Forum:Can I get a 3rd party review?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello, I am attempting to work on the Pit Bull page and I am finding myself forced to deal with someone removing information they do not like.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Pit_bull

Basically, the article is heavily slanted towards the moral panic that pit bulls are dangerous kill bots. I am attempting to bring in data from the CDC, AVMA, advocacy groups, veterinarians, and the like and I am having most if not all of them removed by a sysop named Hipocrite, who has taken to trolling me in response to my asking why he is doing that. I am not looking to claim these dogs are adorable puppies that are full of rainbows and sunshine, but I am attempting to add legitimate science rebuttals to many of the claims included and finding myself unable to.

I don't know what the rules here are for arbitration of such an issue, but as it stands this is unworkable. I'd like to work with Hipocrite in good faith but it is hard to do so when he removes things with little explanation and then curses at me when I attempt to engage him as to why I think it is inappropriate.

Help? Geekmasterflash (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There is now an edit war going on in the Moral Panic page as well: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Moral_panic&action=history My latest addition is sourced by Dr. Brian M Lowe, Sociologist on the existence of a moral panic over pitbulls. I assume by the time I am done with this comment here, Hipocrite will have reverted it and deleted a source by an expert with no comment. Geekmasterflash (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Go fuck yourself. Seriously - you can fuck right off. Hipocrite (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, I can't work with this person. I posted this in site-related discussion because I am wondering what sort of review and arbitration process RW has for situations like these? Surely I can't just boil down to "whichever editor tires first?" I'd like to contribute to the site, but it's difficult to do so when being called names, cursed at, and having edits completely removed regardless of validity (at least, in my own opinion.) So please, RW, what can be done? I don't really think an article, or disagreement, about some dogs warrants this level of vitriol. Geekmasterflash (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Go contribute to something not about pit bulls. Dare you! Hipocrite (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Already have. my first contributions were to the Texas School Board and Sylvia Browne articles. I usually don't write much here because I find the articles well done. I did not like what I saw in Pit Bulls, and it's convinced me to try and fix it. Now, you'll have to excuse me Hipocrite, but if I was interested in continuing to pointlessly argue with you, I would do so elsewhere, I am asking on this forum here because I'd like to know what can be done about the level of harassment and review. If you have nothing to add to that, please direct your words to me to my talk page. Geekmasterflash (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
If you're looking for other people's input on the pit bull issue, you could try posting at the Saloon bar to see if anyone is interested in weighing in. If you're looking for arbitration re Hipocrite's behaviour, try the Chicken Coop or moderators. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want my professional opinion you're both fucking nuts. I can't even trace what either of you are arguing, I cannot spot a point nor a side or identify what side each person is on. You may as well just be speaking in tongues for all there is actual content in any posts. Not that this matters because it's long since descended into pure personal abuse and point scoring and left the original article behind. So, in my professional opinion, revert the article back to where it was before anyone kicked off and leave it for a couple of days to calm the fuck down and stop pissing each other off. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 20:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
^This sums it up pretty well. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Not to be a jerk, but I would ask that you find any example of my making a personal attack against Hipocrite? Geekmasterflash (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
[1], [2], [3], [4],[5]. So yeah, you fucker, you have. Hipocrite (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)