one of Erlbaeko's attempts to sneak in his POV despite ongoing mediation) by Darouet. No motivation section there and the text was NOT in there. Here's the version from June. Now of course Erlbaeko tried to insert this stuff into the article and that's what led to the mediation. But that's the whole point. It should be hashed out there. Not Erlbaeko wearing everyone out by stonewalling then declaring victory and coming here to push their POV again. And in 2013? Well, the whole point of a Wikipedia article is that we *improve* them. This includes removing blatant POV pushing. Some of that material was in there in Sept 2013, but even back then some editors noticed it was a huge WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE problem and tried to remove it [2]. As that editor says in their edit summary what some people want to do is to summarize the consensus view in a sentence or two and then devote massive paragraphs to various WP:FRINGE theories. Not going to happen. Volunteer Marek 17:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's not a lie (that is, BRG~itwikis statement is not a lie), but slightly inaccurate. Some facts:
- On 4 June 2015, the section was in the article. Ref. old revision.
- On 5 June 2015, removed "My very best wishes" the whole "Motivation" section. Ref. diff.
- On 6 June 2015, filed Mnnlaxer the mediation request. Ref. diff.
- On 22 June 2015, created I a new section on the talk page to see if there was consensus to remove it, ref. diff.
- Erlbaeko (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's not a lie (that is, BRG~itwikis statement is not a lie), but slightly inaccurate. Some facts:
- Will you please stop lying so blatantly? It's not like this is hard to check. Here's the "mediation version" from September as restored (after one of Erlbaeko's attempts to sneak in his POV despite ongoing mediation) by Darouet. No motivation section there and the text was NOT in there. Here's the version from June. Now of course Erlbaeko tried to insert this stuff into the article and that's what led to the mediation. But that's the whole point. It should be hashed out there. Not Erlbaeko wearing everyone out by stonewalling then declaring victory and coming here to push their POV again. And in 2013? Well, the whole point of a Wikipedia article is that we *improve* them. This includes removing blatant POV pushing. Some of that material was in there in Sept 2013, but even back then some editors noticed it was a huge WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE problem and tried to remove it [2]. As that editor says in their edit summary what some people want to do is to summarize the consensus view in a sentence or two and then devote massive paragraphs to various WP:FRINGE theories. Not going to happen. Volunteer Marek 17:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- The Motivation section was there when the Mediation started and it got through a vote for removal around the same time. There is nothing else to add. BRG~itwiki (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I do also agree that consensus is required before major changes are made to the article, and I am fine with continuing the mediation. However, the Motivation section should stay in the article as long as no consensus is reached for removal. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is the revision of 4 June before the edit war started: [3]. Then my very best wishes deleted a whole paragraph that has been there for two years without giving an explanation[4][5], and the edit war started[6][7]. Then the mediation was requested (June). And I want to stress the fact that I know this by reading through the history of this mess, because after the first edit I made, someone said there was a mediation, so I read it all. I'm baffled by the lack of any kind of interest in collaborative editing, while it's all just agenda pushing and petty propaganda wars. BRG~itwiki (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Your comments, your tone, your familiarity with this article, your references to stuff that's happened on other articles all clearly indicate that this isn't your first account. Like I said, how about you disclose your previous en wiki accounts and then we can have a serious conversation. I don't see why we should waste our time discussing issues with an account which was obviously created for the sole purpose of behaving disruptively and edit warring here. Volunteer Marek 19:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- "If you believe someone is using sock puppets or meat puppets, you should create a report" at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Your comments, your tone, your familiarity with this article, your references to stuff that's happened on other articles all clearly indicate that this isn't your first account. Like I said, how about you disclose your previous en wiki accounts and then we can have a serious conversation. I don't see why we should waste our time discussing issues with an account which was obviously created for the sole purpose of behaving disruptively and edit warring here. Volunteer Marek 19:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)