Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Intangible/Evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User:C56C added something to the User:Cberlet section [1]. I am not sure if that is supposed to happen. Intangible 21:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] User:Intangible and recategorization of hundreds of pages
User:Intangible is in the process of recategorizing hundreds of pages, despite the fact that Intangible is in arbitration over this very issue. I have asked for a temporary injunction, See:request for injunction. I raise this here because so many pages are being edited, and I felt someone should at least glance at what is going on and decide if it is OK or not. I am obviously biased, and think the recategorization is POV, idiosyncratic, and ultimately destuctive of the work of scores of editors.--Cberlet 12:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I've been noticing this the last couple days and have been reverting a number of these edits by Intangible. But I also am highly biased in this situation and I would also like a 3rd party to review these actions. The Ungovernable Force 20:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Back in a few weeks
I need to take a break from Wikipedia. Back in early September. It is very frustrating to go to all the work of presenting an arbitration case, and watch while User:Intangible essentially ignores the process and makes hundreds of dubious POV edits. I think the case for a temporary injuction is a strong one. I realize that administrators are overworked and some are attending the Wiki meeting. So I think it is better if I just walk away from this whole mess and cool off for a few weeks. --Cberlet 02:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response to Intangible's claims
For User:WGee, his double standard was also noted by another editor [2].
- It should be noted that the aforementioned editor, SandyGeorgia, was not invloved in the article at all. Moreover, she has a history of content disputes with me in the Hugo Chávez article. This is relevant because it indicates that she is not a neutral commentator.
This 'double standard' is examplified by the comment [3] of User:WGee at the talk page of the Québec Solidaire article.
- Not only did Intangible misconstrue my comment in the first place, but he has chosen to ignore my precise clarification of it: [4].
Furthermore, User:WGee has simply removed [5] edits by another user User:Fastifex [6]. I originally provided a source for my edit on the talk page here: [7].
- Indeed I did remove the edits. Additions to Wikipedia are not "true until proven false"; so I don't understand why Intangible is trying to use my removal of these edits against me. No source was provided for them orginally, so I exercised my duty to remove original research from Wikipedia. Although Intangible did provide a source sometime later asserting that all Communist states are/were "totalitarian" (a word frequently misapplied), it was merely an opinionative essay; and certainly the assertions made in one essay cannot be regarded as fact. In addition, Intangible's source did not address this part Fastifex's edit: ". . .embracing market reforms isn't necessarily coupled with as much socio-political liberalisation, they may remain authoritarian." Not only is that a moot assertion, but it's written in a horrible standard of English.
--WGee 19:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] evidence by User:Tazmaniacs
This is not really structured. I am not sure how I can reply to this. Some are not even assertions made by User:Tazmaniacs. Intangible 22:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] gone
I'll be gone drinking some tequilas in the sun. Back in september. Intangible 17:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Active Arbitration?
Do we wait for Intangible to check back in?--Cberlet 02:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know when/if Intangible is rejoining Wiki?--Cberlet 16:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- And under what username ?
- I trust that enough data has been saved from his edits to verify suspected sockpuppets. --LucVerhelst 12:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? Intangible 00:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
