Jump to content

User talk:COD T 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by COD T 3 (talk | contribs) at 17:38, 5 August 2014 (→Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Request for RfC on Blue Army page.

@User:Robert McClenon if possible I would like to request assistance in setting up a RfC regarding the Encyclopedia Judaica statement added by user Faustian. This statement is very questionable because the claim it makes simply can not be proven, it's simply a speculative comment. Also, the article has an Undue Weight tag, yet the user keeps adding material related only to one issue. I'm actually a bit discouraged why no admin steped in to remind user Faustian, that such a rule exists and should be enforced. Yet, because I'm a new user my claims somehow are not valid. In any case if possible please assist in setting up a proper RfC for the disputed EJ statement, your assistance would be greatly appreciated. --COD T 3 (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am not interested in helping you with an RFC concerning the reliability of Encyclopedia Judaica, for the following reasons. First, the policy to assume good faith is not a suicide pact. I am not required to help you with an RFC when you have shown that you only accept RFCs when they agree with you. My first exposure to Blue Army (Poland) occurred when I saw two RFCs on it in a list of RFCs that needed closing. I closed them. You then asked me to change the wording of my close of one of them. On review, I did not accept your reasoning, and advised you to seek closure review instead. You and Faustian then began edit-warring instead. My take is that you only accept RFCs if they agree with you. I don't intend to help you with another RFC now that I have seen. Second, while it is not forbidden to delete your talk page, it is discouraged, because archiving is preferred. In your case, it appears that you deleted the discussion on the talk page in order to appear to be making a clean start -- but a true clean start abandons your previous area of editing, and does not restart it. Third, it appears that you are about to be topic-banned from Blue Army (Poland). I see no reason to help you play Wikigames. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Robert McClenon, that was a rather cowardly and malicious reply. Please see my below statement, hopefully I'm able to discredit your self righteousness and other admins like you. The statement below is not offensive, but I ask some very legitimate question about the process. --COD T 3 (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

@Lord Roem, Robert McClenon and EdJohnston at the moment I'm serving out my 48 hour block, but I would like to address a charge leveled against me by a member of the Arbitration committee. Please see my rebuttal statements below:

  • By Wikipedia standards Encyclopedia Judaica is considered a legitimate source, but not a neutral source. So, my objection was against Faustian using a claim made by EJ and writing it in the Wikipedia Editorial Voice, as if the Jewish interpretation of the events was the only definitive view of the events in question. User Faustian was reminded by other users on 22:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC) that due to the highly controversial and conflicting accounts of the events in question this kind of editing style is inappropriate.
  • I would like to remind everyone that the events are controversial, and for someone to accuse me of whitewashing the text, could just as easily be accused of holding a Anti-Polish bias, and trying to demonize the army. I think that anyone that reads the Controversies section will realize just how complex the topic is.
  • Finally, I would like to ask why other users who called me a Jew-baiter or wrote highly offensive statements on in a RfC discussion are not being disciplined, yet a statement I made about the validity of a source is now being twisted in such a was as to paint me as an anti-semite? Indeed, I am very worried about the neutrality of the Wikipedia Project, if the questions I just asked are completely disregards.
  • 'No User:COD T 3 is engaging in original research and Jew-baiting. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)'

Please note that the date of this statement is 14 June 2014 nearly two months prior to the statement I'm potentially being banned for 2 August 2014.

  • User Faustian titles a talk page discussion "Blue Army Rapists" on 04:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet no admin questions his neutrality, maybe Faustain holds a potential Anti-Polish bias? I don't think that by WIkipedia standards this is a neutral statement.

Ladies and Gentelman admins, Thank you for your unbiased honesty in overseeing the Wikipedia project! It's been a very informative experience to learn just how the process is being administered, and what kind of material is being allowed to flood a page with no admin noticing even if a Undue Weight tag is present. But, for the moment it's me that will get blamed for being disruptive to the Wikipedia process. --COD T 3 (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:COD_T_3&oldid=619985495"