User talk:鹰鹰

October 2018
Hello, I'm GorillaWarfare. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Bishop Hendricken High School, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello GorillaWarfare, 鹰鹰 here. I'm not sure how the version you support is reliably sourced in any way. Every fact in my version is actually documented by the publicly available 22-page lawsuit, the evidence from the website I cited, and the wpri news reports. What is the reliable source for implying the fired teacher had an issue with the other teacher's orientation? I am absolutly neutral, but I know the facts of the case. Do you? Please do not abet another Catholic church cover-up. 鹰鹰 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "What is the reliable source for implying the fired teacher had an issue with the other teacher's orientation?" Where did I imply that? My edits were based on the cited source: https://www.wpri.com/target-12/fired-teacher-claims-colleague-sought-sexual-encounters-on-school-computer/1232029560. Please stop edit warring to add your version that is based on the fired teacher's website -- you need to cite reliable, third party sources (that is, not the lawsuit itself) in this article. Continuing to try to add this content may result in you being blocked. And do not accuse me of abetting a Catholic church cover-up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, I totally respect and welcome your interest and input. The news report you cite includes info. about the website and the statment "may have involved students." If you are relying on that report for your info, then you must include it all. 鹰鹰 (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, you mention Jackson's charge of fabricated evidence but not the website that contains the evidence. Why? Do you favor the adminitrators? Both facts are from the same news report you cite. 鹰鹰 (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Why do you give voice to Jackson's statement but not Marsocci's denial? 鹰鹰 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you're getting this impression I'm somehow on the admins' side here—I grew up in Maine and live in Massachusetts, I am hardly familiar with random Catholic schools in Rhode Island and had literally never heard of Bishop Hendricken High School until today. Your edits to add "may have involved students" imply this person was seeking out sexual encounters with students, a claim not supported by the source, and yet you edit warred to try to re-add it. You're also quite clearly adding this website in an attempt to direct readers there, which is inappropriate. Please review our reliable sourcing guidelines while you wait out your block. Wikipedia is not the place to advocate on behalf of this teacher, or on behalf of anyone for that matter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you believe I am promoting this website. We need to be consistent. The news report you cite includes both the student and website references. You only want to mention the Jackson reference. You can't tell half the story. That is what indicates your bias, and why this exchange will be part of the wpri follow-up to this story.


 * Thank you for this information. Please note I am forwarding this conversation and the edit history to the wpri investigative team to use in an upcoming follow-up to the Hendricken story. 鹰鹰 (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "You only want to mention the Jackson reference. You can't tell half the story." That's categorically not true. The majority of the section discusses the teacher's perspective and the reasons behind the lawsuit, and I left it in place. Explaining the reaction from the school to the lawsuit is appropriate. I'm surprised you are opposed to it being added—it seems you wish for the article to be sympathetic to the teacher's perspective, and the school calling the allegations meritless and accusing the teacher of fabricating evidence would seem to be relevant. Linking to the plaintiff's personal website advocating for his points would be extremely unusual for Wikipedia and is inappropriate per our policies (WP:EL), hence why I removed it.


 * I'm not sure an editor being blocked from Wikipedia for violating policy will be quite the breaking news you expect, but have at it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry I wasn't clear earlier. The three news reports you now cite never say Marsocci demanded the firing of the other teacher. Why do you say that? Answer - because Jackson says it. You are biased. The news clearly gives the name of the website. Your narrative gives weight to Jackson's charge but no mention of Marsocci's proof against that charge when both were mentioned in the news. Why? The reason this is newsworthy is not the blocking. It will be part of the overall corruption story about the school and the Catholic church in RI. Clearly, you were contacted by someone connected with the school. That's your business. Your edits, however, are clearly biased, and you have not dealt directly with any of my points. Blocking me only proves that you cannot refute my logic, so you are bullying me. 鹰鹰 (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry I wasn't clear earlier. The three news reports you now cite never say Marsocci demanded the firing of the other teacher. Why do you say that? Answer - because Jackson says it. You are biased. The news clearly gives the name of the website. Your narrative gives weight to Jackson's charge but no mention of Marsocci's proof against that charge when both were mentioned in the news. Why? The reason this is newsworthy is not the blocking. It will be part of the overall corruption story about the school and the Catholic church in RI. Clearly, you were contacted by someone connected with the school. That's your business. Your edits, however, are clearly biased, and you have not dealt directly with any of my points.


 * I'll keep this brief since I know you can't reply, but I do want to clear some things up. First of all, I've not added any content that claims Marsocci demanded another teacher be fired. I've also only ever cited the one source. This is now the second false claim you've made against me. Perhaps you're not quite familiar with how to see who added what -- you can look at my changes and distinguish them from changes made by others by viewing the page history here.


 * Secondly, I was not contacted by anyone at the school. If you take a look at my edit history you'll see I was using a semi-automated program for much of the evening to review recent edits and revert vandalism, and that's how I came across this page. I've been editing here for over twelve years—the school did not contact me, and if they had emailed me and asked me to influence the article I certainly wouldn't have acted upon it. I think you're not seeing that your edits were wildly against Wikipedia policy, which is why myself and others reverted you, and why Bbb removed your talk page access. Please take a little time to review our policies and I'm sure you will understand.


 * As for "you have not dealt directly with any of my points", I believe I have addressed all of them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Bishop Hendricken High School shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this information. Please note I am forwarding this conversation and the edit history to the wpri investigative team to use in an upcoming follow-up to the Hendricken story.


 * This page is not a platform for you to rant and make absurd accusations. I've revoked your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)