→Mindbunny/Women's rights in Saudi Arabia: new section |
146.232.75.208 (talk) Tag: repeating characters |
||
Line 395: | Line 395: | ||
:::Would one of the accusing party please explain what's wrong with the IP's source? Granted, I can't find another instance of the report, but I'd like to know why consensus stands against it. Cheers, [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="color:#7d7d7d">m.o.p</span>]] 02:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC) |
:::Would one of the accusing party please explain what's wrong with the IP's source? Granted, I can't find another instance of the report, but I'd like to know why consensus stands against it. Cheers, [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="color:#7d7d7d">m.o.p</span>]] 02:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::: Hi and thanks for looking into this issue. The IP's edits introduce contradictions into the article. The intro says Bulgarians are South Slavic, Ethnogenesis now claims there are "two main viewpoint[s]" (Slavic+Bulgar and Bulgar+Thracian origin), and Genetic origin now says that some genetic study found out Bulgarians are not Slavs but relatives of Iranic/Pamirian peoples. |
:::: Hi and thanks for looking into this issue. The IP's edits introduce contradictions into the article. The intro says Bulgarians are South Slavic, Ethnogenesis now claims there are "two main viewpoint[s]" (Slavic+Bulgar and Bulgar+Thracian origin), and Genetic origin now says that some genetic study found out Bulgarians are not Slavs but relatives of Iranic/Pamirian peoples. |
||
>>>>>>No, the intro I made said that they are either slavic ethnically or by culture and language - so as to present both views in an equal manner. yes ethnogenesis does claim there are 2 viewpoints, and the genetic section - I made it say that ''according'' to the team there conclusion was etc etc, so as not to state it as a fact and to make it neutral - so what is the problem here then? |
|||
:::: Now, the predominant view, as has been shown in the article using quality sources, is that Bulgarians belong to the South Slavic group, even though their historical and genetic origin is not purely South Slavic. However, any theories that minimize the South Slavic contribution are alternative and should be either omitted as undue weight or clearly labeled as alternative. I believe it's the IP's responsibility to explain their edits: they never used the article talk page, but rather posted walls of text on my talk which mostly accused ''me'' of doing this and that and claiming that ''I'' am not Slavic because I, supposedly, don't look Slavic. |
:::: Now, the predominant view, as has been shown in the article using quality sources, is that Bulgarians belong to the South Slavic group, even though their historical and genetic origin is not purely South Slavic. However, any theories that minimize the South Slavic contribution are alternative and should be either omitted as undue weight or clearly labeled as alternative. I believe it's the IP's responsibility to explain their edits: they never used the article talk page, but rather posted walls of text on my talk which mostly accused ''me'' of doing this and that and claiming that ''I'' am not Slavic because I, supposedly, don't look Slavic. |
||
>>>>>>It is not certain at all if that is the ''predominant view'' anymore, since others have been found, backed up by a compliant source and by genetic research, plus I am ware of that many Bulgarians themselves do not consider themselves slavic. Also, in the article it says that: "the DNA of Bulgarians is clearly seperated from the tight cluster of other slavic nations (or something like that) - further adds substance to my argument |
|||
:::: As for the source (http://www.novinite.com/): I would not normally consider the source to be unreliable for news and general events. In this case, though, it is not good enough. Ideally, the statement would have to be backed using scholarly research, not a news article. |
:::: As for the source (http://www.novinite.com/): I would not normally consider the source to be unreliable for news and general events. In this case, though, it is not good enough. Ideally, the statement would have to be backed using scholarly research, not a news article. |
||
>>>>>Why would a major newspaper company not check its valadidity before posting something that could otherwise be totally bogus, mad eup and typed in someone's room - otherwise they could risk their whole reputation as a quality newspaper and thus loose lots of readers and thus millions of euros. |
|||
:::: The IP's posts to my talk have been sort of annoying and harrassing, so I don't really want to be involved in the dispute with them anymore: it has so far detracted me from more productive and more pleasant work on Wikipedia. No matter if the IP gets blocked and no matter if the dispute gets resolved, I'd just like to stay away from it. That does not mean I will not take responsibility for my actions, of course. Best, <span style="text-align: center; clear: both; font-family:Georgia, serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant: small-caps; font-style: normal;"> — [[User:TodorBozhinov|Toдor]] [[User talk:TodorBozhinov|Boжinov]] —</span> 08:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC) |
:::: The IP's posts to my talk have been sort of annoying and harrassing, so I don't really want to be involved in the dispute with them anymore: it has so far detracted me from more productive and more pleasant work on Wikipedia. No matter if the IP gets blocked and no matter if the dispute gets resolved, I'd just like to stay away from it. That does not mean I will not take responsibility for my actions, of course. Best, <span style="text-align: center; clear: both; font-family:Georgia, serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant: small-caps; font-style: normal;"> — [[User:TodorBozhinov|Toдor]] [[User talk:TodorBozhinov|Boжinov]] —</span> 08:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
>>>>>>Never once have I harrased you, but i am just posting replies to your argument and defending myself against your unjust and rude accusations that I am a vandal (very disrespectful, if you dont even properly explain yourself, when I explained myself many, many times) - so what is wrong with that. i am sure that if anyone saw what I wrote and how I wrote it, would agree that i didnt harass. So you are complaining that you find my posts annoying - that is just ''your'' opinion - why do you complain about something small and insignificant like that here. |
|||
:I have been following this issue, and I am not Bulgarian. I do believe that the IP's edits constitute vandalism, and clearly he violated 3RR (no matter what his reasoning was). The user was warned to discuss the source, and his "theory.", but he/she instead resorted to edit warring and baseless accusations. |
:I have been following this issue, and I am not Bulgarian. I do believe that the IP's edits constitute vandalism, and clearly he violated 3RR (no matter what his reasoning was). The user was warned to discuss the source, and his "theory.", but he/she instead resorted to edit warring and baseless accusations. |
||
>>>>>>>>>If there is any vandalsim that I did it was only the 3 revert rule thing - that was unintentional, and was not aware when I did it - for that i am sorry and would certainly be much more careful in the future. Otherwise there has ''not'' been any other vandalism from me - just trying to make page better and more neutral by following wikipedia's rules of neutrality -what is wrong with that? i did discuss it on other peoples's talk pages, and if you were really interested in the argument you would have clicked on my ip and see where I posted on whose talk page and go follow there - if you had just put in some effort on your part. |
|||
:In regards to the actual theory, it is clearly fringe as there are few, if any legitimate academic sources that state it is correct. The IP user is attempting to insert "research" done by obscure newspapers as RS-based facts. |
:In regards to the actual theory, it is clearly fringe as there are few, if any legitimate academic sources that state it is correct. The IP user is attempting to insert "research" done by obscure newspapers as RS-based facts. |
||
:The problem with the information is that it completely contradicts the current, academically sourced content of the article, and goes against potentially thousands of research and university sources. |
:The problem with the information is that it completely contradicts the current, academically sourced content of the article, and goes against potentially thousands of research and university sources. My accusations are not baseless - I accused you all of disrespect by calling me a vandal and not properly explaining yourselves and I accused you of not following wiki's neutrality rules - there is "base" in all of that - you have been guilty in all of that - I am sure anyone would agree |
||
:At best, the IP info. could go into an "alternative origin theories" or "Bulgarian origin conspiracy theories" section. Just my 2 cents.--[[User:Therexbanner|Therexbanner]] ([[User talk:Therexbanner|talk]]) 10:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC) |
:At best, the IP info. could go into an "alternative origin theories" or "Bulgarian origin conspiracy theories" section. Just my 2 cents.--[[User:Therexbanner|Therexbanner]] ([[User talk:Therexbanner|talk]]) 10:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 11:32, 7 February 2011
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:Mamalujo reported by Jayjg (talk) (Result: in talks)
Page: The Deputy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mamalujo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 21:56, 1 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 407181905 by Ekwos (talk) Unjustified deletion of sourced material")
- 22:12, 1 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 411457203 by Jayjg (talk) Not conspiracy theory. It is sourced to RSs. Please discuss before blanking material source to multiple RSs")
- 22:27, 1 February 2011 (edit summary: "I have addressed this on the talk page and will do so again. This is sourced to Times London, Forbes, The Australian, National Review, The Jewish Ledger, U. Miss. Law Prof. Rychalk")
—Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments:
Reporting on general edit-warring here. Although Mamalujo has "only" reverted 3 times in 31 minutes today, he's been reverting in this material over a much longer period (e.g. [1][2][3][4]). Objections to it have been raised on the article's Talk: page, but he has responded with quite inaccurate statements. He's been warned about edit-warring/3RR many times (e.g. [5][6][7][8][9]). Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Alrighty. I'm not locking or blocking yet, but let's consider this a final warning; no more edit warring, no exceptions.
- Mamalujo, from what I can see, the others are protesting due to your very limited sourcing here, though I understand that sourcing is tough to find. Everything I see points towards Pacepa as the genesis of this theory. Is he the only root source?
- Jayjg, why was Rychlak discredited as a source? I noticed that his Wikipedia article was written primarily by Mamalujo (with claims of Rychlak's expertise on Pius unsourced), but his U. Miss. page suggests he did have some knowledge on the Pope.
- As a final note, I'd like to showcase this source from The Times (which is a highly-reputable paper) that seems to back up Mamalujo's claims. Of course, the edit warring is still a serious offense and is being taken into account, but I'm curious as to why Mamalujo's claims are being dismissed as conspiracy theory.
- Thanks for your cooperation, all. m.o.p 02:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi MOP. The issue with Rychlak is that he's actually a lawyer and advocate for the Catholic Church, not a historian, and the material from him is essentially self-published. Under WP:SPS, it doesn't really qualify as reliable. As for the article in The Times, as I've pointed out on the article's Talk: page, all the reporter (John Follain) does there is reproduce Pacepa's claims. Note key phrases in Follain's article like "according to the highest-ranking Soviet bloc intelligence officer to have defected to the West" and "according to Pacepa". Mamalujo keeps pretending that The Times has "fact checked" the material or in some way verifies it as true; but all this reporter does is note that Pacepa has made these claims, no more. He also pretends that sources like The Times and The Australian are independent, when all that has happened is that The Australian has syndicated the article from The Times - it even says at the bottom "The Sunday Times".[10] It's all highly deceptive. The Wikipedia article already mentions Pacepa's claims in the "Criticism" section; but to have an additional entire section, 40% the article, devoted to his claims, and stating them as if they are fact, rather that simply Pacepa's claims, is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. As various editors have pointed out, if you want to have this kind of strong claim in an article, especially one with BLP implications, then you need to at least have actual historians commenting on it. On top of that, Mamalujo places this section before even the description of the play itself! Jayjg (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I sometimes get carried away. If I had been apprised that I was 3rr, I would gladly have done a self revert. I think it's understandable when an entire section, which is reasonably sourced, is deleted on the bald assertion (no source) that it is a conspiracy. Both the Australian and the Times article are by Follain, but the fact that they both printed it means it met the muster of their fact checkers. The News Weekly article authored by Joseph Poprzeczny is also reliable. Joseph Poprzeczny is an historical researcher and a reputable writer, author of Odilo Globocnik, Hitler's Man in the East. News Weekly, is one of Australia's oldest news magazines, founded nearly 3/4 a century ago. In addition the information was published in Forbes and National Review, both reputable publications with diligent fact checkers. On top of that, the assertions are stated as fact by three academics of note (an American, a Brit and a German), two of them prominent historians. As to everything being sourced from Pacepa, that is not the case. British intelligence suspected the connection long ago and the knowledge of the connection to the Eastern bloc disinformation campaign predates Pacepa's disclosure. One of the reasons why the historians regard the connection as historical fact is that after the fall of the Eastern bloc, the KGB's campaign against the Vatican was clearly established as fact and more information on the campaign continues to be discovered in archives of former communist nations. For example an Italian parliamentary commision concluded in 2006 that “beyond any reasonable doubt” the Soviets were behind the assasination attempt against John Paul II in 1981. Recent discoveries from the Eastern bloc show that the Vatican archives had been compromised and that the Eastern bloc had moles in both the Second Vatican Counsel and in the Curia. It has also been discovered that the KGB had a disinformation and provocation campaign against John Paul II. So, as the historians have noted, operation Seat 12 was not at all incredible but was consistent with what is known about communist intelligence and the Vatican. And the reason for deletion - a blithe assertion of "conspiracy theory" with absolutely no sourcing. And of course there is the offensive ad hominem argument on the talk page of "confessional bias", which of course holds no weight. Quite frankly if the "confessional bias" was the Jewish faith, I think there might have been some uproar. It is not appropriate to impugn editors or sources based on "confessional bias" - the very term stinks of bigotry. Not surprisingly, many of the defenders of Pius against slanders have been Jewish, including the great historian Martin Gilbert and Rabbis David Dalin and Eric Silver, to mention a few. Mamalujo (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- If its "hot" news then maybe there is no time for the broadspectrum of Holocaust scholars to digest the information. Perhaps they would not be too interested since at least the 1960's the play had been treated with contempt by scholars who were no admirers of Pius's diplomancy. If the sources above are unbaissed then they would probably also include previously published views that the Catholic Nazi Bishop Hudal was a prime source for the play after Pius sidelined him because he was making too obvious the Vaticans involvment with rat-lines to help escaping Nazi war criminals. ma'at (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rychlak may have personal bias, I'm not quite sure he'd qualify under SPS; after all, SPS doesn't state that self-published material isn't ever acceptable. In this case, given that he's claimed to be an expert on the Pope, I see no reason to discredit him as a source. Of course, he's also going on Pacepa's claims. I wouldn't use Rychlak as a primary source, but as a secondary source, why not? I agree that, again, he may be biased, but this is inherent in every piece of work. We can't automatically discredit a source because the source happens to be related to the cause it is defending. That being said, the proposed addition is very large in comparison to the rest of the page, and relies very heavily on Rychlak; slimming it down and putting the reliable sources first (i.e. The Times) might help.
- I do agree that it isn't very intuitive to place Mamalujo's section above the main body of the page - something like that is setting quite the negative tone. Would it be an acceptable compromise if Mamalujo's section was moved to 'Criticism', cut down a bit, and used to flesh out the criticism section? m.o.p 23:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes of course; if the material only used truly reliable sources, was cut down in accord with WP:UNDUE, worded in accord in WP:NPOV, and moved to the correct location, it would be perfectly reasonable. Jayjg (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Alright. Mamalujo, does this sound reasonable? m.o.p 04:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes of course; if the material only used truly reliable sources, was cut down in accord with WP:UNDUE, worded in accord in WP:NPOV, and moved to the correct location, it would be perfectly reasonable. Jayjg (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- If its "hot" news then maybe there is no time for the broadspectrum of Holocaust scholars to digest the information. Perhaps they would not be too interested since at least the 1960's the play had been treated with contempt by scholars who were no admirers of Pius's diplomancy. If the sources above are unbaissed then they would probably also include previously published views that the Catholic Nazi Bishop Hudal was a prime source for the play after Pius sidelined him because he was making too obvious the Vaticans involvment with rat-lines to help escaping Nazi war criminals. ma'at (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I sometimes get carried away. If I had been apprised that I was 3rr, I would gladly have done a self revert. I think it's understandable when an entire section, which is reasonably sourced, is deleted on the bald assertion (no source) that it is a conspiracy. Both the Australian and the Times article are by Follain, but the fact that they both printed it means it met the muster of their fact checkers. The News Weekly article authored by Joseph Poprzeczny is also reliable. Joseph Poprzeczny is an historical researcher and a reputable writer, author of Odilo Globocnik, Hitler's Man in the East. News Weekly, is one of Australia's oldest news magazines, founded nearly 3/4 a century ago. In addition the information was published in Forbes and National Review, both reputable publications with diligent fact checkers. On top of that, the assertions are stated as fact by three academics of note (an American, a Brit and a German), two of them prominent historians. As to everything being sourced from Pacepa, that is not the case. British intelligence suspected the connection long ago and the knowledge of the connection to the Eastern bloc disinformation campaign predates Pacepa's disclosure. One of the reasons why the historians regard the connection as historical fact is that after the fall of the Eastern bloc, the KGB's campaign against the Vatican was clearly established as fact and more information on the campaign continues to be discovered in archives of former communist nations. For example an Italian parliamentary commision concluded in 2006 that “beyond any reasonable doubt” the Soviets were behind the assasination attempt against John Paul II in 1981. Recent discoveries from the Eastern bloc show that the Vatican archives had been compromised and that the Eastern bloc had moles in both the Second Vatican Counsel and in the Curia. It has also been discovered that the KGB had a disinformation and provocation campaign against John Paul II. So, as the historians have noted, operation Seat 12 was not at all incredible but was consistent with what is known about communist intelligence and the Vatican. And the reason for deletion - a blithe assertion of "conspiracy theory" with absolutely no sourcing. And of course there is the offensive ad hominem argument on the talk page of "confessional bias", which of course holds no weight. Quite frankly if the "confessional bias" was the Jewish faith, I think there might have been some uproar. It is not appropriate to impugn editors or sources based on "confessional bias" - the very term stinks of bigotry. Not surprisingly, many of the defenders of Pius against slanders have been Jewish, including the great historian Martin Gilbert and Rabbis David Dalin and Eric Silver, to mention a few. Mamalujo (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi MOP. The issue with Rychlak is that he's actually a lawyer and advocate for the Catholic Church, not a historian, and the material from him is essentially self-published. Under WP:SPS, it doesn't really qualify as reliable. As for the article in The Times, as I've pointed out on the article's Talk: page, all the reporter (John Follain) does there is reproduce Pacepa's claims. Note key phrases in Follain's article like "according to the highest-ranking Soviet bloc intelligence officer to have defected to the West" and "according to Pacepa". Mamalujo keeps pretending that The Times has "fact checked" the material or in some way verifies it as true; but all this reporter does is note that Pacepa has made these claims, no more. He also pretends that sources like The Times and The Australian are independent, when all that has happened is that The Australian has syndicated the article from The Times - it even says at the bottom "The Sunday Times".[10] It's all highly deceptive. The Wikipedia article already mentions Pacepa's claims in the "Criticism" section; but to have an additional entire section, 40% the article, devoted to his claims, and stating them as if they are fact, rather that simply Pacepa's claims, is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. As various editors have pointed out, if you want to have this kind of strong claim in an article, especially one with BLP implications, then you need to at least have actual historians commenting on it. On top of that, Mamalujo places this section before even the description of the play itself! Jayjg (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Stale Looks like it's stopped for now. Re-report if things stir up again. --slakr\ talk / 05:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Esoglou and User:LoveMonkey reported by User:Taiwan boi (Result: Restriction agreed to)
Pages:
- Hell in Christian beliefs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- East–West Schism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Theoria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
- Esoglou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- LoveMonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 00:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments:
Both editors have a lengthy history of over a year of edit warring on many articles, always related to differences of opinion over Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic views (LoveMonkey is Eastern Orthodox, Esoglou is a Roman Catholic). As one editor has pointed out:
- "Wikistalk show you two has editing nearly 5000 seperate articles in common between you. Looking through ANI alone you two seem to have quite a history of disuptes between you two and this appears merley to be the latest between you two. I really don't think any amount of mediation between you two is really going to get us anywhere" (User:Weaponbb7)
As another has said:
- At this point, I doubt anything short of ArbCom intervention is going to bear fruit here." (User:Richwales)
LoveMonkey has repeatedly reported Esoglou for edit warring, with mixed results (here, here, here). In turn, LoveMonkey has been charged with uncivil conduct by a number of editors. My own experiences with Esoglou's edit warring and editing behaviour can be found here (draft only).
Various editors have been involved in their disputes, either as advisers or observers. The most commonly involved have been myself, User:Richwales, User:Phatius McBluff, and User:Pseudo-Richard, and I have invited their comment here. The following is just a sample of over a year of edit warring involving thousands of edits, hundreds of hours of arguing on Talk pages, and numerous attempts by other editors to resolve the differences between the two warring editors. A mere glance at the history of these pages shows the extent of edit warring between LoveMonkey and Esoglou.
- Attempt at mediation failed
- page locked due to edit warring
- User Weaponbb7 retires saying it's all too difficult
- Richardwales calls for an end to the edit warring
- LoveMonkey and Esoglou agree to refrain from editing the article
- Esoglou claims LoveMonkey is editing the article in breach of his agreement not to
- Esoglou starts editing the article again as well
Hell in Christian beliefs (history):
- My call for a solution
- "Esoglou's main problem in pushing this kind of an agenda is that he often backs up his arguments with primary sources thus leaving himself open to the charge of performing original research and synthesis. Doing this once in a while is excusable if you recognize that you are doing it when someone else calls you on it. Making a habit of it is really not good" (User:Pseudo-Richard commenting on Esoglou)
- "It's not that I don't see Esoglou engaging in OR and SYNTH. It's that, most of the time, the topics being discussed are way over my head and I don't know enough to be sure that it is OR and SYNTH. I figure you guys can more easily identify the problems with the sourcing and call Esoglou on his OR and SYNTH more cogently and accurately than I could. As annoying as Esoglou's interaction style can be, my experience is that he often raises points that are worth considering. Were it not for this, his trollish behavior would be unbearable" (User:Pseudo-Richard commenting on Esoglou)
- LoveMonkey describes his repeated appeals to other editors and relevant noticeboards
- LoveMonkey records Esoglou's edit warring
- Lengthy objection by LoveMonkey to Esoglou's edits
The disputes most typically result from objections to how one editor is representing the other editor's faith community. The edit warring would be reduced dramatically (if not entirely quenched), if the two editors agreed to edit only information concerning their own faith community since they don't trust each other to be accurate in this regard and this is where the edit warring starts. LoveMonkey has agreed to this proposal, Esoglou has not. This does not surprise me since LoveMonkey confines himself almost entirely to what his faith community believes anyway, whereas Esoglou consistently targets LoveMonkey's edits for alteration and repeatedly attempts to represent the Eastern Orthodox Church in ways which LoveMonkey claims are inaccurate.
This long term dispute has done the rounds of various noticeboards several times without any resolution. It would be good to bring an end to it.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Extended discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
RESPONSE: In contrast to what Taiwan boi says, LoveMonkey has not agreed to avoid making assertions about Roman Catholic teaching. He repeatedly does so, generally on the basis of a few selected Orthodox writers. "The Eastern Orthodox teaching", he says, "is this, in contrast to the Roman Catholic ("Frankish" etc.) teaching, which is that." I think it is right in response to indicate on the basis of official Roman Catholic Church documents what really is the Roman Catholic Church teaching on the matter. The fundamental NPOV policy actually requires that those assertions be balanced by a sourced exposition, within those articles, of what the Roman Catholic teaching really is. LoveMonkey does not shy away from citing also Roman Catholic sources. He presents as proof of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church opinions expressed by writers over a century ago in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, even when the writers themselves commented that the Church had made no decision on the matter. LoveMonkey is selective in his choice of Eastern Orthodox theologians to cite. An on-going discussion between us concerns his deletion of a series of declarations by Eastern Orthodox theologians and his original-research declaration that the statements by several such theologians "appear to run counter to (unspecified) official church documents", a declaration that he does not even permit to be tagged as needing a citation (see Talk:Hell in Christian beliefs#Removal of unanswered tag). For what reason was the suggestion made that I should never use a Roman Catholic source for information on Eastern Orthodox teaching? When in fact have I ever used a Roman Catholic source as the basis for saying what is Eastern Orthodox teaching? It is LoveMonkey who constantly uses his favourite Eastern Orthodox writers to say what Roman Catholic teaching is. I have repeatedly offered to abstain from editing any article on which LoveMonkey also agrees to abstain from editing. There should be no favouritism: no excluding one editor for the sole purpose of giving another a free hand. Esoglou (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I've come here in response to Taiwan boi's request. I really don't know what should be "done" with LM and Esoglou. There are actually a number of issues being debated here, but I will confine myself to the central issue, the edit-warring problem. The best solution may be something like Taiwan boi's proposal that LM and Esoglou refrain from editing certain topics. However, we must be clear about what we mean here, because there is ample room for confusion. Does LM get to edit content that discusses Eastern Orthodox views of Roman Catholicism? (After all, such content discusses Eastern Orthodox, rather than Roman Catholic, viewpoints.) Does Esoglou get to raise concerns about, and tag, LM's editing on Eastern Orthodox topics, as long as Esoglou does not actually intervene in the editing? Also, guys, please stop accusing each other of "misrepresenting" and "dodging the question". There's obviously some honest confusion over what Taiwan boi's proposal was, etc. Please assume good faith with each other. Here's an idea: why don't you start all over at the beginning? Taiwan boi, please repeat your precise proposal for limiting LM's and Esoglou's editing. It doesn't matter if you think you've said it a thousand times before. Just say it again. Esoglou and LM, please say whether you agree to it. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
|
- Result: Restriction agreed to. My reading of the above discussion is that Esoglou will not make edits or talk page comments about Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice, and LoveMonkey will not make edits or talk page comments about Roman Catholic teaching or practice. This does not prevent them from sometimes working on the same article so long as they respect this limitation. This deal should be entered at WP:Editing restrictions so that the agreement is kept on record somewhere. I will wait a bit to allow a chance for any last-minute objections. Though the restriction is voluntarily entered into, it may be enforced by blocks, as usual. To get the restriction undone, make a request at WP:AN, and a consensus of editors may lift it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Please continue this elsewhere. AN3 can do no more. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
User:Collect reported by TFD (talk) (Result: No action)
Page: Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 16:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 18:17, 4 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "which seems fully gratuitous and of no actual use in describing the article at hand. We coiuld add "left wing parties may be racist" just as easily")
- 20:52, 4 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 412033084 by Rick Norwood (talk)sentence implies that all racist and fascist parties are right wing as worded")
- 12:41, 5 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "unless you intend to imply "all"?")
- 16:27, 5 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "exact wording of cite which does not say "avowedly" at all hoping this settles the issue, providing what he says about "right wing" as well")
- Diff of warning: 15:23, 5 February 2011
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]
Comments:
- All edits were made in seeking to avoid any misconception by any reader, and were all sought to be compromises, whilst TFD has (for example) insisted that the word "avowedly" is in the source etc. As the word is not in the source, it is proper to make sure that WP readers are not misled. It can hardly be edit war to add a precise quote from a source, after all, as the material at issue was not removed from the article at all. All edits were discussed at length on the proper talk pages, and this should be quite sufficient if you ook at the tenor of the attempt toavoid confrontations. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- There must not have been any consensus as to what you wanted because they were reverted by other users once again, and you, again reverted them. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 18:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Um -- nope. The last edit which was specifically to seek compromise by using the exact words of the cite has not been reverted. Nor, by the way, do I think seeking compromise is something which ought to be penalized in any way whatsoever. The goal of WP is not to be a place for "wikilawyering", but a place where we produce the best articles possible. Collect (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
TFD hasn't come here with clean hands, both he and Rick Norwood appear to have been tag teaming, (note the sequence of dates):
Rick Norwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 13:08, 2 February 2011 (edit summary: "rv "Wikipedia")
- 17:56, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "Try to clear up the issue of racism and fascism.")
- 20:12, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "rv The reference does not say that right-wing parties are racist, it says that standard usage applies the term "right-wing" to avowedly racist parties.")
The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 18:54, 1 February 2011 (edit summary: "RV previous edits - no censensus to move or remove description from the lead")
- 04:51, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412039820 by Collect (talk) Restore sourced text")
- 15:24, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412143576 by Collect (talk) Text should refect text")
I suggest page protection to cool things off. --Martin (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus") is a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus". This is a serious accusation. May I suggest that you refactor your comments, and if you wish to pursue the matter further to bring it to ANI. Also you may wish to notify other editors when you make accusations against them. TFD (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Precisely - but I seem to recall [12] Here Jprw restores the comments of the banned editor, which is meatpuppetry. TFD (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC) which means TFD is far from averse to making the charge when he wishes to. Nor did I find TFD appropriately following up on such a charge. Sauce - goose. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive75#The_Four_Deuces may also be of interest to show TFD's use of "fascist" in referring to editors, and the warning issued to him. Lastly, TFD's calling absolutely edit a "revert" was noted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive117#User:SuaveArt_reported_by_User:The_Four_Deuces_.28Result:No_block_.29 Collect (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: There were technically four reverts by Collect in 24 hours. I would not be inclined to issue a block. There were two 'pure reverts'. His third and fourth edits make allowance for the other side's position and seem intended to produce a compromise. His last version incorporates the claim of racism and fascism but one that more closely aligns with the language of the source used. I will wait to see if another admin has a comment. It would be logical to place this article under a 1RR/day restriction, and I suggest that somebody propose at WP:AN that 1RR be imposed. The Fascism article has been under a 1RR restriction since 2009, and it's been working there. The dispute here is almost the same as the perennial one at Fascism. That is, the degree to which right-wing politics and fascism are aligned. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I note that admin SlimVirgin is currently conducting a RFC with regard to lede of that article and seems to have noticed the reverting as she has already warned the participants to stop[13] and the participants have since complied. Perhaps with that warning the matter here is moot? --Martin (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Result: No action. If reverting on the issue of racism and fascism continues, editors should use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution and should consider asking for full protection at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Hgilbert reported by User:Masteryorlando (Result:No violation )
Page: Rudolf Steiner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hgilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&oldid=412118924
- 12:50, 2 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 411512461 by Masteryorlando; detailed discussion inappropriate here; police report sufficient. (TW)")
- 22:50, 2 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 411640061 by AnomieBOT; Too bulky and awkward for intro; already covered in body. (TW)")
- 02:53, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 411784735 by Hgilbert; incoherent lead. (TW)")
- 12:28, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 28 edits by Masteryorlando (talk); Conflicts with arbitration; incoherent presentation. (TW)")
- 17:45, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Masteryorlando (talk) to last version by Hgilbert")
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hgilbert
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rudolf_Steiner
Comments:
See Rudolf Steiner Talk Page. Also I note this pages is already on probation and this issue appears to have a history of inappropriate edits by Hgilbert see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education See probation removal at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Rudolf+Steiner "18:05, 17 October 2006 Centrx (talk | contribs) unprotected Rudolf Steiner (Any user who engages in edit warring of any kind will be blocked from editing.) (hist)"
Masteryorlando (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed that Hgilbert has abused the use of the rollback button, using it to revert several good faith edits as shown here. I think he has been notified about what constitutes vandalism and what doesn't, and I gave him a message here. I request at least the rollback flag from his account will be dropped. Minimac (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I apologize; I didn't realize that rollback was reserved for vandalism. My error completely. (And it shall not happen again.)
- Vis a vis the 3RR rule: it is clear from the diffs above that I did not go beyond the 3 revert limit. Incidentally, several editors, not just myself, have been trying to ensure that User:Masteryorlando's edits stay within the arbitration guidelines for this article that limit sources for potentially contentious material to third-party reviewed material. hgilbert (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't believe that Hgilbert violated 3RR here. I have tried to advise Masteryorlando here and here of some of the ways to work on WP that would make the process less contentious. Masteryorlando has a wealth of knowledge about the subject but not so much about how to work in WP, so perhaps a mentor could work with him/her. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I also endorse the comments made by EPadmirateur and advise Masteryorlando to ask for mentorship and note Hgilbert's agreement not to use rollback except for vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks but please consider that although Hgilbert "only" reverted 3 times in 24 hours, he's been reverting in this material over a much longer period - 28 times in the previous ten days. Objections to the balance of this article which Hgilbert is th most active editor of have been raised on the article's Talk: page, as to "Lack of balance / sounds like an advert for the subject", similarly on the Waldorf School page see "major balance issue" which Hgilbert is also the most active editor on. But Hgibert has likewise failed to meaningfully respond or has responded with consistently quite inaccurate statements. Although previously denying any financial connection, Hgilbert in fact was found to be an employee of the Anthroposophical Waldorf School movement and an author for its related Anthroposophical publishing company (see arbitration.) EPadmirateur who clearly likewise has Anthroposophical connections appears to be acting in cahoots with Hgilbert to block my edits (a further two edits blocked withou cause today by Epadmiratuer,) and is therefore equally not neutral in this matter. Also Epadmirateur has failed to respond meaningfully on discussion page and made spuruious arguments. EPadmirateur asserts these are "BOLD" edits but the truth is that they are not. The German language wikipedia entry for Rudolf Steiner contains all of this material. The wikipedia entry on Anthroposophy likewise contains this in its Section on the 'History of Anthroposophy'. In this regard I would request review of Hgilbert and EPadmirateur's edits over a longer period on the Rudolf Steiner Article for precisely the "inappropriate and disruptive edit" warring described as requiring review in the arbitration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Editwarring_and_conflict
I do acknowledge my relative newness to editing Expedia but I find the behaviour I have encountered from Hgilbert to be extraordinarily lacking in respect for freedom of speech or unbiased scholarship. I would be happy for an entorely independent mediator to step in. Or perhaps the Arbitration review should be re-opened? ThanksMasteryorlando (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
User:76.65.240.91 reported by CapnPrep (talk) (Result: 3 month block)
Page: History of French (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.65.240.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [14]
- 14:11, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "vandalism; see Belgian language for further infos")
- 21:12, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412000139 by CapnPrep (talk)")
- 15:57, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412046018 by Nortmannus (talk)")
- 18:35, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412184109 by CapnPrep (talk)")
- 19:45, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412197219 by Nortmannus (talk)")
- 20:27, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412210917 by Cagwinn (talk)")
- 20:49, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "nothing else to do?")
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none
Comments:
IP with long history of edit warring over disputed, unsourced, ungrammatical material. Discussion has not proven remotely useful in the past. The same user appears under the IP 70.82.96.170, currently blocked.
CapnPrep (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blondonien/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 3 months Courcelles 21:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
User:24.162.240.209 reported by Mkativerata (talk) (Result: 24h block)
Page: Deaths in 2011 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.162.240.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 21:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 02:07, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "You have got to be kidding me. A dog gets a listing here? Let's draw the line somewhere...")
- 03:10, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "I disagree. Humans only.")
- 03:48, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "NO DOGS ALLOWED")
- 21:31, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "dogs not allowed")
- Diff of warning: here
Fourth revert is within 24 hours and comes after warning for edit-warring.—Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Courcelles 21:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Viticulturist99 reported by User:Demiurge1000 (Result: Protected)
Page: Richard Boyd Barrett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Viticulturist99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [16]
(this is the version as edited by him, that he was attempting to revert "back to")
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Sorry if this is excessive detail, I think it's worth mentioning:
previously cautioned about NPOV, on his talk page (there was already a level 1 general notice in place) [21]
he replies to that by accusing me of disruptive editing [22]
advised about the BLP/N discussion and advised to seek concensus, on his talk page (not by me) [23]
he replies to the BLP/N advice by indicating his ownership of the article and it "shall remain" at his version [24]
formal warning about 3RR, on his talk page [25]
provided with additional explanations of what constitutes a revert, on his talk page [26]
he responds to advice by giving me a final warning and accusing me of censorship [27]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]
Also much more at Talk:Richard Boyd Barrett and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Richard Boyd Barrett where I've tried to reassure and assist a novice editor (who may well have a COI) who was concerned by the problematic BLP material that was being added and re-added.
Comments:
At Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Richard Boyd Barrett, User:Viticulturist99 makes accusations of lying, bias, etc.
Note: I myself am at, but not beyond, 3RR on the article; this is specifically because I felt it necessary to remove (1) a misleading quote that attributed to the BLP subject controversial words that he did not say, and (2) controversial and contested material that was not supported by a reliable independent secondary source (the source in question was a simple text webpage of one of the political parties involved, http://irishantiwar.org/archives/news/101307.html ). Reverting such serious BLP violations does not fall under 3RR, and I discussed the related issues in detail on the talk page, as well as asking for help at the BLP noticeboard. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Result: Protected three days. I did not see four reverts by Viticulturist, but some of his changes raise eyebrows regarding WP:BLP. I encourage editors to carefully work out the sourcing issues for any controversial things that may have been said by Mr. Boyd Barrett. Viticulturist should be careful to avoid personal attacks, since this is getting close to the edge. EdJohnston (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
User:146.232.75.208 reported by — Toдor Boжinov — (In progress)
Page: Bulgarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 146.232.75.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 11:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 11:16, 3 February 2011 (edit summary: "It is not extreme, nor is it fringe, if there are compliable sources and DNA evidence to back up. I made it NPOV, you made it POV, read wiki rules, then come back..")
- 11:33, 3 February 2011 (edit summary: "How is it neutralization if all the significant viewpoints are not included? And how many times must I say that my source is compliant with wiki rules. I am not looking for arguments or anything...")
- 05:45, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "It is not fringe theory if there is DNA evidence,all significant views must be there for NPOV")
- 11:00, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "what sock puppet, Im just at different places at different times - you people are continuing to ignore wiki rules in terms of including all signiicant views, so that it is NPOV?What is your problem?")
- 14:12, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "How can it be fringe if alot of Bulgarians see themselves as non slavic and there is new genetic research? According to wiki rules, for it to be NPOV all significant views must be added")
- 09:33, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "what are you serious - ofcourse there are two theories if one is backed up by many Bulgarians (who I met and chatted to and dont consider themselves slavic) and by genetic evidencem it is NPOV now")
- 10:59, 6 February 2011 (edit summary: "Wiki rules says all significant views must be mentioned for NPOV, if anyone is vandalising it is you - you made it POV. Not fringe if DNA backs up theory and if many Bulg. dont see themselves as slav")
- 11:17, 6 February 2011 (edit summary: "You people are ganging up on me 0 if you continue I will take this matter to an admin and explain how you are ignoring wiki:neutrality rules and how you are removing sourced info - why do you do it?")
- Diff of warning: here
First four edits listed constitute 3RR, the remaining are evidence of continued edit warring.
— — Toдor Boжinov — 11:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note Looking into this. m.o.p 01:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note 1: let it be known that Jingiby, Laveol and TodorBozhinov are all Bulgarian - I'd recommend that you guys try not to edit-war on topics which you are likely biased in, purely because doing so muddies the waters. I'm still looking into this, though. m.o.p 01:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Would one of the accusing party please explain what's wrong with the IP's source? Granted, I can't find another instance of the report, but I'd like to know why consensus stands against it. Cheers, m.o.p 02:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi and thanks for looking into this issue. The IP's edits introduce contradictions into the article. The intro says Bulgarians are South Slavic, Ethnogenesis now claims there are "two main viewpoint[s]" (Slavic+Bulgar and Bulgar+Thracian origin), and Genetic origin now says that some genetic study found out Bulgarians are not Slavs but relatives of Iranic/Pamirian peoples.
- Would one of the accusing party please explain what's wrong with the IP's source? Granted, I can't find another instance of the report, but I'd like to know why consensus stands against it. Cheers, m.o.p 02:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note 1: let it be known that Jingiby, Laveol and TodorBozhinov are all Bulgarian - I'd recommend that you guys try not to edit-war on topics which you are likely biased in, purely because doing so muddies the waters. I'm still looking into this, though. m.o.p 01:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
>>>>>>No, the intro I made said that they are either slavic ethnically or by culture and language - so as to present both views in an equal manner. yes ethnogenesis does claim there are 2 viewpoints, and the genetic section - I made it say that according to the team there conclusion was etc etc, so as not to state it as a fact and to make it neutral - so what is the problem here then?
- Now, the predominant view, as has been shown in the article using quality sources, is that Bulgarians belong to the South Slavic group, even though their historical and genetic origin is not purely South Slavic. However, any theories that minimize the South Slavic contribution are alternative and should be either omitted as undue weight or clearly labeled as alternative. I believe it's the IP's responsibility to explain their edits: they never used the article talk page, but rather posted walls of text on my talk which mostly accused me of doing this and that and claiming that I am not Slavic because I, supposedly, don't look Slavic.
>>>>>>It is not certain at all if that is the predominant view anymore, since others have been found, backed up by a compliant source and by genetic research, plus I am ware of that many Bulgarians themselves do not consider themselves slavic. Also, in the article it says that: "the DNA of Bulgarians is clearly seperated from the tight cluster of other slavic nations (or something like that) - further adds substance to my argument
- As for the source (http://www.novinite.com/): I would not normally consider the source to be unreliable for news and general events. In this case, though, it is not good enough. Ideally, the statement would have to be backed using scholarly research, not a news article.
>>>>>Why would a major newspaper company not check its valadidity before posting something that could otherwise be totally bogus, mad eup and typed in someone's room - otherwise they could risk their whole reputation as a quality newspaper and thus loose lots of readers and thus millions of euros.
- The IP's posts to my talk have been sort of annoying and harrassing, so I don't really want to be involved in the dispute with them anymore: it has so far detracted me from more productive and more pleasant work on Wikipedia. No matter if the IP gets blocked and no matter if the dispute gets resolved, I'd just like to stay away from it. That does not mean I will not take responsibility for my actions, of course. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 08:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
>>>>>>Never once have I harrased you, but i am just posting replies to your argument and defending myself against your unjust and rude accusations that I am a vandal (very disrespectful, if you dont even properly explain yourself, when I explained myself many, many times) - so what is wrong with that. i am sure that if anyone saw what I wrote and how I wrote it, would agree that i didnt harass. So you are complaining that you find my posts annoying - that is just your opinion - why do you complain about something small and insignificant like that here.
- I have been following this issue, and I am not Bulgarian. I do believe that the IP's edits constitute vandalism, and clearly he violated 3RR (no matter what his reasoning was). The user was warned to discuss the source, and his "theory.", but he/she instead resorted to edit warring and baseless accusations.
>>>>>>>>>If there is any vandalsim that I did it was only the 3 revert rule thing - that was unintentional, and was not aware when I did it - for that i am sorry and would certainly be much more careful in the future. Otherwise there has not been any other vandalism from me - just trying to make page better and more neutral by following wikipedia's rules of neutrality -what is wrong with that? i did discuss it on other peoples's talk pages, and if you were really interested in the argument you would have clicked on my ip and see where I posted on whose talk page and go follow there - if you had just put in some effort on your part.
- In regards to the actual theory, it is clearly fringe as there are few, if any legitimate academic sources that state it is correct. The IP user is attempting to insert "research" done by obscure newspapers as RS-based facts.
- The problem with the information is that it completely contradicts the current, academically sourced content of the article, and goes against potentially thousands of research and university sources. My accusations are not baseless - I accused you all of disrespect by calling me a vandal and not properly explaining yourselves and I accused you of not following wiki's neutrality rules - there is "base" in all of that - you have been guilty in all of that - I am sure anyone would agree
- At best, the IP info. could go into an "alternative origin theories" or "Bulgarian origin conspiracy theories" section. Just my 2 cents.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Ontomoto reported by User:Mike Rosoft (Result: Resolved)
Page: Red Bull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ontomoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Warned several times on his talk page (including twice by me that he had already broken the three revert rule). -
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See the talk page section Talk:Red Bull#Country of Origin. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments:
User was blocked for a period of twenty-four hours by Elen of the Roads. Marking as resolved. m.o.p 02:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Misessus reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: Resolved)
Page: Austrian School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Misessus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [29]
- 1st revert: reverts my edit
- 2nd revert: reverts an edit from User:Dark Charles
- 3rd revert: reverts Dark Charles again
- 4th revert: reverts my edit
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned by 3 editors [30] [31] [32]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]
Comments:
It seems that in his two previous periods of editing activity, this editor ends up with blocks (and warnings) for these same problems. Presently, the editor has been inserting blatant WP:OR (along with POV and WP:STRUCTURE issues) against the advisement of multiple editors. After I stepped away from the article for a couple of days, I see today that User:Misessus is still very unconstructive in his approach. BigK HeX (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked for three days (note: the block log states vandalism as the block reason, but my script malfunctioned).
- As the editor has been warned before, I've decided not to mediate and instead issue a block. Full reasoning is here. I'm now marking this case as Resolved. m.o.p 02:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Mindbunny/Women's rights in Saudi Arabia
User:Mindbunny reported by User:DeCausa (Result: )
Page: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mindbunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [34]
- 1st revert: [35]
- 2nd revert: [36]
- 3rd revert: [37]
- 4th revert: [38]
- 5th revert: [39]
- 6th revert: [40]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]
Comments:
General edit-warring and gaming 3RR. (Of the last 4 reverts Mindbunny kept the 4th one 4 hours after the 24 hr period expired.) Mindbunny's been warned by myself and other editors on his/her talk page but
he/she basically deletes the warnings and ignores - diffs from his/her talk page included above.. No reason has been given why he/she won't discuss properly DeCausa (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)