User talk:Mnnlaxer/Archive 1

Mohamedou Ould Slahi

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mnnlaxer&oldid=565894218

An early discussion that I blanked. --- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

John A Rizzo

Please excuse my intrusion into your space. I am inviting you to comment on John A. Rizzo here [1]. Thank you. Glennconti (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

1RR

It sure looks like you've broken the one-revert rule with your latest on Ghouta chemical attack, as you reverted VM less than 24 hours ago. Care to self-revert? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No. The principles involved are more important to resolve than any potential violation of 1RR. I could have waited a couple hours to avoid it. But that wouldn't be right. I would rather take @Volunteer Marek:'s suggestion and go to WP:AE rather than a technical 1RR complaint. And I prefer for someone else to do the filing. I would love to see someone actually argue against the points I have made on the talk page. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

And for anyone interested in my total work on the article, rather than just focus on some recent disputes. Here is the version I found (April 9) and here is the version before Volunteer Marek showed up (May 20). Also, I collaborated quite well with Erlbaeko during that period. There are several talk page discussions that I positively contributed to. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I reported this to WP:3RR, as was suggested by Kudz1 and you. However, this subject/page is covered by discretionary sanctions from community, not Arbcom, and therefore can not be reported to WP:AE. This is the reason it has been rejected on WP:AE recently. My very best wishes (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I must admit the reporting of violations confuses me, but I just read that WP:Arbitration is for conduct disputes, not content. I suppose WP:3RR is the same. My point was to engage in an actual debate over the substance of the disagreement, the content of the article, not a technical issue like 3RR. I see now that WP:Mediation is where this should be. Since no one seems to actually want to go there, I'll have to request that after I respond to the 3RR. But if anyone has a better idea, please suggest it. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you reported it as 1RR. I can take my lumps from that if need be, but I strongly disagree with your characterization. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion and decision link

• Declined Yes, a 1RR violation did occur. However, at this point, a block would be purely punitive in nature, and blocks should not be punitive. There is no ongoing disruption to stop. Further, a block at this time would not serve to "encourage a more ... congenial editing style" or otherwise benefit the encyclopedia. —Darkwind (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ghouta chemical attacks and Volunteer Marek

Before addressing content issues about Ghouta chemical attack, I have to give a bit of history. I was reading the lead to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation on May 25 and saw a statement I thought deserved a Citation Needed tag. diff @Volunteer Marek: believed that the intro section didn't need citations if the same statement was later sourced in the text. I showed him that was wrong User_talk:Volunteer_Marek#Lead_section_citations and he thankfully added citations that improved the article. Great.

However, immediately after this episode, Volunteer Marek decided he needed to patrol the Ghouta chemical attack article, which I have recently made lots of edits to and that he'd never edited before. He then accused another editor of edit warring (Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attack#Edit_warring_on_a_1RR_restricted_article), which was not upheld (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Erlbaeko), and things went downhill from there (Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attack#False_flag_motivation_-_actual_content_of_edit_war). On to content! Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

My very best wishes

Yes, I can not speak for other contributors. So, please consider my edit as expression of my own opinion on the matter how this page should be fixed. Once again, if you and other contributors can achieve new consensus during mediation, this new consensus will held a lot more weight than your own (or my) opinion about this. I consider your latest comments on this page only as your own opinion, not consensus. Sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Fine, but you'll notice I am not reverting the deletion. Rather, I am trying to gain consensus. Your re-reverting was described in the edit comment as "this is majority opinion right now". Which you now admit is not true. Thus, you should self-revert. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Two things. First, if you want to achieve consensus (as you tell) and collaborate with others, you must follow the rules. I follow the rules even if I do not like them. The fact that you intentionally (as you said) did not follow the rules and did not self-revert, even after being reported at 3RRNB, undermines your ability to negotiate with others. Second, I still believe this is a majority opinion based on the current editing history of this page [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mnnlaxer reported by User:My very best wishes hasn't been closed, so no rule breaking has been established. As you yourself suggest: "Maybe this is a hint that I should not report anything on administrative noticeboards?" Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I see. Since admins did not do anything about your obvious and open violation, you now can declare that you were right, if not by the letter, but by the spirit. Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• In addition, this your edit is a violation of WP:CANVASS and also undermines your effort (if any) to negotiate. My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll let VQuakr let me know if he thinks that is canvassing. Plus, I am not in a position to negotiate a Mediation. That is what it is for, to bring in an outside negotiator. My efforts at getting people to self-revert a contentious and unhelpful deletion are not negotiations. They are merely a request to establish a better baseline for the article going into the mediation. Of course, people are free to ignore my requests. However, as throughout this tedious process, it would be nice if people could provide cogent and detailed arguments for their positions. For instance, why did you re-revert the edit in question here? Your edit summary is false and you haven't engaged with the discussion on the talk page. Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#Mediation Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I talked about your words in the diff "I also am trying to get someone else to restore" [revert] the edit made by someone who disagree with you. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to here. And VQuakr thanked me for my note on his talk page. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: If you have little experience editing the article, little desire to participate in discussing it, and little justification for supporting a large deletion, then you shouldn't have re-reverted to it. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

In average, I do just a few edits per page, and this is one of them. I do edits that improve content to the best of my knowledge on the subject. This revert is one of such edits. I also sometimes watch and follow editing by some contributors around here (not you) - simply because I know them from the previous experience on-wiki and they look to me as interesting participants. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

So how does that edit improve the article? For just one example, your edit removed two good sources from the article, numbers 2 and 4 at Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#Mediation. BTW, I appreciate your willingness to at least respond to me, although engagement with the issues such as answering my latest question here would be the best situation. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

We have a lot of sources and a very long page. What exactly should be removed to improve readability and focus on important issues? This is a matter of personal judgement and expertise. People have a trouble writing articles together even if they are all experts and good friends. In real life this is usually solved by giving one of the people (usually first author) the leading role to write the article, while others mostly make comments, write small pieces and do secondary editing. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Ghouta chemical attack, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghouta chemical attack, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Black Banana

Hello, I got a message from you but have no idea how to "drop you a line" or "talk" so I am trying this, perhaps you can help me. As for the Banana, it would be hard to dig up articles online for a situation that began in 1970, years prior to the Internet, so while you might find articles in the Library on microfiche, you are not likely to have a "link" unless someone wrote an article in our current era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavierhussenet (talk • contribs) 14:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This works. I realize that, but there might be other rememberances from people like the reunion story. Or papers that put their archives online. Was there any Philly gay press back then? Even articles from the 90's would help. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Your recent editing history at Eliot Higgins 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have done all the relevant steps above. The other editor involved, User:Green Cardamom, has not made any attempt at working towards consensus. They only have said no, without a word of explanation beyond several WP:VAGUEWAVEs. Dispute resolution is the next step if GreenC continues to refuse to engage in discussion. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I will tell you the same thing I told the other editor. More reverts will probably result in blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)