User talk:TenChiJin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Re: World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation Protected
Hi! Regarding your comments on my talk page about my protecting the World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation article:
The editors Mario Roering and Peter Lee have been involved in a long edit war on both the Dutch and English wikipedias. I have tried to mediate by asking them to send me a list of the edits that the other user makes that they object to, their reasons for objecting to them and alternate text that might be acceptable to both editors. Peter Lee refused this request, Mario Roering ignored me. I have asked both users to agree to go to formal mediation on the articles, both ignored my request. I asked them to stop making personal attacks against each other, again they ignored me. I deleted the disputed external links from the karate article explaining that such links are not essential to articles so disputed links should just be removed, they both added the links back and continued to edit war over them.
For these reasons both of these users have lost my assumption of good faith. They have no regard for the goals of wikipedia, they are both simply trying to abuse this project to promote their own agendas and attack each other. In my opinion neither the Genseiryu article or the World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation are written from a neutral point of view. In particluar, the WGKF article is being used as an excuse to debunk the GKIF, and the genseiryu article contains hidden messages telling editors what they can and cant edit which is against the policies of wikipedia. Until a solution has been formulated both articles will remain protected as they are now. In the meantime, unless these two users change their editing habits, I will regard them both as vandals and treat them as such. JeremyA (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Edit summaries
At least several of the edit summaries to the two articles you edit have been of an inflammatory nature. Edit summaries are for summarizing your edit not for attacking, criticising or disagreeing with anyone. Please confine your discussions to talk pages and be WP:CIVIL. Do not write short essays in your summaries, merely indicate what you have done. Discuss, politely, on the articles' talk pages. I would urge you to look for other areas of Wikipedia to contribute to as well, where you may find less conflict. -Splash 21:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 3 revert rule
Be sure not to break the Three Revert Rule, and for goodness sake stop fighting over it. -Splash 22:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Can we try to fix this?
Whilst I am prepared to invest time in "The Geinseryu Question", I would also note that User:JeremyA has also tried counselling both parties, but neither responded to the suggestion that you take this to RfC or RfAr — this gives the impression that both prefer to continue the fight. It is clear that there is unlikely to be a resolution via talk pages, and that the situation has largely degenerated to sterile reverting. Let me present to you the alternatives available, in order of preference:
- Come to an agreement via the talk pages, or your user talk pages;
- Try informal mediation;
- Take the matter to an article-based RfC;
- Take the matter to a user-behaviour RfC;
- Request formal mediation at RfM;
- Take the matter to the Arbitration Committee at RfAr.
Options 1 and 2 show little sign of working. I suspect that, due to the specialist nature of the subject, option 3 would be unlikely to produce much other than alternative forum to fight in. However, it must surely be worth a try. Why not go list the article at RfC for a week or so and see what happens?
Option 2 remains open to you all however. If you can present evidence, externally verifiable, on this talk page to back your claims I would be interested to read it. It sounds as if there must be some way to present both sides of the argument in the same article.
Option 4 is on the way to an Arbitration. It will probably produce comments positive and negative on the behaviour of all parties involved. Reqeusts for Mediation presently have a considerable backlog, but one suppose that, if all the earlier options have failed that it would not be unreasonable to skip that part out. That leaves Arbitration. The Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) generally takes a dim view of edit warring on any article for any reason. It takes a generally dimmer view when all other avenues of cooperation have been exhausted without result. It does not usually determine content issues. So one possible outcome is that both of you are banned from editing either article (under any IP address or account) for a lengthy period; you will probably also be cautioned against making attacks in summaries or edit pages with the threat of blocks if you do. The ArbCom rarely decides completely one way or the other. I would advise that Arbitration be avoided if at all possible.
If you cannot proffer good, referenced evidence in pursuit of option 2, can I invite you to file an article RfC first, give it a week to see if comments are incoming, and take it from there? -Splash 22:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Evidence
Ok, I hope you have some success trying to settle things. I am unsure of how useful confidential documents can be in writing a public encyclopedia, since they will not be able to provide widely checkable sources, but we shall see. -Splash 00:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the message—I will comment further when I see what it is that you intend to send me. JeremyA (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
