Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eiorgiomugini
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC).
- Eiorgiomugini (talk · contribs · logs)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Statement of the dispute
[edit]There is a large segment of Wikipedia that lacks any expert attention. It concerns the articles about the history of Inner Asia, particularly such countries as Xinjiang, Mongolia, Tuva, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. The area is rife with uncorroborated assertions. Basically, everyone writes what he pleases, without bothering to source his additions. I decided to review the situation and investigate why the articles about the Xiongnu and Gokturks, among others, are so stubby and the coverage is so skimpy. Before long my efforts to provide appropriately referenced details were blocked by User:Eiorgiomugini, and my edits were reverted. The amount of petty bickering each small edit engenders is very discouraging, consuming lots of time and energy. Our failure to deal with such situations is a factor that drives contributors nuts and away from wikipedia. One has to spent hours dealing with Eiorgiomugini's wikiowning attitude towards the articles in questions. In order to defuse the situation I asked User:Briangotts to look into the matter and mediate if possible.
Evidence of disputed behavior
[edit]I ask Eiorgiomugini to specify the source listed by him as "Xue" in the references section, referring to this version of the page:
- "You should explain who is Xue - is it a book or a writer? If it is a book, when was it published? By whom? where? You can't persuade me that three enigmatic letters is a sufficient reference per se".[1]
In retaliation, Eiorgiomugini reproduced my questions on a different page to impeach my properly formatted reference to an Oxford monograph: Who's wink 2002, is it a book or a writer? when was it published? By whom? where?, although the answer is obvious if one just looks at the references section.
Eiorgiomugini added to the embryonic article Tarim mummies a lengthy critique of an obscure documentary. Since the text seemed to vent his own indignation at the film's perceived racist slant, I removed the additions to talk, but was reverted by Eiorgiomugini. I removed the controversial philippic to talk with the following summary: A detailed critique of an obscure documentary is irrelevant in an encylopaedic text and suggested to him to start an article about the documentary.
After I was summarily reverted by Eiorgiomugini, I suggested to split the article:
- I consider it unseemly that the article says next to nothing about the mummies (even the dating is obfuscated), yet it concentrates in such detail on controversies around their presumed racial identity. This is WP:UNDUE at its worst. Perhaps we should start the page Tarim mummies controversies or Racial identity of Tarim mummies and its criticism, or something along these lines?
Since Eiorgiomugini failed to address these points, I left him alone to guard the article in its current sorry state.
Eiorgiomugini has the annoying habit of summarily reverting the edits of others to "his" articles or to give them his own "style". In this way he "prettified" my edits to Xiongnu. When I removed his "unreferenced" tag from the top of four pages to the empty "references" section (as per Template:Unreferenced) Eiorgiomugini was keen to start a revert war over this petty issue: [2], [3], [4], [5]. As soon I posted a heavily revised version of Gokturks, Eiorgiomugini set to work obliterating properly referenced details.
As if all those cantankerous edits were not enough to let me know that my edits were most unwelcome, Eiorgiomugini started a silly revert war over Ashina which should be immortalized in WP:LAME. During the last few days I cleaned up and expanded the page, which Eiorgiomugini presumably "owns", from this to this. It took me a great deal of effort to overcome Eiorgiomugini's resistance, which still revolves around the enigmatic phrase: "These stories were at times pieced together to form a chronologically narrates of history, however the probability was large and such sequel could have been one way or the other, as most of the stories happens to be written in the same era without a date attached to". Whatever this is supposed to mean, Eiorgiomugini's efforts to rescue this piece of supposedly valuable information resulted in more than fifty revisions of the page:
- I commented out the sentence
- my edits were rolled back
- I removed "it should be noted" as per WP:WTA
- Eiorgiomugini restored them with the summary "stop making nonsense"
- Briangotts comments: "These sentences make no sense to me. I would be happy to help put them in comprehensible English if someone could tell me what they are trying to say."
- Briangotts removed "incomprehensible sentence"
- I refactored the sentence so as to remove "it should be noted"
- Brian removed another incomprehensible turn of phrase
- Eiorgiomugini restores it wholesale
- Brian rewrites: "this is my best guess at what you're on about, please do not simply restore the old text as it was incomprehensible"
- the text restored by Eiorgiomugini, in a modified form
- After Brian removed gibberish, it was promptly restored by Eiogriomugini with a touch of profanity
- Brian snaps: "This phrase makes no sense in English, please stop adding it! If you want to describe on talk what you are trying to get across I will be happy to help you."
- User:Nlu attempts to rewrite: "I don't know what the objection to the prior wording is, anyway, but rewritten to hopefully placate editor who had a problem with it".
It could be expected that revert warring would stop on Ashina after Nla's intervention, but instead Eiorgiomugini promptly found a new source of grievances, ergo, edit-warring. While rewriting the page, I moved the section "etymology" (added by me) from the end of the page to the beginning, so as to merge this one-phrase section to the section "origin", but was instantly reverted by Eiorgiomugini. Then he frivolously moved the page elsewhere. I proceeded to add some major details and references, but that was at once followed by deletions and restructuring on the part of Eiorgiomugini. He deleted a referenced statement from the lead, again moved "etymology" section to the conclusion of the article, applied some idiosyncratic formatting to it, and reinstated the construction "the Ashina was most certainly derives from if not related to the Manchu", which I had tried to put in order. Today, he started his editing from accusations of "cheating" and "trolling" and started a new revert war over Brian's well-meaning attempt at wikilinking.
Fazit
[edit]The subject of this RfC may appear trivial, but it basically forced me to abandon editing the articles "patronized" by Eiorgiomugini. The need to explain my addition of each properly sourced reference for hours and remove Eiorgiomugini's incomprehensible comments makes meaningful editing of these articles less than worthwhile. I'm sure I'm not the only one who was driven away from editing them by his stubbornness. I'd like the community to comment whether there's any way to deal with this sort of disruption.
Since Eiorgiomugini was blocked for 3RR issues seven times and still persists in revert-warring, I wonder whether we should decide if his behaviour has exhausted the community's patience. The fact that this user, many of whose edits are incomprehensible in English, rejects good faith efforts to modify and correct them is having a detrimental effect on a large swath of articles.
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
[edit]- [6]
- [7] The guy is unwilling to discuss his behaviour on his talk page, moving large chunks of discussion from user talk pages to Talk:Ashina.
- [8]
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
[edit]{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Other users who endorse this summary
[edit]Response
[edit]This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
- ==Response==
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
This RfC is totally unjustified which I found, and I would like to point out a few points for the so-called disputed behavior listed by this distorted user Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) who was obviously leasing in his report. Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) claimed that everyone writes what he pleases, whereas the fact that almost all edits I made had gone through a long concensus on talk if there happens to be a dispute. He also claimed that the amount of petty bickering each small edit engenders, whereas the truth was his mis-referenced on the sources were the curse that actually engendered all unnecessarily petty disputes over the talk. Its takes alot time to actually try to asked him over to the article talk, where dispute could be solved. Not only his attitude was distorbed but his comments on my talk had also reveal his personal attack to the others. He also implied that as if I had edited the huge amount of articles over Xinjiang, Mongolia, Tuva, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, which is somethings to be balderdash in my opinion, anyone has an pair of eye could check out on the articles history themselves.
Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) first questioned about my source on talk at 1800, 15 May 2007 and asked who is Xue - is it a book or a writer? If it is a book, when was it published? By whom? where? subsequently, this was 3 hours after 1500 hours, 15 May 2007 I had listed all the needed information which he was asking, and I did considered his behavior as trolling to me, the source obviously had listed on the reference section which he doesn't seem bother to look at it. The same happened, when I had questioned about his source on which I was not awared of the Ibidem (André Wink/Wink 2002) source that he had listed here. It was not a retaliation as he claimed, as I happened to be recklessly neglected it.
Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) removed my additions of properly referenced details on the article here on 2000 hours, 12 May 2007 which he commented on talk about the lengthy philippic against some obscure documentary and suggested to moved it to Tarim mummies controversy. I did agreed on his proposal and asked him to added more controversy topic regarding this issue, as I suppose the section was simply not lengthy enough to create for a stub page. He also questioned about the source on the article talk and considered my additions on the ==Controversy== section as WP:OR on my talk, but this was obviously not the cases, as those additions were extracted from the link here from utoledo.edu. I agreed that those additions may be undue, which I eventually did shorten my additions that I had suggested earlier on the edit summary to him for compromise, which he simply ignored it.
Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) claimed that I "owned" the article just because I made a touched up on the aricle Xiongnu by creating an ==Archeology== section is totally nonsense. By considering the five Gokturk-related articles (qaghans) which I moved the tag up as 'owning' or 'reverting' is disproportionate, I realise my mistake after I had awared of the Template:Unreferenced statenment and made an apologize to him, even before he had all my edits reverted 2 hours later: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], although the Template:Unreferenced had also stated There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the top of the article page for the tag. I also removed his sourced additions on 08:28, 18 May 2007 at the article Gokturk as those was obviously repeated under the article of Ashina, so I suggests (on the edit summary) we should deal with the name of gokturk or tujue more precisely, he seemed to think that I'm againsting his source, but if I did I would had reverted his additions right here earlier on 1400 hours, 16 May 2007. So It doesn't make sense for him to claim I was owning the articles.
The claim that I presumably "owns" the article cannot be truth, anyone who had viewed the page history in 500 pages would had noticed I had barely touched up the article before Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs)'s revision on 0700 hours, 15 May 2007, I made a six edits before that: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. In contrast, Briangotts (talk · contribs) had 12 edits: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) conduct is clearly a wholesale accusing on the others without a solid proof to back himself up.
For the removed phrase by Briangotts (talk · contribs), since he had failed to help to improve the article ever since his first edit on article talk here 1800 hours, 15 May 2007, I had sought for another guy to help out, I had made two requests for correction here and here all around on 0600 hours, 16 May 2007, that was 2 hours earlier on article talk before Nlu (talk · contribs) came on 0700 hours 16 May 2007, but was immediately rejected by him 6 hours after Nlu's compromise. He yelled at the others on the edit summary even though others had tried to help, and yes I was frustrated, so I made a soliloquizing profanity back, that was 2 hours after his yell and not before that. My purpose was as Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) claimed to make efforts and rescue piece of supposedly valuable information, as the matter of fact all related topics should deserved to be mentioned over the article. I also added another piece of information right here, but Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) claimed them to be destroying the continuity and logic of the article, even though the topic itself on etymology was disputed and pretty much controversy as shown from several sources. He also threaten to "take action aginast me", which I obviously don't bother, since I had citation to back up my addition.
Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) claimed that I rejects good faith efforts to modify on English for the article, this is certainly not truth, in fact I did asked someone else out for a review/judge on the current status of the article. He also make a claim that he was expected that revert warring would stopped after Nlu's intervention, which is clearly another lies as Nlu's compromise was reject by Briangotts (talk · contribs). Moving to disambiguation page was not a wrong things to do, as the issue had already been rised on the talk on 23:40, 17 December 2005. He did not explained why the "etymology" section should had moved to the top, so I moved back, same goes with the section of "legends" which I changed to "origins and legends", even though this section "origins" was first added in his revision on 1300 hours, 15 May 2007.
For the removal of lead section on "most powerful royal house", like every wikipedian I had made a request for more informations about his citation he had inputed here on 0200 hours, 19 May 2007 since I'm skeptical, as well as on his talk page, but he provided no response about my request. This disputed user Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) had been cheating with his source from İsenbike Togan's book page 16, which was why I removed it and explained on talk. Now this is definitely not a reverting war as he accused, as false information on wikipedia should be removed straightaway. Since Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) had been block for six times with one anonymous block evasion, now I suggesting someone come out here to solve this flaw dispute. Eiorgiomugini 06:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Outside view
[edit]This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
Discussion
[edit]All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.