Jump to content

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Rokus01

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Filed On: 17:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Case Opened On: 15:35, 2 March 2007

Wikipedian filing request:

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

Questions:[edit]

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

  • Answer: Yes

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

  • Answer: respectless towards contributions and arguments, not scientific, content dispute, personal attack, provocation (possible abuse)

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

  • Answer: change of reverting behaviour, the evidence I asked for (if available), a more scientific approach, verification

Summary:[edit]

  • My contrubutions are systematically reverted, while being corrections or extra information, without bothering to supply the scientific sourced arguments against my edits I asked for. My edits are thoroughly discussed and even endorsed by others
  • Reverted: A correction to a contribution even the contributor agreed with
  • Reverted: A sourced overview of the Scythian prehistoric origins that has been independently validated
  • Discussion about the Scythian proper linguistic evidence being inconclusive cut short, as if the alleged absense of scientific discussion about the subject is enough to contradict sourced traditional views about this linguistic evidence being inconclusive.
  • Claiming sourced material as being decisive (Zgusta), without even outlining arguments and not even being referred to as such by serious scholars (concerning the linguistic evidence)
  • Flouting of scholars and editors ad hominem
  • Allegations to me and others that we use multiple usernames because of having a different view
  • Hypotheses presented and generalized as unshakeble facts and ultimate truth, unwilling to provide the proof from primary and secondary sources I asked for and relying on synoptics from tertiay sources.
  • Flawed logic and reasoning (repeatedly recurring to begging the question), without being bothered by WP:AGF
  • Troll like behavoiur because of suspected deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors and being far more interested in how others react to reverts , than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality.

Discussion:[edit]

I recommend a straw poll on the article talk page to confirm consensuses. Do you want to take this step?--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sceptic about the general willingness to take arguments into consideration in this. In my experience here arguments are easily flouted and abused to push POV or a nationalist stance. Truth is not a general consensus about what people like or choose to be true, truth should be evaluated by means of reason. I prefer some kind of neutral observer, academic level, able to evaluate sourced material or even investigate common sources with an open mind.Rokus01 22:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have experienced the same type of bad faith and militant editing wars with Ali doostzadeh, Marmoulak, and few others of the same POV, who remove citations, referenced materials, illustrations, graphs, etc without discussion or with discussions centered on bellitling the contributor and referenced scholars, dismissing outright genetical, archeological, ethnological etc evidence in conflict with their POV, without bringing sources or descending to substantial discussion. if needed, I will bring as many examples of edit warring, dismissing identified and verifiable evidence, personal attacks and belittling the scholars as may be needed to make a point. My many offers to Ali doostzadeh for mediation were all declined, and an offer of a mediator was also declined. Barefact 05:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HI, could you provide a question I could use for the straw poll.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 13:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This little change has been reverted many times, although the correction was discussed and agreed upon with the original editor user:dbachmann here. It is a pity to announce this administrator has recently shown association with this other party, thus as a start and opportunity to show good faith I agree to a straw poll on this issue. Rokus01 15:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Dbachmann is not a good admin. Nasz 02:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup:[edit]

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

  • Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

  • Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

  • Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

  • Answer:


AMA Information[edit]

Case Status: open


Advocate Status:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates/Requests/February_2007/Rokus01&oldid=1138375437"