Hello, Tananka, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! GbT/c21:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2008 South Ossetia war has had a section Disinformation campaign during the 2008 South Ossetian war moved to Disinformation campaign during Russian-Georgian war. while leaving a one-sentence summary on the main page. Then it was marked for deletion and db:attack... So anyhow, I added db:move after reading policy so that if deleted it would simply be moved back to the main article. But this was removed twice, at first I thought this was an attempt to have the section deleted entirely, but then it was deleted again. This time because "the speedy notice alleges that it's uncontroversial, obviously not the case here"... So now I am confused and wondering if my additions to the discussion page/article are appropriate and what should be done about the matter. Did I evaluate and react to the situation incorrectly?
I didn't explain the situation properly, it was discussed and I had agreed, although I am not sure there was concensus. Then it was forked off by an editor, and another editor added db:attack straight afterwards. This worried me initially but I now realize that the threat of complete removal was averted. What I would like is someone's review and advice on the whole thing.--Tananka (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol, no. I don't mind who everyone may be, nor who you think I may be. I'll ignore that. I offer you a truce and a proper mediation instead, there's a real challenge.
Sorry, but I had to delete your warning to me as misleading. Unfortunately, that was you who made four reverts today in this article.Biophys (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Here are the diffs:[reply]
That is not for me to judge, note the warnings I gave, the prior request for discussion on articles and points. While the article additions had been repeatedly vandalized by removing all info, instead of fixing details. Things have to be discussed point by point. Two editors refused mediation, yourself and Ostap R. This after reasonable discussion and agreement had been put forward with Windyhead after deletion of all references and information without discussion of the actual material. It is a shame, really. Discussion is much more interesting than just a silly edit war with no substance. I have put forward points in support of referenced materials added, and would greatly enjoy a balanced debate of ideas.--Tananka (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, we both provided arguments at article talk page, but you did not reply yet. That was actually you who refused negotiations (see my last comment made 3:19) [1] no reply from you. Biophys (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best to undertake a mediation / resolution process. To have third opinions on sourced materials, to review these point by point. Repeatedly whole material was deleted, while debate and progress was happening. This turned into a delete / edited material repost / delete etc... which was not constructive. This is why I gave out the 3RR warnings. To have a proper and fair NPOV debate on material. I recognize that my way of dealing with the problem was not great either. However, you then ganged up and decided to just delete it. Post a complaint before me and brush it off. Instead of undertaking a mediation process, when you are obviously more experienced than I on wikipedia. OK it doesn't matter, maybe you were right, maybe I was right, maybe we are both right. Let's undertake a different and more constructive process. Maybe you were doing things in good faith, but you did not make your points clear for taking the actions you took. My belief is that editing should be constructive... if you remove a sub-referenced article because of the source, then seek out the sub-reference that is adequate and post it. Or if there is an omission: add it, an error: correct it. This is what strive for, note my specification edit on the entities that rejected Russia's recognition of S Ossetia. Did I delete the whole thing because it was inaccurate in parts? No, I went to references, searched and made it very clear who was reported to have said what. I hope we can strive together towards perfecting the article and making it's information as complete, accurate, concise and NPOV as possible. --Tananka (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Dude... calm down! Your block only lasts 24 hours. Let me just say this for the next admin: there is some credence to Tanaka's claim to have not understood the 3RR. On WP:AN3 he reported two users for having broken 3RR between them, which is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding. Nonetheless I'm not very confident that this user wouldn't jump directly back into an edit war if he was unblocked. Oh, and Tanaka: you might want to read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Mangojuicetalk20:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I demand that there be fair judgement based on the cases merits, it is ridiculous that experienced administrators could not resolve the dispute in an adequate manner, nor judge both reported cases and plaintiffs on their merits and actions. I spent a huge amount of time reading various policy and regulation, and have had the respect to attempt my best as to follow these. Yes, I should probably have undertaken conflict resolution, clearly, since reporting two users is allegedly a fundamental misunderstanding. The actions of others, deleting material repetitively in such a manner, without appropriate respect for the discussion and elaboration process, could be termed vandalism maybe. So calling upon the 3RR rule seemed a fair response to repetitive abusive deletion from various users in apparent unison! CHECK THE EVIDENCE. IT IS REFERENCED AND VERIFIABLE. JUST LIKE THE REFERENCES THAT WERE DISRESPECTFULLY BRUSHED AWAY WITHOUT PROPER DISCUSSION. Of course I am furious, when such an injustice has obviously been perpetrated and demands for proper review have been met with denigrating remarks. All your moves are recorded I must point out, whether administrator or not. Wikipedia policy must be respected administrator or not. In absence of conclusive evidence, unless an Administrator is willing to review the case properly, I demand that ban be removed due to inconclusive evidence and for denigration of my person to be cleared! Again, unless this matter is dealt with in a satisfactory manner, it will be taken to higher levels. MangoJuice, you deliberated on matters pertaining to this case before "reviewing" my appeal. WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT IN REPORTING THREE REVERTS YOU MUST ONLY REPORT ONE AT A TIME. REPORTING BOTH EDITORS IN QUESTION MADE THINGS CLEARER AND CONCISE, AND WAS THEREFORE A LOGICAL STEP. YET IT WAS DISMISSED DU TO AN APPARENTLY UNDEFINED RULE!--Tananka (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:3RR: "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the same material is involved, except in certain circumstances." This policy applies for individual editors, not a group of editors. You should easily come to that conclusion after reading our 3RR policy. If both editors had made more than 3 reverts each, then they could be blocked for 3RR. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)20:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify my previous reason a bit. There are certain recognized "exceptions" to the 3-revert rule, but nothing you've described here fits the bill. That's what I mean when I say you have "no excuse." I know you have reasons why you reverted the same article 4 times in 24 hours; that is always the case. I'm also sure you believe your reasons are right.. but apparently other people disagree with your reasons. Administrators aren't super-editors: we don't have the right, or the expertise, to rule authoritatively on content issues. So it's hard for me, or any administrator, to decide whether your reasons are good or bad. But more importantly, it's irrelevant. Even if your reasons are good ones, and even if your edits should eventually prevail, it doesn't mean it's reasonable for you to edit-war over them. As for the warnings issue, let me point out WP:BP#Education and warnings: warnings are not a prerequesite for blocks. Even if we accept that you were ignorant of the 3RR (which seems odd, if you are trying to warn other users about it: you certainly at least had the chance to be informed), we still come to the point that whether or not you were aware at the time, you were actually edit warring, and you haven't indicated that you aren't going to continue doing so if you get unblocked. Mangojuicetalk20:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, I did mention earlier that I wished for conflict resolution when appealing, I re-confirm this. It did not seem to me a viable solution at the time, due to the edit warring initiation that occurred when all contributions were being immediately deleted. The time it took me to make the complaint, Biophys had seen my warning and made one himself. Obviously more experienced than I, and having a more reliable computer:P, he added a complaint while I had gone off to edit mine after the contribution had completely been deleted without appropriate challenge to all the material, IMHO. Hence mediation would be better. I only joined about two weeks ago.--Tananka (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Mangojuice's sentiments, here - Please, Tananka, take a deep breath. You're upset, obviously - nothing wrong with that. But you need to take a deep breath and calm down. I'm reading through the (extensive) material you've posted, as Mangojuice recommended. But I can guarantee that, whatever circumstances surround the block itself, no administrator will unblock when they are being shouted at, and your capitalized statements are tantamount to shouting at us. Please take a deep cleansing breath, go have a cup of tea, and we can continue discussing the matter. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence20:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me note further, Tanaka, that Biophys warned you [2] that you had reverted four times (actually 5 times by then, meshing the diffs posted by Biophys and by Nishkid), in response to your warning to him. So you did in fact receive a warning that you were reverting too much. And you still reverted after that warning [3]. Mangojuicetalk20:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is true. I also warned him, beforehand. Because I did not consider it a good method to delete my entire editions without sourced references being adequately challenged. Also, it had been accepted with another editor to add "alleged" and "according to" specifications. Which made things scrupulously NPOV. IMHO. This was the offhandedly challenged and simply re-deleting the whole contribution. Then I see today the material was moved, and then somehow blocked out. Their may be some more talk on this subject in the talk pages, however no material from that was actually directed to me as a valid dismissal of the whole material--Tananka (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This policy applies for individual editors, not a group of editors. You should easily come to that conclusion after reading our 3RR policy. If both editors had made more than 3 reverts each, then they could be blocked for 3RR." With all due respect, your POV is not reflected in WP:3RR. Again where does it say one cannot report two users.
WP:3RR"The rule does not constitute an entitlement to revert a page three times each day. Editors who have not violated the rule may still be blocked for edit warring if their behaviour is disruptive." ie, it's not necessary for three reverts to happen, and abusive reverts which refuse respectful and fair debate on the talk page can be subjected to 3RR.
"The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy intended to prevent edit warring."
"Editors who find themselves on the verge of a three-revert rule violation have several options to avoid engaging in such an edit war. These options include discussing the subject on the article Talk page, requesting a third opinion or comment on the article, or one of the many other methods of dispute resolution."
What should one do when fair discussion is refused? Ok, dispute resolution. This is clearly what should have happened then. Administrators could at least have guided both parties towards a fair and acceptable dispute resolution procedure.
MY IDEA WAS TO WARN THEM, AND THEN LET THERE BE DEBATE AND CONSTRUCTIVE EDITING. NOT AUTOMATIC DELETION, JUDGING SUCH AND SUCH A SOURCE OF MANY TO NOT BE VERIFIABLE OR RELIABLE... like Inner City Press.... AND OBVIOUS REFUSAL TO READ THE ARTICLE OR TREAT IT WITH ANY SORT OF RESPECT!--Tananka (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just so it's clear, no one is upset that you misinterpreted the 3RR rule as applied to Biophys and Ostap R. Honest mistake, end of story. Mangojuicetalk20:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sorry for being upset. I realize things were probably done in good faith. Also I guess you spend a lot of time on such situations which must be very difficult and time consuming to review. I apologise, and appreciate your contributions.--Tananka (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
" Please, Tananka, take a deep breath. You're upset, obviously - nothing wrong with that. But you need to take a deep breath and calm down. I'm reading through the (extensive) material you've posted, as Mangojuice recommended. But I can guarantee that, whatever circumstances surround the block itself, no administrator will unblock when they are being shouted at, and your capitalized statements are tantamount to shouting at us. Please take a deep cleansing breath, go have a cup of tea, and we can continue discussing the matter. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence20:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
I have just read your comment, and appreciate you looking into this. Ok I am starting to feel better now, at least it will be discussed. And if I am judged to be in the wrong after fair review, then I of course respect that. I also hereby apologise if I have caused offence in my anger... and am prepared to withdraw and personally apologize any unfair statements deemed to have been made upon the actions of any others if that was the case. --Tananka (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|1=Sorry for being upset, please understand my position and the repercussion of an unfair judgement. Please remove ban so that conflict resolution can be undertaken. Please review the nature of edits for initiation and promotion of edit warring. Resolution and mediation sought. Call for cease-fire on edit warring.
I hereby accept the recommendation that Dispute Resolution is the best initial response to apparent repetitive refusal to talk. However, I do believe the whole case should be reviewed on it's merits and it be considered that my edits and attempts to debate fairly were in response to edit warring initiated from various parties. Which escalated to 3RR complaints. Again, I encourage for dispute resolution to be undertaken as a result. Unless action is deemed necessary.
I won't be pulled into an edit war again.
I won't be pulled into an edit war again.
I won't be pulled into an edit war again.
I won't be pulled into an edit war again.
I won't be pulled into an edit war again.
I won't be pulled into an edit war again.
My reverts can also be included if necessary. Link to talk page can also be included. Any further evidence deemed necessary? --Tananka (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean refusal to talk? Everyone was talking, and it was determined that you edits (which were either sourced to alex jones, or total misrepresentations of allegations and conspiracy theories) were not fit for the infobox. Yet you kept reverting against consensus. Ostap23:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Russia: 127 Pentagon advisors[1] According to Ossetia: mercenaries or instructors[2][3][4][5] According to BBC: hundreds of instructors [6] Unknown number of alleged tank crews[2] 2,500 to 3,000 mercenaries[7]
At least 37,000 total
55 "A View from Russia: After Georgia", National Interest <--- see description
Quoted text from source:
"Vitaly Churkin, Russian ambassador to the UN, claimed that there were 127 Pentagon advisors working in Georgia and on August 7, just hours before Georgia attacked Tskhinvali, U.S. and Georgian forces had finished large military exercises, dubbed “Immediate Response.” Moscow maintains that Americans trained and gave weapons to their Georgian ally. In an interview with the Moscow-based Nezavisimaya Gazeta that is to come out in Wednesday’s issue, Dmitri Rogozin, Russia’s ambassador to NATO, said that an American representative blocked an emergency meeting of the Russia-NATO Council on Tuesday. Mr. Rogozin said he believed that the Americans simply didn’t want him to ask tough questions about Washington’s involvement in current developments in Georgia in the presence of European allies. The diplomat said the meeting would be held behind closed doors instead because Russia didn’t want this information to become public. Rogozin claimed that sooner or later the NATO-Russia Council would stage such a meeting on South Ossetia."
^ a b "On Ossetia, Denials by Khalilzad of Foreign Fighters, by Yerevan of Russian Planes in Armenian Bases", Inner City Press <--- see description
Quoted text from source:
"Russia Today quoted South Ossetia's Eduard Kokoity that "Ukrainians and mercenaries from the Baltics as well as nationals from other countries were involved in the fighting, as 'foreigners have been found among their bodies.'" South Ossetia's envoy to Russia was quoted that "in yesterday's most recent tank attack, the advancing tanks were supposedly crewed by Ukrainians. Two unidentified bodies found today... Americans... who were probably either mercenaries or instructors in the Georgian armed forces."
^ "Dead Mercenaries Found in Tskhinvali", Kommersant
Quoted text from source:
Authorities in the unrecognized republic of South Ossetia claim that dark-skinned mercenaries took part in the attack on Tskhinvali, reports RIA Novosti, citing representative of the South Ossetian president in Russia Dmitry Medoev. He said there were bodies of many Georgian soldiers on the streets on Tskhinvali. “There were blacks among the dead, who were probably either mercenaries or instructors in the Georgian armed forces,” Medoev said.
^ "More Evidence of U.S. Complicity in S. Ossetia Invasion", Infowars
Quoted text from source:
In another report, a woman interviewed by Russia Today in Tsknivali, South Ossetia, talked about the presence of Georgian troops with American insignias. “There are lots of bodies over there, a lot of people have been killed, mostly Ossetians, but also Georgians, they had American emblems on their forearms and they were in black uniforms,” she said. (Flash Video is embedded from Russia Today youtube channel) At 10 minutes, 30 seconds into this video, a South Ossetian woman claims Georgian troops had American emblems.
The article links further to more sources, and there is nothing suspicious about it. Or anything that could be considered unreliable. It just quotes from various sources. The reference is given for the RT testimony link and transcript. All in that article is referenced and verifiable. No actual original research is included from it.
^ "American Mercenary Captured By Russians", Infowars "
Quoted text from source:
An American mercenary has been captured by Russian forces along with a number of Georgian soldiers according to a report http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2008/08/american-soldiercitizen-captured-in.html from the Russian news website Izvestia, providing more evidence that the U.S. and NATO are covertly supporting the Georgian army in a proxy war with Russia. According to the report, the mercenary is an African-American who is a NATO instructor and an ordinance specialist. He has now been transferred to the Russian base of Vladikavkaz. The story also backs up previous reports of dead black Americans having been found in Tskhinvali, the capital city of South Ossetia. U.S. soldiers recently conducted training programs where they instructed Georgian soldiers how to deal with unexploded ordinance as part of the Georgia Train and Equip Program. Another report from the Russia daily Kommersant http://kommersant.com/p-13081/mercenaries_Georgia_U.S._instructor states that thousands of mercenaries from numerous different countries are fighting on the Georgian side and are being “commanded by the U.S. military instructors.” “The U.S. military instructors directly command and coordinate actions of mercenaries without being involved in actual fighting, the source specified. According to intelligence data, there are roughly 1,000 military instructors of the United States in Georgia,” states the report. “Task force of Russia has annihilated a few groups of mercenaries. Some of mercenaries have been captured, and investigators are working with them, the source said." The president of South Ossetia claims mercenaries took part in Georgia’s offensive against the breakaway republic, according to Russia’s RIA news agency. In a related development http://en.rian.ru/world/20080811/115953426.html, Russia FSB has detained 10 Georgian intelligence service officers who were allegedly preparing terrorist attacks inside Russia. “We have detained 10 agents of the Georgian special services who were spying on military facilities and preparing terrorist attacks, including on Russian territory,” Alexander Bortnikov said at a meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Russia has today launched new forays into Georgia itself even after Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili signed a cease-fire pledge. Russia claims that Georgia has not honored the cease-fire and continues to attack Russian positions."
BBC radio source / direct link to BBC would be even better.
^ "U.S. Military Instructors Command Hirelings in Georgia", Kommersant
Quoted text from source:
Thousands of mercenaries are fighting for Georgia in this burning conflict with South Ossetia. They are commanded by the U.S. military instructors, RIA Novosti reported with reference to a high-ranked officer of Russia’s military intelligence. “From 2,500 to 3,000 mercenaries fight against Russia’s peacekeepers on behalf of Georgia,” the unnamed source said. Amid them are the natives of Ukraine, some Baltic states and the Caucasus regions. The U.S. military instructors directly command and coordinate actions of mercenaries without being involved in actual fighting, the source specified. According to intelligence data, there are roughly 1,000 military instructors of the United States in Georgia.
There are plenty of references to choose from. Some each may consider more reliable than others. Alex Jones was invited on Russia Today as an "investigative journalist", that is Russia Today. Also Mr Jones has been invited on other US mainstream media to discuss current affairs. Also there is an infowar going on between media in this case, so it seems fitting not to dismiss an "expert" on the subject that is recognised by a great many Americans.
When instead of trying to match sources with what one may consider reliable, the whole material is deleted. What should it be called? --Tananka (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"misrepresentations" - Which ones, please be more specific and it can be corrected
"allegations" Much information is allegations, that can include NGO information over casulties etc..
"conspiracy" - Two or more people planning against others - So if it took more than one to plan an attack it's a conspiracy.
"theories" - All versions are theories.
You need to realize that consensus is cleary against the inclusion of this in the infobox, with multiple users supporting its removal and only you supporting its inclusion. Ostap02:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action (editing), or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on."
As all this material is added, anyone may contribute to turn it into a more cohesive whole. Then, more text may be added, and it may also be rewritten.
WP:EPDuring this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose. Of course, we do not have to like it; we may occasionally criticize substandard work, in addition to simply correcting it. It is most important that it is corrected, if it can be corrected. For text that is beyond hope we will remove the offending section to the corresponding talk page, or, in cases in which the article obviously has no redeeming merit whatsoever, delete it outright. The decision to take the latter action should not be made lightly, however.
Preserve information
Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to:
* rephrase
* correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content
* move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
* add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
* request a citation by adding the [citation needed] tag
Exceptions include:
* original research
* duplication or redundancy
* irrelevancy
* patent nonsense
* copyright violations
* inaccuracy (attempt to correct the misinformation or discuss the problems first before deletion)
* unsourced controversial claims about living persons
"On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors."
Ahaaaa, ok. I hadn't seen that. Thanks for pointing it out. My view on concensus was based on polling results not necesarily demonstrating concensus. Point taken, and much appreciated--Tananka (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should also be aware that the information you added is still in the article, just not in the place you added it. And I believe your block is over (right?), so any further discussion about this should probably be made at the article talk page so that other editors can see it. Ostap05:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
^[http://www.infowars.com/?p=3871 "More Evidence of U.S. Complicity in S. Ossetia Invasion"]. Infowars. 2008-08-10. Retrieved 2008-08-28. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
^[http://www.infowars.com/?p=3893 "American Mercenary Captured By Russians"]. Infowars. 2008-08-11. Retrieved 2008-08-28. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
According to Russia: 127 Pentagon advisors[1] According to Ossetia: mercenaries or instructors[2][3][4][5]
According to BBC: hundreds of instructors [6]
Unknown number of alleged tank crews[2]
2,500 to 3,000 mercenaries[7]
