This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Germen (talk | contribs) at 10:04, 19 July 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:04, 19 July 2005 by Germen (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC).
- (Germen | talk | contributions)
Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.
Description
Germen engages in bad faith, one-sided discussion and doesn't seem motivated to resolve disputes, engages in edit warring leading to page protection, multiple breaches of the 3RR, disrupting wikipedia to make a point (creating alternative pages for content that is reverted that are all subsequently deleted) and possible anonymous editing to circumvent blocks across a wide range of pages related to Islamophobia. He also marks all edits, even controversial reverts, as minor, often without comment.
Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
3RR
Mutilple breaches of the 3RR despite various warnings, blocked three times in the last fortnight:
- 12:04, 15 June 2005.
- 17:43, 19 June 2005 despite warnings
- 18:06, 22 June 2005 despite being previously blocked with warning.
- 11:47, 12 July 2005
- Attempts to warn Germen about further breaches of the 3RR are meet with unapologetic indignation with the possibility that further 3RR's maybe forthcoming if Germen is "forced" to do so.
- There was a misuse of reverting power. As I was alone, I could just revert three times. Mustafaa, Axon, Yuber and others were cooperating, thus circumventing the 3RR rule. I have mentioned the rule that when multiple parties are involved, all parties should be treated equally. This rule was ignored. --Germen 09:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy
Possible use of anonymous sock puppetting to circumvent admin blocks and make bad faith personal attacks on talk pages:
- Anonymous IP 130.89.6.66 makes reverts to page that closely mirror Germen's own reverts after Germen's 3RR block of 22 June 2005 (see above) leading to page protection . Admin SlimVirgin confirms suspicion anonymous IP is Germen .
- Same anonymous IP makes bad faith remarks on talk page occur shortly after Germen is blocked for breaching the 3RR. IP seems to originate from Germen's university .
Misplaced Pages:Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point
- Created Prejudices (islam) and Prejudice (islam) hist (see Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Prejudice_(islam)) in reaction to Islamophobia being protected.
- Attempts to re-create deleted article Islamophilia (non-notable neologism) all of which have to be speedily deleted in response.
- Created Persecution of non-Muslims in response to failed VfD for Persecution of Muslims, now itself up for VfD.
Misplaced Pages:Vandalism
- Germen vandalises the Prejudice (islam) by deleting the VfD notice and, when this doesn't work, insists of moving VfD to down the page. The page is reverted by administrator David. German then reports the revert of this vandalism as a violation of the 3RR . He is eventually blocked for vandalism . His response when the block ends is to quote the latin tag 'Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi' , which translates as "What Jupiter can do, cattle can not do" and means that he believes that no action was taken over David's alleged 3RR violation because he is an admin.
- Germen has unilaterally stripped pages of the NPOV/factual accuracy tag. , ,
This tag can be used only when there are explicit reasons for it as stated in the talk page. Thsi tag is misused often. Removing it can be warranted in some cases, as the cases in which I removed it. --Germen 09:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Marking non-minor edits as minor without comment
Various examples of marking major edits as minor or without proper comments or both, despite warnings:
Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith
Germen insists on making a point of identifying "muslim" editors and then attributing "common" traits, such as unreliability, to them, among other bad faith remarks:
Misplaced Pages:No original research
Germen insists on "disputing" agreed definitions of Islamophobia, using unrelated sources and spoon-feeding evidence to "dispute" the defintions through "logical deduction" (or original research), without providing references that actually dispute the defintion. Much time is spent pointlessly debating basic Misplaced Pages policy making other discussion almost impossible:
Germen continues to carry out original research to arrive at a logical theory that, quoting for the Koran and other sources, will disprove the defitinition of Islamophobia as it is defined by the Runnymede Foundation. He continues to ignore my and others remarks that this is original research, and without referencing reputable secondary sources that either a) reproduce his logic or b) demonstrate his original thesis.
Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
- Attempt to restart discussion to come to an agreement using draft version of article during protection. Listed page for RfC
- June 9, 2005 attempt to defuse controversy, focus on specific changes
- I have requested for mediation myself as well. --Germen 09:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~~~~)
Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~~~~)
Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.
Removal of dispute tags
The reason I removed the tag was that there was no reason anymore to maintain this tag: all explicit points were addressed. So this was not vandalism, rather cleaning up. --Germen 09:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- You should not remove dispute tags so shortly after they are added and unless there is a rough consensus to do so. Axon 09:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- When there are no stated reasons in the discussion page to keep the tag, there is consensus to remove the tag. --Germen 09:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
WP:POINT
- This page is a logical way to solve a dispute. The controversy about islamophobia hangs about its definition.
- No, the dispute also now centres around your behaviour. See evidence above. Axon 09:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Islamophobia is defined in several dictionaries as " prejudice about Islam or Muslims". So it is natural to specify this prejudices in order to define islamophobia more accurately. --Germen 09:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Several dictionaries? I could only find one dictionary definition and the Runnymede Definition, to which you have yet to supply a contradictory source, other than your own original research. Axon 09:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- There does not exist a Misplaced Pages rule which forbids this. See Deletion policy.--Germen 09:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Main objections existed with the title. This problem has been addressed and I agreed with deleting the original version, so I do not see the point. --Germen 09:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- The article still exists and we have to go through the trouble of a further VfD because of spurious artciles you create. Axon 09:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Original version
In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC).
- (Germen | talk | contributions)
Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.
Description
Germen engages in bad faith, one-sided discussion and doesn't seem motivated to resolve disputes, engages in edit warring leading to page protection, multiple breaches of the 3RR, disrupting wikipedia to make a point (creating alternative pages for content that is reverted that are all subsequently deleted) and possible anonymous editing to circumvent blocks across a wide range of pages related to Islamophobia. He also marks all edits, even controversial reverts, as minor, often without comment.
Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
3RR
Mutilple breaches of the 3RR despite various warnings, blocked three times in the last fortnight:
- 12:04, 15 June 2005.
- 17:43, 19 June 2005 despite warnings
- 18:06, 22 June 2005 despite being previously blocked with warning.
- 11:47, 12 July 2005
- Attempts to warn Germen about further breaches of the 3RR are meet with unapologetic indignation with the possibility that further 3RR's maybe forthcoming if Germen is "forced" to do so.
Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy
Possible use of anonymous sock puppetting to circumvent admin blocks and make bad faith personal attacks on talk pages:
- Anonymous IP 130.89.6.66 makes reverts to page that closely mirror Germen's own reverts after Germen's 3RR block of 22 June 2005 (see above) leading to page protection . Admin SlimVirgin confirms suspicion anonymous IP is Germen .
- Same anonymous IP makes bad faith remarks on talk page occur shortly after Germen is blocked for breaching the 3RR. IP seems to originate from Germen's university .
Misplaced Pages:Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point
- Created Prejudices (islam) and Prejudice (islam) hist (see Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Prejudice_(islam)) in reaction to Islamophobia being protected.
- Attempts to re-create deleted article Islamophilia (non-notable neologism) all of which have to be speedily deleted in response.
- Created Persecution of non-Muslims in response to failed VfD for Persecution of Muslims, now itself up for VfD.
Misplaced Pages:Vandalism
- Germen vandalises the Prejudice (islam) by deleting the VfD notice and, when this doesn't work, insists of moving VfD to down the page. The page is reverted by administrator David. German then reports the revert of this vandalism as a violation of the 3RR . He is eventually blocked for vandalism . His response when the block ends is to quote the latin tag 'Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi' , which translates as "What Jupiter can do, cattle can not do" and means that he believes that no action was taken over David's alleged 3RR violation because he is an admin.
- Germen has unilaterally stripped pages of the NPOV/factual accuracy tag. , ,
This tag can be used only when there are explicit reasons for it as stated in the talk page.
Marking non-minor edits as minor without comment
Various examples of marking major edits as minor or without proper comments or both, despite warnings:
Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith
Germen insists on making a point of identifying "muslim" editors and then attributing "common" traits, such as unreliability, to them, among other bad faith remarks:
Misplaced Pages:No original research
Germen insists on "disputing" agreed definitions of Islamophobia, using unrelated sources and spoon-feeding evidence to "dispute" the defintions through "logical deduction" (or original research), without providing references that actually dispute the defintion. Much time is spent pointlessly debating basic Misplaced Pages policy making other discussion almost impossible:
Germen continues to carry out original research to arrive at a logical theory that, quoting for the Koran and other sources, will disprove the defitinition of Islamophobia as it is defined by the Runnymede Foundation. He continues to ignore my and others remarks that this is original research, and without referencing reputable secondary sources that either a) reproduce his logic or b) demonstrate his original thesis.
Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~~~~)
Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~~~~)
Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.
Removal of dispute tags
The reason I removed the tag was that there was no reason anymore to maintain this tag: all explicit points were addressed. So this was not vandalism, rather cleaning up. --Germen 09:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- You should not remove dispute tags so shortly after they are added and unless there is a rough consensus to do so. Axon 09:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)