Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Marburg72

This is ridiculous. Ronz added so many complaints against my edits that you would think I am the devil itself. Wow. I have added some more to show how unrelated complaints will appear as if it matters. Frankly, this website is a waste of time! Also, It is abuse to use this medium to harass another user and TROCHOS and DOUG are actively doing. Marburg72 (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

MEAT PUPPETRY
Further evidence of Sock Puppetry is seen on Paul B's talk page, when Trochos asked him to sign the page in support of his claims: Marburg72 I have just filed an RfC about user Marburg72, whose edit you recently reverted. If you would like to add any comments, under the headings "Other users who endorse this summary", or "Outside view" or in the "Users who endorse this summary:" at the end of Marburg72's "Response" section, please do so Pauls request for endorsement of the RFC is in direct violation of Wikipedia policy listed as "Sock Puppetry" or possibly Meat Puppetry". As stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is to avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another. Wikipedia has policies and processes to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry: 1. Consensus in many debates and discussions is not based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. Newcomers are unlikely to understand Wikipedia policies and practices, or to introduce any evidence that other users have not already mentioned. 2. In votes or vote-like discussions, new users tend to be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. 3. For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity. Marburg72 (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Marburg, if you have a genuine case to be made about WP:MEAT (rather than just say...recently discovering the policy and engaging in a bit of wikilawyering) then I recommend you post your information here for admin inspection. You will find out pretty quick if there is a geniune case (ie/ if any admin believes there is a case - otherwise nothing will happen).  Shot info (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon suggestion of Shot Infom This issue was immediately Taken to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:MEAT_and_WP:SOCK_on_Marburg72_RfC

Marburg72 (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/David_Trochos Marburg72 (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Cahokia: Buried alive? Evidence of attempts to resolve dispute

 * Attempts to resolve the 'fingers' dispute
 * I tried to explain policy on verifiability in detail over a number of edits on the Cahokia talk page here;
 * and again (note his edit summary "The statement is not verifyable, and is entirely unreliable speculation. It must be removed.")
 * Here he says my source (university press book with good reviews) is "highly speculative and not reliable" and adds "Your racist attitude is clearly clouding your judgment."
 * Another attempt to which he responded saying I needed to verify my quote from a university press book with a quote from a scientific journal (basically he is saying that he thinks the book I am quoting from is wrong and needs verifying from another source).
 * I try again here to explain policies and guidelines and he replies  still saying I need a second source agreeing with the first (not that it matters in terms of the article but to be thorough I checked with the archaeologist, Jerry Rose, who is the actual source of the quote and he stands by it).
 * Another attempt by me to explain and he responds  "Your "Scholarly" book has not been referenced in any scholarly journal and is entirely about petty arguments and opinions. If its not fringe, it falls into wp:soap category" (in fact it has good scholarly reviews, etc). A few edits later he adds a big chunk of policy to the talk page  about unsourced or poorly sourced material which strongly suggests he doesn't understand the policy, and next  says I need additional citations to verify my quote.
 * And again ":For the hundredth time, what is reputable about Youngs Claim that vertical fingerbones are evidence of "buried alive". Cite another scholarly source that says that." Note that this is not 'Youngs claim', it is in a university press book co-authored by a professional writer (Young) and the dean of Cahokia Archaeology (Fowler), and there is nothing in the book attributing the specific statement to Young. I try here once again  to explain that there is an inline citation, that the book is a reliable source by Wikipedia guidelines, etc. And he challenges that  because the statement wasn't in an earlier book on Monks Mound -- and still calls it 'Young's source', saying "You need to do more research before spreading unsupported falsehoods." He carries on about racist attitudes here  in a statement later removed  by an administrator as an infringement of BLP.
 * After a few more exchanges and interventions by 2 other editors he stopped reverting but said "without supporting evidence in Mound 72 book, the suggestion of Young is unsupported evidence that falls into sensationalism, misinformation, speculation, and even racial bias."
 * Doug Weller (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved here from main page David Trochos (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)