Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-09/deva victrix

Where is the dispute?
Deva Victrix

Who is involved?
Dougweller an administrator.

What is the dispute?
Dougweller just deletes everything I post, without even reading it -  because I sometimes cite an author he does not like.

Ok -  new update. Douweller has restored the Deva Victrix page I wrote, minus the reference to Ellis.

What would you like to change about this?
Administrators should edit posts they do not like, not delete everything without even reading it.

This dispute has been resolved, but the overbearing attitude of some administrators is obviously a problem.

How do you think we can help?
Take a look at the Deva Victrix update I made, and decide for yourself if what I added should have seemed reasonable to a balanced administrator. Updates should be judged on the data, not on personalities.

Narwhal2 (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Dougweller reverted you once on the Deva Victrix article, not multiple times, so it's blowing stuff way out of proportion to say "he deletes everything." He has been civil the entire time, you were the one that unnecessarily took offense, made personal attacks, and forum shopped for support for your complaints.  You did not calmly reinsert the non-objectionable material yourself, nor did you politely discuss things on the article's talk page or with Dougweller.  You didn't even bother to check to see if the issue was resolved before making more complaints about him.  You need to look at the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" and especially "Assume Good Faith" for some understanding on how things work on Wikipedia.  Have you even considered that, in the midst of doing a LOT of work here (including cleaning up after an editor that repeatedly inserted an unreliable source in multiple articles), an administrator might make a single human error?  Oh, golly, such a sin!  He should be banned!  Have you fully considered that you might not fully understand how things work here, and that your perceptions could be the issue here?  Well, that's perfectly understandable excusable, unlike Dougweller's actions, huh?  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * See also Narwhal2's complaint at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. However, I think that has really upset him is my removal of his addition to references to the minor fringe author Ralph Ellis from about 10 articles yesterday, referring to him as not a reliable source and mainly self-published. I'd warned him about this earlier this year. What I only found yesterday while I was working through his edits was [] where he is identifying himself as Ralph Ellis. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

copied from ANI:


 * ✅ the following are socks of one another:
 * checked byUser:Tiptoety
 * checked byUser:Tiptoety
 * checked byUser:Tiptoety
 * checked byUser:Tiptoety
 * checked byUser:Tiptoety
 * checked byUser:Tiptoety

all now blocked. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)