User:Inigmawiki/Requests for comment/Inigmatus

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.

Frequent disputes over the article Messianic Judaism lead have left me wondering how best to approach the situation. For example, a source called "Artscroll" and a phrase "sect of Judaism" were removed by another editor[1] according to consensus in Talk[2], but one editor assumes I am simply reverting to a disputed version[3] without reading my changes which had nothing to do with the disputed source and phrase[4]. I leave messages on her talk page[5], and in the article talk[6] and revert back her removal telling her no such disputed content is found[7] in the changes to the article and for her to point it out[8]. She reverts the first revert[9] and a second[10] with an explanation that has nothing to do with the reverted material, and posts a threat for 3RR[11] and then just posts a 3RR warning on my discussion page[12], leaving no message as to what her dispute is. I then get this big idea that she is not even reading her talk page or other talk pages, and I decide to "edit" the article again making note in the edit summary (again) that the phrase "sect of Judaism" is NOT found anywhere in edit at all[13]. She gets banned, and I get banned for "edit warring."

Then today, I post in the article's talk page requesting feedback to correct a source's quoted paragraph (actually its my fourth such request by now without response) by copy-pasting it from the Google books source[14]. I then edit and correct the article's quoted source to match the exact Google book source[15], and yet a different editor reverts my change[16], assuming I'm "edit warring" without actually reading the edit I made[17], nor even bothering to respond to my post for feedback on the article's talk page[18]. He assumes I'm edit warring and reverts all my changes, then totally ignores my objections to the inaccuracy of the source and just posts a new section saying he's tired of "Edit warring!" In fact, both of these editors are doing this to me, leaving me without a way to constructively add or correct content to the article - EVEN WHEN I POST IN TALK. I feel as if I am being harassed and railroaded by these non-Messianic Jewish editors into not being able to contribute to the article constructively, and I need advice on how best to garner support for constructive editing of the article without violating WP policies, and maintaining good faith both of these other editors. inigmatus (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have posted this RFC on myself in an effort to clear my name of any wrong doing in any of these editing disputes, and to help restore the good faith of several editors who I find myself constantly wrestling with; and to find the best means to resolving the bad faith that seems to be assumed by some editors. I also need advice on how best to avoid getting hit with 3RR again, or banned for editing - taking into account the fact that I DO actually post in talk, and DO try my best to resolve edit disputes, well before making disputed changes in an article, and even more so when there is a dispute actually made. I am tired of constantly being threatened with 3RR, and bannings by non-Messianic Jewish editors over content on Messianic Judaism and I am not quite sure how to bring constructive edits to the article or revert what I see are bad, unsourced changes to the article without getting the hammer falling down on me. A lot of this deals with the fact that I am the only Messianic Jewish editor that is consistently on Wikipedia. inigmatus (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Inside view

This is a summary written by users directly involved with the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside views") should not edit the "Inside views" section, except to endorse another editor's view.

Inside view by

{Replace this text with your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign. The user who writes this summary should not edit the other summaries except to endorse them.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Inside view by

{Replace this text with your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign. The user who writes this summary should not edit the other summaries except to endorse them.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

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 "Inside views") should not edit the "Outside views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by

{Replace this text with your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign. The user who writes this summary should not edit the other summaries except to endorse them.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by

{Replace this text with your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign. The user who writes this summary should not edit the other summaries except to endorse them.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion happens on the talk page

All signed comments and other talk that is not an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below or after someone else's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment. All discussion (including questions, disagreements, opposition, complaints) should be posted to the talk page.