User:Dinkytown/Sandbox1

User:Mathsci and User:Slrubenstein

''This complaint cover several issues. If this is not the appropriate place to file this complaint, please direct me to the proper venue - thanks.'' Dinkytown (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Background On August 27 I saw a tag on the European identity and culture section of the Ethnic groups in Europe article stating that it was unsourced and that the date was from July 2008 - well over a year. Upon looking at the history of the section, there had been no work on it since then with the tag still in place. I removed the tagged section in question under WP:RS, WP:OR and other reasons, and described my actions on the talk page, believing that it detracted from the article.

On August 28, Slrubenstein reverted my edit claiming that it was not POV and that I (Dinkytown) should do the research on the subject. I did not revert his edit but again explained my reasoning as to why it should be removed. After some discussion, I told them of my concerns that the section was POV, but most importantly this section had no sources and had been tagged as such for over a year. Mathsci stated that "...and people have real life commitments outside this internet site, there is no rush".

I told them that I would give them 48 hours for them to start bringing some sources to the section before I would move it to the talk page, as per WP:HANDLE. I told them throughout the entire discussion that this was not personal and that we all should just be concern with getting sources. I told them that no debate can occur until there were sources to talk about, therefore, we need to have sources for this statements.

They admitted that they did not have the sources. "I do not have them, but I know that these are the majore (sic), verifiable, and significant sources on..." and "I do not have the time to do the research..."   A year has past and no one has found the time to do the research.

Instead of working on the section, both Mathsci and Slrubenstein carried out personal attacks on the talk page against myself and anyone else that disagreed with them. "Yalens remark is silly." and "Yalens, you have Wikipedia backwards. What do you think facts are, anyway? Do you think they are the truth?"

I told them that this section should be moved off the article and worked on in the talk page and get the sources which supports the claims here. I was threated that if I did that "...if you did that, you could in principle be blocked for disruption."

After 24 hours, I informed them that I will be moving the section to the talk, under WP:HANDLE to work page because of the abuse that has been going on. .

Mathsci reverted the material claiming that “…this editor is being disruptive” and threatened that I would be blocked from Wikipedia and that "...You are likely to be blocked if you continue edit warring and making threats..."  and threatened using different words: "This was advice, a mild warning: it was not a threat." and notified Slrubenstein, and admististator to consider this action, to which he agreed and supported the threat. "I agree and share your hope!"  He also notified other people of this threat against myself. As of August 31st, he has threatened other people with the same unjustified statement: "I'm afraid you will be blocked if you continue arguing like this..."

This dispute had been tagged with POV and no source tags for over a year and still no sources attached to them. Mathsci and Slrubenstein were also involved in the previous debates that occured over a year ago. 

To date I have not done any editing on that page or made any communications to the other parties because of the real potential threat of being blocked due to | Slrubenstein's administrator status.

Additional threats

Mathsci has drawn attention to my ethnicity (Sami) as I describe on my homepage, something that had nothing to do with the page or the section in question.


 * "BTW this was the article at its weirdest (citation his) - Dinkytown's userpage reminded me of the ill-fated gallery :)"

When asked what he meant, he up-loaded the attached photo of a Sami woman on the talk page with this statement:


 * "This was the picture in the gallery BTW - a woman, marital status unknown :)"

Mathsci described negitively a photo of a Sami woman which had no relavence to the article. I can only assume that this statement was used to describe my ethnicity in a derogatory way, and therefore a | personal attack on my ethnic background, which had nothing to do with the article in question.

Mathsci’s also stated that I was "edit warring and making threats...". In the two days of editing the section, I made only two edits, both for two different, good faith and stated reasons. I was not edit “warring” as Mathsci describes. I have never made any threats to anyone on any Wikipage.

End result

This debate is not about any disagreement about any issues on the article. It is about respect and freedom of speech on Wikipedia. There could not have been any debate about the issues, because there were no sources tagged to the page – only opinions, and threats. The end result is that work on the section has been stymied and is still unsourced. People, including myself have been threatened in changing or editing it and at the same time accused of edit warring when in fact I was not. Under the present situation, I feel that I can’t do any editing on that page with these threats hanging out there.

I believe that Slrubenstein abused his responsibility as an administrator in preserving the unsourced material, and backing up and supporting the threats of Mathsci to block me. Both Mathsci and Slrubenstein, are also a party to both the present dispute and the July 2008 dispute, which has left this section unsourced for over a year. In my opinion, this is in conflict with the responsibilities of both an editor and as an administrator.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Dinkytown (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

9-1-09 response
Thanks Caspian. The original title is an accurate description of the complaint.

The whole complaint here is not about any disagreements of sources or content. It’s about threats made by Mathsci and Slrubenstein against myself by, and their conflicts with basic Wiki policies.

There can be no debate on the European identity and culture section, since there were no sources cited to do a counter retort. Of all the thousands of words that were created from that debate of that section – it was all opinion, nothing was cited. Show me any page number, any citation that supports anything on that section. There isn’t any, yet Sir… was asking me to do research on material that I personally disagree with! I could say on the Sky page that “sky is falling”, provide no sources, tell other people to do the research on that statement, and then threaten anyone who tries to remove it as unsourced material. That is exactly what happened with this section. Wiki policy states that: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Can't get more basic than that. It's up to Mathsci and Sir... to get the citations. I offered to move this section to the talk page to discuss it further, as Wiki policy dictates. Yet I was reverted and then accused of edit warring several times, threatened to be blocked, with Sir… backing up that threat.

Mathsci, why did you contact Slrubenstein, Dbachmann , the talk page, and myself  with the word “block”? You could have said “Dinkytown should be more patient…” and end it with that, but instead you chose to use the word “block” – that is a threat, even by Wiki policy.

Sir…. When Mathsci came to you regarding possibly blocking me, you could have said “...hang on, he has quoted basic Wiki policy here”, or “No, blocking would not be approperate now”, or ''“No, his edits were in good faith. Lets see where this goes…”'' or anything even more neutral than that as any good administrator could see, but you didn’t. You chose not to counter Mathsci’s blocking threats, and ended your statement (with his ‘patience’ statement included) with “I agree and share your hope!” You even reverted my removal of the section.  Willingly or not, you were backing up Mathsci’s threat and using that power to gain advantage in the ‘debate’.

It’s not about my patience towards the section. Other people have debated this same issue over a year ago. I will not - and don’t have to wait, another year to remove either one of yours’ personal blog of this section. Wiki policy backs this up.

Mathsci states above that several people came forward to offer work on citations, great! Then move it over to the talk page as per WP:HANDLE. Keeping it on the main page assumes that its factual – which it’s not.

I gave you 48 hours to provide some citations. That was never fixed in stone, as long as there was some progress towards X, I was willing to cooperate and debate any issue. Instead, Sir… and Mathsci chose to invest the time in personal attacks and defending their POV opinions on the section. This proved to me that you were not serious about sourcing or citations. That’s why I cut the time short and moved it to the talk page – with solid policies behind me. Your reverting my move (in conflict with policy) proves that neither one of you were serious about a discussion. Following that up, I was accused of edit warring, and threatened with blocking.

It's not about content, it's about people actions. Dinkytown (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

9-1-09a response
I never said that there was a 48 hour policy. I put that limit there to limit myself in moving the material to avoid a potential edit war and as Tan put it accurately, I was "lenient". I could have removed it immediately, but I told them that “I would be a gentleman” about this and gave them some time. If they needed more, okay... But they chose to spend their efforts on attacks. I then chose to enforce the policy.

Those arguments you cite were brought out early on in the conversation, are still open, and can be addressed at a later time off of ANI. This issue however, is about how unsourced material can remain for over a year and maintained by abusive behavior. Sir… suggested before that I use those and any other sources to cite his statements in the section. I didn’t agree with the statements then and stated those reasons early on. Why should I defend his comments?

Shell, you said that this is about content. You’ve been on the project longer than I have and I don’t have to tell you that sources are everything on this project to avoid WP:OR. “Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked.” What part of this is so confusing?

Read my statement above regarding “the sky is falling.” That is the exact scenario that is happening here. I gave you several solid Wiki policies that support my actions. The burden of proof is on those who want to maintain the section. Maintaining unsourced material by threats is what's the issue. Dinkytown (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)