Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/CVA
While i have not reviewed other cases to confirm this, IMO the term "Applicable policies" is intended to label citations (i.e., links) offered by the user initiating the RfC, of specific established policies of WP which the initiator maintains have been violated by the disputed behavior.
(By that means, those commenting would be
- presented with a more clearly stated case,
- focused on the question "does this behavior violate a specific policy?", and
- saved the wasted effort of each one "doing the 'legal' research" that the initiator ideally should do something like halfway through the dispute.
)
IMO, the initiator should use the
- <s> ... </s>
markup to strike thru the remedies sought, and, following them, add links to the policies that are applicable to the behavior complained against.
Clearly one of the policies in question is
- three revert rule
I happen to keep a link
- * [[Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version#Revert wars considered harmful (the three revert guideline)|The Three-revert Guideline]]
at a place among my bookmarks where i can find it in 30 seconds, so i offer it here. (By getting its name wrong, the rudimentary citation previously offered arguably mistates the policy's status, the avoidance of which is IMO one of the purposes of expecting citations.)
There aren't many lawyers here, and more to the point, i doubt anyone is sure how to become a WP-lawyer. IMO that puts the burden on those involved in a RfC dispute to help us along by getting their briefs in order.
I can't promise to follow thru on the whole of this process, but i will watch these two pages and read what develops next.
--Jerzy(t) 19:39, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
- Apparently CVA decided to ignore both this thread ([1]) and the Talk:Partisan page. Any suggestions as to what can be done about it? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 22:48, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
Ok, since User:CVA decided to ignore both this page, Talk:Partisan and his own talk page ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]), I think I'll give up. The only thing I could do right now is to ask for this user to be banned - which I'd rather avoid. Let's hope CVA grew up now and won't engage in similar conflicts in the future. Also, I believe that he now understands that racism is not what wikipedia needs. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 10:58, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
The good news is the hope for an end to this (for me) distressing apparent attempt to intimidate CVA from defending his well-reasoned position (which, whether correct or not, clearly offended no one but a small and explicitly recruited cadre of apparent nationalists). It featured
- the ridiculously false charge of violating
- [[Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version#Revert wars considered harmful (the three revert guideline)|The Three-revert Guideline]]
- (emphasis added),
- persistance in misnaming that as a "rule" despite correction, and
- a drumbeat of "racism" accusations where in fact not even ethnic disparagement was evidenced.
The bad news is that even now, and whether intended or not, personal insults are being expressed:
- "Let's hope CVA grew up now"
- "... he now understands that racism is not what wikipedia needs", which is an understanding that would affect the behavior of racists and no one else.
The pattern suggests to me that each of this cadre labors under at least one of these en:WP-shortcomings:
- trying to work in English without sufficient skill in comprehending it, or
- barriers to simultaneously satisfying NPoV and personal commitments.
I don't know whether these observations can be useful to them. --Jerzy(t) 18:46, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
Jerzy, why "well-reasoned" ? He asked for sources and quotes, he got them. He was asked to define what he means by "wide partisan movements" and he hadn't answered. I don't know whether he has well-reasoned position, because he is refusing to discuss. He clearly didn;t know that Poland was declared by Germans territory endangered by partisan warfare. [quote] Probably the heaviest Partisan activity took place in an 80 kilometre stretch between Vilna and the Pripet marshes, by bands of Jewish Partisans. Yes, the Germans occasionally sent companies to fight them, but, they had no need or desire to occupy marshes. All credible histories and reports estimate the actual number of armed resisters at probably no better then 10%. None of the above constitutes anything like an Army, however many people were living in the wilds and whatever their intentions. In real terms, it didn?t happen. [/quote]
Which is of course false, since Germans did employ additional divisions to fight partisans, and it's ridiculous that from all partiasan groups which acted in that area (by no way the heaviest partisan activity region) he mentioned THE SMALLEST group as THE LARGEST.
Second, about revert war: he reverted few times the page: maybe not three times a day, but still he reverted without any discussion.
Third, about racist: let me quote him: [quote]Unfortunately we can?t find anyone with the time to provide you with an education. All your exaggerated claims quote Polish sources which is to be expected and is quite typical for Poles. The Polish sources are typically exaggerated, selective, and, predictably, exceptionally bias in favour of Poland. i.e. everything they ever did had to be the best or the greatest and/or the world owes them a great debt? [/quote]
While maybe not exaclty racist, i would say that this words are quite strongly suggesting the prejudiced person. I must add that his words were before finally irritated Halibutt made remark about CVA growing up, and IIRC after (but correct me) CVA vandalised Halibutt's page.
Szopen 11:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Without going into too much detail, what I wanted was to force CVA to cooperate and appologize for the remarks quoted above by Szopen. Neither of these was achieved which is a bad thing, but the Partisan matter was solved from a third-person perspective and that I find highly plausible. Contrary to what has been said here, the opinions of CVA were not well-reasoned since he failed to provide us any sources (education, as he put it). They were well-defended by means of a revert war, which is a completely different case.
- Whether the three-revert thing is a rule or a guideline does not realy matter here: reverting a page without explaining the changes when asked is a no-no. This should be avoided at all costs since it only leads to conflicts. I was hoping that there is some way to show that to CVA. Apparently there is none since CVA stated clearly that he won't cooperate. Let's just hope he won't engage in any further revert activities.
- My "growing up" remark was not intended to offend anyone and I'm sorry if it did. What I was trying to say is that most wikipedians pass a period of "barbarity" at the beginning of their career here on wikipedia. The same applies to me myself, I engaged in various conflict before I was taught what are the rules and how to explain my edits. In this sense I hope that the "barbarity" period for CVA is over and he will focus on the (really valuable) activities (like the great pages related to SOE he's been working on lately).
- Finally, the whole case was not about offense (well, except for the "Poles are wrong because they are Poles" case), it was about the non-constructive way CVA behaved. As to your other remarks: perhaps trying to work in English without sufficient skill in comprehending it is my case since I do not realy understand the explicitly recruited cadre of apparent nationalists thing. But I guess it would be better if we left it that way, without explaining that remark.