| Revision as of 20:10, 1 May 2005 editStevertigo (talk | contribs)43,174 editsm →[] vs. [] re: []← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:35, 12 November 2018 edit undoRGloucester (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers38,757 edits rdr to mainTag: New redirect | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{shortcut|]}} | |||
| {{rfm-header}} | |||
| ---- | |||
| <!-- please post your request at the bottom of this list - thanks --> | |||
| === ] : Fadix & Coolcat === | |||
| Content dispute with possible POV issues at ]. Please see ] for details. No mediator has volunteered to take on this case yet. | |||
| :I'm taking a look now. Discussion at least seems civil. -]|] 20:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===] and ]=== | |||
| I have been unable to communicate with this user since I first encountered them, and feel they lack ]. I am requesting mediation as part of the ] process. (] | ] | ]) 12:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm afraid that I can't join Sam in requesting mediation, as the requisite steps that are supposed to come in the process prior to requesting it have not yet been attempted. I would therefore think this yet another example of Sam abusing wiki procedures whenever doing so would appear to produce the results he desires. However, I will happily take part in this procedure if said mediator hopes some good will come of it, and perhaps it will help clarify the reasoning behind Sam's behavior. ] 14:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Kev, I'm getting mixed messages from your post -- do you refuse mediation (on the grounds that you believe this is premature) or do you accept (I think mediators always hope good will come of the discussions they facilitate)? I appreciate your taking the time to clarify. ] 15:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm happy to accept and take part sincerely should there be a mediator who thinks they can help resolve the issue. That is my only condition. However, I think it is important to note that my personal position is that it is premature (given that the standard procedures were not followed), and I certainly don't want to waste anyones time if mediators agree that this is premature or believe that the issue is intractable. ] 22:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Given the above, are there any mediators willing to pursue this matter? (] | ] | ]) 12:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The above mentions nothing about what particular debates or conflics the two users are having, and user:Kevehs seems to have been inactive for a couple weeks, only lightly active before that. Again, its unclear, other than accusations of incivility, what the points are. Recommend archive. -]|] 20:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===] and ]=== | |||
| I'm requesting mediation on behalf of ] regarding several contentious discussions on battleground pages and what El_C feels is a lack of civility on Sam's part. ] (which has apparently been protected due to their disputes) and ] are good examples of what is at issue here. See talk pages for more. | |||
| Note that both El_C and Sam Spade have agreed, to me personally, to undergo mediation in advance of this request. Both are eager that this problem should not reach arbitration. Speedy redress would be welcomed. ] 02:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, Wally -- I'd love it if El C and Sam could provide the names of some mediators they would mutually trust to handle the dispute. Also, if each one could offer a brief list of agreements they want to mutually agree upon by the end of the mediation, that would provide a good starting point. ] 03:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I object to the statement "Both are eager that this problem should not reach arbitration". I frankly don't think thats true, and suggest a review of ], where information regarding that, as well as discussion of goals can be found. ] contains similar discussion of agreements sought. Similar to El C (@ ]), I'd accept users Ed Poor and Danny (altho I'm not ruling others out). (] | ] | ]) 06:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Should this be taken, Sam, to indicate you don't desire mediation? | |||
| :Also, while El_C is not terribly familiar with most of the Mediation Committee, he relates to me that both Danny and Ed Poor "enjoy confidence as mediators for this case." I echo this. ] 02:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Re: the former: Absolutely not, I stand by my advice that ] be reviewed, and have made clear thruout that I prefer compromise rather than escalation. (] | ] | ]) 12:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Please see ]. Cheers, (] | ] | ]) 16:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===External links in ]=== | |||
| Amid a recent campaign by the online community to make the Misplaced Pages article for Online poker the number one result in the search engine for that term, the page became the target of heavy vandalism and was subsequently locked for this reason. As the page was getting a large amount of traffic, I asked politely in IRC for an administrator to unlock the page so I could format the external links in ] format, as I often do, even for featured articles while they are featured so that they are more presentable and professional looking. In the past, no one has ever complained, and people typically thank me for it as it takes some work, however, user ] has claimed that what I did was vandalism. Several people, including at least one admin, have informed him on the talk page that his conception of vandalism is flawed, and I explained to him that since he was persisting even in the face of several users and an admin that it would be necessary for us to engage in the dispute resolution process to solve the problem, as he is the only person who views this as vandalism. At that point, user 2005 quietly left the scene for several days, abandoning the discussion. Then he came back, presumably after others were not looking, and without attempting to reengage those who were watching the article reverted the MLA formatting citing, once again, vandalism in his edit summary. He is now attempting to lure other users into revert wars and is sticking to his claim that it is vandalism. For clarity, here is the definition of the term, according to ]: | |||
| ''Vandalism is indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them—most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you wrote removed, moved to talk, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism.'' | |||
| --] 00:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Not surprisingly, Alterego persists in blatantly untrue actions. None of this has anything to do with MLA format. Zero. He used that pretense to make significant content edits to the article, and then tried to disguise this indisputable bad faith deletion, done under the cover of a protected article, by labeling the its as "m"/minor, and subsequently pretending the issue has something to do with formatting. His actions are the definition of bad faith, in particular because the content edits in questions have been debated extensively in the discussion for that article, which Alterego has chosen to not particpate in. I ignored Alterego's comments previously as the bad faith edits have been reverted, and he has thus far refused to justify in any way his completely inappropriate behavior, or participate in discussion over the content of the article. Once again even mentioning the MLA cover of the malicious editing shows a lack of remorse and a disinterest in dealing with any genuine issues involved. 00:49, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is incorrect. I ''immediately'' posted on the talk page that I forgot to mark an edit summary , and explained what I had done. This goes above and beyond a simple edit summary. As a matter of fact, it was only . You are using a lot of loaded phrases like "indisputable bad faith deletion", "bad faith edits", "completely inappropriate behavior", "malicious editing", "lack of remorse", and it is leading me to wonder if you are trolling. Look again at my and explain how any of these terms you are using describe improving the presentation of external links, something I do often. I don't understand your motivation here and I am not willing to engage in a revert war with you, as you were attempting to lure me (and others) into. --] 01:10, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I just want to make clear that I have not made a single edit to the 'content' of the article above the external links section, so please lets keep our discussion specific to that area. --] 01:18, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry that no one from the Mediation Committee replied before now. This was quite a few weeks ago. Is this problem still something which requires mediation? ]] 02:18, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===] and ]=== | |||
| * {{user|TDC}} | |||
| * {{user|Tony Sidaway}} | |||
| TDC will be notified of this request immediately. | |||
| As a result of a few encounters with TDC, and observing that he frequently seems to attract quite a lot of friction from other editors, I supported ] brought concerning his behavior. As a result of the confirmation that not only I but several others have found our encounters with him characterized by extreme rudeness, resort to personal attack, and somewhat determined edit warring, I decided that mediation would almost certainly help, if TDC was willing. He has accepted. I hope that by a mediated dialog we will be able to establish better communication, and that this will lead to less problematic behavior on his part, or at least more understanding on my part of his reasons for behaving as he does. --]|] 21:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Do either of you have any preference for a mediator? Those currently listed as active are ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ], though you may want to check their contributions to see whether they really are active. ]] 10:57, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : I have no preferences. Any mediator willing to help us to establish a rapport would be fine with me. --]|] 11:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===], ], anon user 4.22x.X.X, re ]=== | |||
| * {{user|Harro5}} | |||
| * {{user|Gzuckier}} | |||
| *'''HELP!!!''' Excuse me if this is lengthy, but it's getting out of hand and I'm wondering if I'm completely off base. On ] I added a section on murders of random students, the effects on Yale admissions, and how Yale handled the most recent such crime, '''in response to a suggestion on ]''' by ] who felt it was relevant, and with explanation in ] of my thinking as to relevance. ] apparently got inspired and added a similar segment to a lot of colleges which were then deleted from most of them, random murders of students by townspeople not being a big feature of life at MIT or for their admission process, for instance. See ] and ], as I wasn't in on it or privy to all the details. | |||
| **On April 24: | |||
| ***anon user 4.22x.X.X deleted the entire ] section from the Yale article, with only explanation being an edit summary ''Other high profile crimes - Not necessarily high profile; "significant" violates NPOV; deleted redundant material on the Jovin case, which already appears in the article on Jovin.'' Note: '''deleted entire miscellany section''', not just the high profile crimes section. | |||
| *** 14:40, 24 Apr 2005 I partially restored it, deleting some of crime section in consideration of user 4.22x.X.X's "suggestions", with edit summary ''why it was important for yale that this not be 'random murder''', i.e. the piece I did not delete as 'redundant'. | |||
| ***] '''deleted entire miscellany section again''', with only edit summary ''For reasoning see ]'', said link being where it was decided not to include his edits to MIT page, with no suggestion that he or others should remove similar section from Yale. | |||
| **On April 25: | |||
| *** 15:48, 25 Apr 2005 I restored miscellany section with edit summary wondering how deletion was ''supposedly somehow due to MIT's suicide rate.'', the target of the link which given in the edit summary of the deletion. | |||
| ***user 4.22x.X.X '''deleted entire miscellany section again''', with only an edit summary. ''Removed Vandalism from User: Gzuckier. For reasoning see ]'', same irrelevant link as before. Note '''accusing me of vandalism''' for restoring his unilateral edit, or bilateral if you include ] | |||
| *** 21:17, 25 Apr 2005 I restored miscellany section with edit summary ''reverted big chop by self-appointed VandalAvenger who appears to believe that the talk:MIT article forbids the yale article mentioning bladderball.'' I admit to getting annoyed, being called a vandal and all, but I still don't see link to MIT suicides as great justification for deleting section on Yale bladderball, frisbee, golf course, etc. with no other discussion. | |||
| **On April 26: | |||
| ***user 4.22x.X.X deleted more specifically high profile crimes section again, with only explanation repeat of edit summary: ''Removed Vandalism from User: Gzuckier''. Note again '''accusing me of vandalism''' for restoring his unilateral/bilateral edit. At least the rest of the miscellany section was spared this time. | |||
| ***03:07, 26 Apr 2005 I restored crimes section, explained thinking on ] and in ] for user 4.22x.X.X. | |||
| ***user 4.22x.X.X leaves message on ] complaining that I have "added no justification or argument to the discussion", have "an attitude of not wanting to discuss the issue in a serious manner" and request that ] report me for ''three revert rule violation''. Note 1: I have justified the section when I wrote it, on ], and on ]; whereas ] and user 4.22x.X.X have done nothing but post links to ] and call me a vandal. Note 2: I took pains to '''NOT''' violate the three revert rule, and did not. | |||
| ***] deleted high profile crimes section again, with only edit summary ''rv. added gzuckier to the Three Revert Rule violators list.'' | |||
| ***] attempts to report me for ''three revert rule violation'' on ''Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR''. Administrator notes that I did not make three reverts within 24 hours. | |||
| ***] (spontaneously without contact from or to me of any kind) restores section, with edit summary:''there's no reason to delete this material.'' | |||
| *So am I totally offbase here? ] 19:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :It might be best to start with discussions on the talk page before coming to mediation, which as far as I can tell, Harro5 hasn't done for the Yale article at all yet. However, he has now said he'd allow the changes at ], so perhaps the issue is already resolving itself without mediation? ]] 11:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === ] and ] vs. ] re: ]=== | |||
| Inability to break deadlock, onging revert war. Recent RfC did not bring any help from other editors. ] and ] complaint is that ], is attempting to use WP as a place for advocating against gurus. The complaint is basically that a ''general'', ''neutral'' encyclopedia article on gurus is filled with criticisms of gurus by a few Western anti-guru authors with what amounts to using the Misplaced Pages for advocacy, which is explicitly forbidden by Misplaced Pages policy. On the other hand, ], claims that the article needs to feature an extensive section on criticism of gurus because "even if these gurus did not commit crimes, they are controversial because they disappoint their followers because they often turn out to be very human and incompetent to bring the disciple to their promised moksha in spite of their claims to be saints etc, The concept of guru is very controversial in the West." and that "the negative opinion about gurus is the majority and hence deserves majority space.". ] replies that "gurus, is one of the most important concepts in Eastern religions (which are practiced by 1.3 billion people, not including Western New Agers and that hence the Western critics are a minority POV. Request page protection and mediation to break deadlock. --] 20:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I said that the criticism of the gurus can be large ''in the section about gurus in the West'' because ''there'' the majority view of gurus has been intensely criticized. I was not talking about the amount of criticism in the article in general. ] 20:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am willing to mediate. Seems like a minor matter of how to best represent the material. -]|] 22:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you Stevertigo. How do we proceed? --] 23:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===] vs. ] re: ]=== | |||
| ;Summary of conflict | |||
| Rev of Bru reverts changes made by Slrubenstein. RoB is a POV warrior who has made it clear that he will not accept claims that important scholars accept that Jesus once existed: and . Slrubenstein accepts that some scholars reject the existence of Jesus, but maintains that most well-respected critical scholars accept Jesus' existence. Slrubenstein and RoB have argued over who is considered a respected scholar: . SR's criteria for "scholar" is someone who has a relevant PhD., teaches at a major accredited university, publishes books in academic presses and/or articles in peer-reviewed journals, ''regardless'' of whether their views coincide with SR's or not. RoB's criteria for "scholar" is anyone, whether they have credentials or not, who agrees with RoB's POV. | |||
| In short, I object to RoB's knee-jerk reverting of any change I make to the article, without any consideration for process (explaining his edits, responding to my explanations). Moreover, I object to his knee-jerk POV warrioring, refusing to accept views other than his own ] | ] 19:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am willing to accept this matter, if thats agreeable. This seems to be about a fairly basic issue of proper sources, and perhaps RoB would like to comment. -]|] | |||
| ;Rev of Bru comments | |||
| I would like to comment. That is a most unfair summary of events so far. I have repeatedly objected to user Slrubstein removing parts of the article which he does not like and repeatedly reverting my edits. | |||
| # I have always tried to compromise but there comes a point when compromise results in inaccuracies. | |||
| # I have repeatedly asked Slrubstein for a list of secular scholars who, on investigating the issue, have concluded that there definitely was a historical Jesus Christ. He has yet to reply with any. | |||
| # He did provide a list of non-secular scholars, but that is not what the dispute was regarding originally anyway, and is irrelevant. | |||
| # I provided a list of several secular scholars who dispute his existence. The current ratio of secular scholars who are skeptical vs accepting is hugely in favour of skeptical. IF he or anyone can provide a greater number of accepting secular scholars, then the article should be changed. If not, I don't see why his POV reverts should remain.] | |||
| # Can Rev of Bru provide one example of a compromise on his part? | |||
| # This is a flat-out lie. I provided a lengthy list on April 28: | |||
| # This is a lie. He calls these scholars "non-secular" because he disagrees with them. The scholars I listed are the most well-respected ''critical'' scholars of the NT. That he continues to falsely call these "non-secular" and to dismiss them as authorities is simply more evidence of his POV warrioring. | |||
| # And I explained why most of them are simply ''not'' "scholars" . His list includes a mechanical engineer, a geologist, and a German teacher. I grant that these may be authorities on mechanical engineering, geology, and German, but they are not scholars of the NT. The only reason RoB calls them "scholars" is because he agrees with them — another example of his POV warrioring (at the expense of the quality of this encyclopedia, which of course requires good research of good scholarship). ] | ] 18:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Note:'''instead of breaking comments, its considered proper form to use numbered points, leaving the original comment intact. | |||
| ;Narrative of discussion on Talk Page | |||
| Concerning the specific edit in dispute, I have provided a lengthy explanation for my changes ; this explanation was provided on: | |||
| *21:36 April 28 2005 | |||
| ** | |||
| '''Note: Rev of Bru never responded to this explanation'''. | |||
| '''Note: Since I posted this explanation, Rev of Bru has reverted my changes twice (through three separate edits). In this time Rev of Bru has provided '''no''' explanation on the Talk page. | |||
| When I complained about this on the talk page, Rev of Bru makes three assertions: | |||
| #that I am pushing a POV because most people have not studied the evidence . '''In fact''' I adressed this question in a comment on the Talk page on April 20 . | |||
| #that he has explained why he added the sentences in question . '''In fact''' there is no such explanation on the talk pages. | |||
| #that I never explained my edit, aside from an edit summary stating that RoB is wrong . '''In fact''' I provided a lengthy explanation for my edits on April 28 | |||
| ;Chronicle of edits to article | |||
| *18:24 April 28 2005 | |||
| **SR edits a paragraph; no change in content: | |||
| *18:35 April 28 2005 | |||
| **SR deletes one sentence; | |||
| *21:15 April 28 2005 | |||
| **RoB reverts edits by SR: | |||
| *21:29 April 28 2005 | |||
| **SR makes changes again, "see talk" in edit summary: | |||
| *18:00 29 April 2005 | |||
| **RoB reverts second half of SR's edit | |||
| *13:55 April 30 2005 | |||
| **RoB reverts first half of SR's edit | |||
| *18:27 April 30 2005 | |||
| **SR again makes changes, again writes "see talk" in edit summary | |||
| *18:38 April 30 2005 | |||
| **RoB again reverts, writes "see talk" in edit summary ''but does not provide any explanation in talk page'' | |||
| *18:42 April 30 2005 | |||
| **SR reverts | |||
| *20:02 April 30 2005 | |||
| **JimWae attempts a compromise | |||
| *21:59 April 30 2005 | |||
| **SR reverts ; SR provides an explanation for reversion on talk page | |||
| *23:54 April 30 2005 | |||
| **JimWae attempts another compromise, taking into account SR's comment ; SR accepts JimWae's compromise | |||
| *19:24 May 1 2005 | |||
| **RoB changes JimWae's compromise | |||
| *19:39 May 1 2005 | |||
| **SR reverts to JimWae's compromise | |||
| === ] === | |||
| I've been having this issue on the page for a while, but its getting ridiculous. The issue started during the Australian Election last year, when Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson made a couple of comments on the Australian Greens, in the form of humour but in line with how Anderson normally speaks. I have added these quotes a number of times to the page, and they are valid. However, ], who works for my local MP, and a member of the Australian Labour Party, has repeatedly removed these quotes calling them jokes. I have already discussed it with him on the ], however, Doctor Carr has acted highly pompous on this issue, and keeps removing the quotes calling them "frivilous" and alike. He has also then proceeded to take a shot at me for being of the youth division of the Liberal Party, "Anderson's joke lines, given out of context, are unencyclopaedic, no matter how amusing Young Liberals find them", and has tried to discount my ability to edit on the Misplaced Pages. These quotes are in context, but it is impossible to let others view them when Doctor Carr keeps judging what are and what are not quotes. I am requesting another credible user mediate and set out what and what can be quoted and whether or not Doctor Carr has been acting pompously on this issue. ] 18:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ------------------------------------------------------ | |||
| <!-- Please add new requests immediately above this line. --> | |||
| ==Archived and ongoing cases== | |||
| * ] and ] * | |||
| ** No one agreed to mediate. Andre said it was ok to close the case. | |||
| *User:Jewbacca vs. User:Auto movil | |||
| **] | |||
| *], ], ], ] | |||
| **] | |||
| * ] and ] | |||
| **] | |||
| * ] | |||
| **] | |||
| * ] and ] | |||
| **] | |||
| * ] | |||
| **] | |||
| * ] vs ] | |||
| **] | |||
| * ] and ] regarding image deletion. | |||
| ** ] | |||
| * ]: Various users and Jayjg & Josh Cherry & Jfdwolff | |||
| ** ] | |||
| * Safavids: deadlocked discussion and revert war | |||
| ** ] | |||
| * User:Palestine-info vs. User:Jayjg | |||
| ** ]. Current progress unknown. | |||
| * User:Emax vs. User:Chris 73 | |||
| ** ]. May be resolved by ]. | |||
| * ] | |||
| ** ]. | |||
| * Interwiki, Categories and Reversion | |||
| ** ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ** ]. At RFC. | |||
| *]: RSpeer & Fahrenheit451 | |||
| **]. Went to RFC instead. | |||
| * ] | |||
| **]. Went to RFC instead. | |||
| *] | |||
| **]. Went to RFC instead. | |||
| ==Archives== | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 19:35, 12 November 2018
Redirect to: