Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Marburg72

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 17:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome

Constructive edits from Marburg72 fully in line with Wikipedia policies; effective critical reading by Marburg72 of his own contributions when criticized by other editors. David Trochos (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Across several articles, notably Walam Olum, Cahokia, and Monk's Mound, this user has been making edits based either on outdated sources (which happen to agree with his POV), or on his original research published on his own website http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound/ , or on misinterpretations of reliable sources. Numerous other editors have tried to correct the problems thus caused, but attempts at cut-and-paste partial reversions by Marburg72 have sometimes damaged pages by creating ungrammatical sentences, orphan ref name=/ and similar problems. Today, Marburg72 has violated WP:3RR on Monk's Mound. Some comments on talk pages have directly or indirectly accused both other editors and cited scholars of lying and/or racism. David Trochos (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Although this RfC essentially concerns edits to Monk's Mound, these are just the latest of many conflicts, most of which have been "resolved" by the use of uneasy balancing phrases. Some examples follow:

Walam Olum: Joe Napora

(Misuse of sources; WP:EDITWAR WP:CIVIL WP:AGF WP:TALK)

First, a particularly problematic conflict. Marburg72 insists on including in the Walam Olum article laudatory comments made about it by Joe Napora, who made a poetic translation of the text. When he saw David Oestreicher's 1994 demonstration that the Walam Olum was a hoax, Napora accepted his argument, and was later quoted as such by Oestreicher. However, in 1996, a French magazine published a French translation of Napora's introduction to the first published version of his Walam Olum poetry (1981), and the online version of this translation included no reference to Napora's change of position, or to the 1981 date of the translated text, acccidentally implying that Napora had not changed his position after 1994. As can be seen on the talk page, Marburg72 effectively accused other editors of lying when they presented evidence of the 1981 date. How Napora would feel about the current representation of his views in the Walam Olum article if he were aware of it remains mercifully unknown.

  • Talk:Walam_Olum#Source of Napora translation

(current version as at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walam_Olum&diff=220326093&oldid=220311174 )

Walam Olum: Greenman hypothesis

(WP:EDITWAR WP:CIVIL WP:RS)

Quoting a 1963 article, which contained a basic chronological weakness, as a source for claims of ancient links between Western Europe and America, and making accusations of attacks against Native American culture. Note also repeated command "Drop it!"

  • Talk:Walam_Olum#My removal of Marburg72's recent edits

(current version as at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walam_Olum&diff=222868889&oldid=222685532 )

Cahokia: Buried alive?

(WP:EDITWAR WP:CIVIL WP:SOAP WP:AGF WP:NPA)

Removal of sourced text
This was a dispute about an edit of mine which concerned Monk's Mound but was actually in the [{Cahokia]] article, where Marburg72 repeatedly removed text I added from a reliable source, a university press book written by the man considered the dean of Cahokia archaeology and a lay author. Throughout this I tried to explain Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and verifiability (see below) but to no avail.
[1] -- sourced text from university press book -- removed by Marburg72 because it isn't mentioned in an earlier book
[2] -- edit summary makes clear editor removing this not because it is improperly sourced, but because he thinks it is wrong
[3] -- another reversion (edit summary says see WP:BATTLE
[4] -- another reversion (this time it had been replaced by another editor, not me or Trochos)
[5] -- edit summary says "Youngs claim is not verifyable" - talk page shows him persistently referring to the book, by the lay author Young and the archaeologist Fowler, as 'Young's book' and the quote as by Young, and the 'verifyable' bit is because he disagrees with what the book says and was insisting it couldn't be used without another source confirming the book's claim.
Doug Weller (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False statements about results of archaeological investigations in an effort to prove a contentious point (e.g. "the skeletons were so badly decayed that they had turned to dust"- published photographs of the disputed skeletons show otherwise). Accusations of racism and mendacity; refusal to accept a book published in 2000, co-written by the director of archaeology at Cahokia, as adding to the information in a book published in 1999, co written by the same person.

  • Talk:Cahokia#Mound 72 Vertical fingers equals Buried Alive?

(current version as at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cahokia&diff=221445234&oldid=221442715 )

Related to the above: comment on edit to his own talk page: " I dont care to participate in this stupid racist discussion any more" note also the command "drop it!" in the older edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marburg72&diff=prev&oldid=222897988

Various pages

{WP:RS WP:COI WP:SPAM)

Links to own website; probable COI (website also contains much unreliable original research- e.g. claim that Cahokia Mounds is the "Quiguate" visited by Hernando de Soto conflicts with accepted interpretations of his route) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cahokia&diff=223003173&oldid=222492377 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thunderbird_%28mythology%29&diff=222816366&oldid=221759211 (examples; others in other articles)

Hourglass (and elsewhere)

(WP:MOS??)

A symptom of another problem; Marburg72 feels he has the right to insert material relevant to his interests exactly wherever and however he wants, with no regard for the surrounding material. *Original edit at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hourglass&diff=222809260&oldid=222484863 ; it's also worth tracking subsequent edits; and see discussion at: User_talk:Marburg72#Hourglass (current version as at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marburg72&diff=223022551&oldid=222991910 )

David Trochos (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(At the time of writing, the Hourglass material is in Midewiwin, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midewiwin&oldid=223134109 ) David Trochos (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monk's Mound

(WP:3RR WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND WP:SOAP WP:FRINGE WP:OR etc.))

wp:3RR violation today, for Monk's Mound. This is very complex (the common issue is that Marburg72 is reverting/revising largely to information based on research in his own website) so it is easiest to follow a single clause in the article introduction, relating to the size of the Mound. In this particular instance, according to the discussion at User_talk:Marburg72 his figures have been obtained by his own calculations from the map on page 3 of "The Great Knob" ( online flipbook at http://www.archive.org/details/greatknobinterpr00skel )- but pages 1-2 of the same book give specific figures which differ significantly from Marburg72's calculations. Marburg 72 version: "its size was calculated in 1988 as about 92 feet (28 meters) high, 951 feet (290 meters) long and 836 feet (255 meters) wide" Version based on figures quoted in book: "its size was calculated in 1988 as about 100 feet (30 meters) high, 955 feet (291 meters) long including the access ramp at the southern end, and 775 feet (236 meters) wide" Some "reversions" were achieved by cut-and-paste rather than undo, but here are the diffs and times:

Note also that in the midst of these complex revisions and reversions, a ref name=/ tag was orphaned: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monk%27s_Mound&diff=222975710&oldid=222975231

and a comparison to the base area of the Great Pyramid at Giza was rendered ungrammatical: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monk%27s_Mound&diff=222975231&oldid=222972048

David Trochos (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller's reversion of complex edits- detailed explanation.

None of the complex series of edits made by Marburg72to Monk's Mound which were reverted all at once by Doug Weller (07:33, 2 July 2008) was referenced; however, that was not the only problem, so here is a detailed explanation:

  • diff 23:36, 1 July 2008. The original revert of David Trochos' reversion. The actual source of Marburg72's dimension figures was not page 3 of the referenced book (a map of the Mound above the 130m contour), but a photocopy of that page, with a 10-metre grid added in 1998 for archaeological use (second illustration on Marburg72's website http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound/ ). Not only was the derivation of dimensions from that map OR, it was also wrong; the text of pages 1-2 of the book, ignored by Marburg72, emphasises the difficulties of defining the limits of the mound, noting in particular that it is not possible to use a single contour line to define the boundary. The website is also linked to in this edit; in additional to factual inacuracies, it contains questionable material about the recent slump repair controversy, raising COI issues (Marburg72 was briefly blocked from Wikipedia in September 2007 over his edits relating to this matter, in a dispute which involved two members of the Cahokia staff- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mark.Esarey and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TriNotch/Cahokia2007 ).
  • diff 23:50, 1 July 2008. Link to an article by Marburg72, again giving his version of the 2007 repair controversy, so COI.
  • diff 23:55, 1 July 2008. Change to emotive terms in relation to 2007 repair controversy.
  • diff 00:14, 2 July 2008. "Larger" both makes sentence ungrammatical, and is based on Marburg72's own exaggerated measurements noted above (although it has its origin in much earlier, even more exaggerated measurements, seen on various websites, claiming a Monk's Mound area of 16 acres); "colored" refers to a pet theory of Marburg72's that colored earth was used as a pigment to make patterns on the Mound; different colors of earth were indeed used in making the mound, but as to their significance, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TriNotch/Cahokia2007 for a more sober official version.
  • dif 00:17, 2 July 2008. Removal (see detailed edit summary) of referenced text about early slumping. Contradicts ref. given in removed text.
  • diff 00:20, 2 July 2008. Direct inversion of sense of text, with supporting material which turns out to be OR, from Marburg72's own website. Examination of the sources cited indicates that Marburg72's interpretation of them does not coincide with conventional scholarship- i.e. FRINGE.
  • (several corrections of spelling etc. follow here)
  • diff 00:30, 2 July 2008. Removal of explanation of construction difference from Egyptian pyramids; introduction of limestone slabs as an apparently major element in the Mound construction- contrary to archaeological reports. Flagged as Minor Edit.
    • (at 00:50, 2 July 2008, AdultSwim intervenes to restore orphan reference)
  • diff 02:09, 2 July 2008. Changes "more serious slumping" (which was based on first paragraph of 2007 report in ref.) to "very minor slumping". Also changes "entire mass of earth" to quantity. As it happens, although it is important to understand that this repair technique had to remove the entire mass of earth, there is a case to be made for adding the quantity as well, which will be looked into when things have calmed down.
  • diff 02:12, 2 July 2008. Statements about archaeological work during the 2007 repairs, which, as discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TriNotch/Cahokia2007, appear to be libellous.

David Trochos (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-headings and WP: tags added David Trochos (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion of text on Monk's Mound talk page
Today Marburg72 deleted about 1/3 of the text on the Monk's Mound talk page[6]. I restored it and asked a completely uninvolved Admin to intervene. Meanwhile he deleted it again, Gwen Gale restored it and warned him. [7] Two more deletions by Marburg72 and restoration by Gwen Gale [8] (where he says go ahead and block) and [9] have resulted in a 24 block. Doug Weller (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:CIVIL
  2. WP:TALK
  3. WP:AGF
  4. WP:3RR
  5. WP:EDITWAR
  6. WP:SPAM
  7. WP:COI
  8. WP:NLT
  9. WP:FRINGE
  10. WP:OR
  11. WP:RS
  12. WP:HARASS
  13. WP:NPA
  14. WP:SOAP
  15. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

As is made clear in the "Evidence of Disputed Behaviour" section what follows is just the most recent episode of a long history of problems stretching back nearly a year.

1) diff 23:30, 1 July 2008 Revert with brief explanation by David Trochos

2) diff 07:47, 2 July 2008 Fairly detailed response by David Trochos (under heading "Monk's Mound") to question from Marburg72 about the above brief explanation

Meanwhile: 3) diff 07:33, 2 July 2008 Revert by Doug Weller of complex but unreferenced Marburg72 edits (including OR and NPOV elements, and some incorrect information), with long explanation on Talk page, first paragraph of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monk%27s_Mound#Recent_edits_and_an_editor's_personal_website

4) diff 07:47, 2 July 2008 Request by David Trochos for clarification of referenced source for dimensions of Mound, because the dimensions did not appear to be stated explicitly on the referenced page (outcome of this discussion noted in "Evidence of Disputed Behaviour")

5) diff 08:58, 2 July 2008 request by Phlegm Rooster for clarification of disputed points

6) diff 12:12, 2 July 2008 Reply by David Trochos to Phlegm Rooster question

7) diff 13:32, 2 July 2008 Responses by David Trochos to rebuttals by Marburg72 of the above-mentioned criticisms (item 2) of his original research (further progress of this discussion not listed here- utterly unresolved)

8) diff 14:08, 2 July 2008 Reply by Doug Weller to Phlegm Rooster question

9) diff 15:34, 2 July 2008 Response by Doug Weller to Marburg72 justifications

Meanwhile: 10) diff 15:37, 2 July 2008 Revert by David Trochos of Marburg72 revert, with warning about WP:OR

11) diff 16:10, 2 July 2008 Warning by Ronz about possible conflict of interest (relating partly to Marburg72's POV-pushing language on Monk's Mound)

12) diff 16:15, 2 July 2008 Revert by Ronz of Marburg72 revert, with brief explanation

13) diff 16:37, 2 July 2008 Explanation by Rossami that Marburg72 is mistaken in seeking Deletion Review

14) diff 16:43, 2 July 2008 For-the-record response to Marburg72 announcement of Deletion Review

15) diff 17:15, 2 July 2008 Suggestion by Doug Weller about use of WP:RSN to resolve personal website links issue

Meanwhile 16) diff 17:01, 2 July 2008 Creation of WP:CoI dispute page by Ronz, relating partly to Monk's Mound

Meanwhile: 17) 17:05, 2 July 2008 Creation of this dispute page by David Trochos, after initial consideration of WP:3RR approach

Discussions relating to long-term solutions have continued since this dispute page was created, with suggestions of academic training for Marburg72


In order to meet the "single dispute" criterion, I have removed from here a summary by Doug Weller of attempts to resolve the Cahokia: Buried alive? conflict. I will place this on the Talk page for reference. David Trochos (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

Fourth revert of Mound dimensions information, as noted above:

See also aggressive responses to this RfC at:

Failed attempts to resolve BLP and NOR issues:

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. David Trochos (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doug Weller (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Endorse - Looks pretty much spot on and Marburg's response below leaves much to be desired. Shot info (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse - My experience with Margurg, limited though it is, strongly suggests that he is dedicated to a form of nationalist/ethnicist POV which leads him consistently to prefer evidence that presents Native American cultures in what he perceives to be a positive light (monuments are bigger than the pyramids; there is no evidence of burial alive etc). This attitude leads him to reject or promote arguments on ideological rather than purely scholarly grounds. It is very difficult to comunicate with him, because he is so keen to assert his POV he simply "blanks" alternative views. Paul B (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse When User Marburg72 suppresses books from reliable sources such as the University of Illinois as he did here [10] because he/she personally disagrees with their views, I declare that this is unacceptable behaviour. Leoboudv (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC) I don't appreciate being attacked here: [11] by User Marburg72 because I objected to his removal of a reliable source. A book by the University of Illinois is certainly reliable. Leoboudv (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse I had a very acrimonious exchange with Marburg when I responded to a comment left on WP:FTN. He seemed to find NPOV policy impossible to understand. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse As a total outsider in this situation and having just spent over an hour following links to see what is going on, I think this kind of behavior needs to stop. I don't see any reasons for the claims of WP:Sockpuppet or WP:Meatpuppet. This behavior I think would qualify under the policies WP:COI and WP:TE and possibly others. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ENDORSE The issue especially in regards to the hourglass symbolism have affected both the Midewiwin and Wiigwaasabak articles as additions he has made and then were deleted by other editions on both Walam Olum and Hourglass were migrated to these two other articles. Though Marburg72 have done a good job in citing, any addition must also fit in context with the rest of the article, and those additions have not be so as they were just dropped in, without context. As the Mide communities are very protective and no official definitive linguistic studies have been endorsed on the scolls' logographs, any interpretation on those logographs used are speculative in nature. CJLippert (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Please review Wikipedia Policy on MEAT PUPPETRY before continuing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry Taken to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:MEAT_and_WP:SOCK_on_Marburg72_RfC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/David_Trochos

It is clear that Trochos, Doug, and Ronz have a difference of opinion about the authenticity of ancient relics, I am not bothered by their opinion. However, when they attempt to revert every constructive edit that I make, according to Wikipedia Policy, then they are becoming disruptive and they should stop. I have asked Ronz to stop posting on my talk page numerous times but this editor keeps adding unwanted comments. I am not interested in he said she said opinions or debunking attempts. I am interested in the facts about the topics and all edits are made in good faith with only the best intentions of sharing information from reliable sources. Weasel words are one problem that is often a problem on Wikipedia. Such opinionated words and statement of opinion as fact are becoming a problem with these three other editors.
In response to Paul B's "endorsement", his opinion that my POV "strongly suggests that he is dedicated to a form of nationalist/ethnicist... which leads him consistently to prefer evidence that presents Native American cultures in what he perceives to be a positive light (monuments are bigger than the pyramids; there is no evidence of burial alive etc)."
Yes, In fact I prefer to present native American culture in a positive light as opposed to a "Negative Light". I cite only evidence that is supported by facts and not pure speculation such as those of stating buried alive theories.

Further evidence of recruitment on behalf of Trochos: Leoboudv (talk) page shows that this user is friends with Trochos and Trochos has had prior discussions with him, this is again in direct conflict with MEAT PUPPET policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leoboudv&action=history

This attitude leads him to reject or promote arguments on ideological rather than purely scholarly grounds.
Are you saying that information about Native Americans presented in a "Negative Light" is the only purely "scholarly grounds"?
It is very difficult to communicate with him, because he is so keen to assert his POV he simply "blanks" alternative views. Paul B (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It is clear that the sources that Paul B cites on Walam Olum about its lack of "authenticity" do not agree with

A complete lack of effort to "resolve" any conflicts on behalf of Doug, Trochos, And Ronz boils down to a namecalling and wild accusations that are unsupported by their description of conversation above.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Walam_Olum#10.2C000_years_reference_is_needed_for_sentence_that_states_this_is_contradiction

The above link shows that Trochos has an opinion that does not match mine. However, His accusations thereafter are completely inaccurate. Users Ronz and Doug Weller are jumping on this group of accusations with no evidence other than thier own opinion. We can agree to disagree - happily - but that is no reason to make accusations of committing such violations. The policy states that RFC should not be for the harassment or to "subdue" another. That seems to be what is going on here and I do not support this behavior.

Evidence that DOUG, TROCHOS, AND Ronz each have a personal attitude problem against me is based on their addition of false accusations and unrelated opinions that are shown on the Monk's Mound page.

In the following, Doug Weller accused me of being a fan of some author that is completely unrelated to the discussion and is untrue. Doug apparently is stating falsehoods that are affecting his judgment against me. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonk%27s_Mound&diff=223320795&oldid=223314793

Ronz did not reply when it was brought up to RONZ attention that the accusations did not match any of the discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarburg72&diff=223312101&oldid=223303271

Upon reading policy, it seems to me that this RFC is a violation of Wikipedia Policy, as it appears to be a venue for personal attack on behalf of Trochos. The policy states: RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack.

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.}

No personal attacks Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse. Doug is in violation of this when he accused me of supporting some author on Monk's Mound discussion that is entirely unrelated and untrue.

Trochos and Doug are carrying out this attempt to remove relavent information on each of the above sites, not to mention on Davenport Tablets,and Thunderbird. They apparently wish to remove any edits that I make - with no reason other than personal grudges. Their effort in working together to destroy any contributions of facts and to slander my personal name is apparent and unacceptable. Marburg72 (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of articles You do not own articles. If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so. This attempt to prevent me from editing articles is in violation of this rule. Also, I did not violate the 3RR rule - only two reverts were made after Doug and Trochos jumped on the bandwagon of Slamming my edits. Ronz made the final third revision and this has not been reverted, although it contains false claims of spam and conflict of interest. Ronz seems to think there is some kind of advertisement of a company going on in the website, which is completely false.

It is also clear that this RFC is in violation of the "Sock Puppetry" rule that is used by wikipedia to prevent Collusion. As Ronz pointed out on my talk page "My own involvement is in response to other editors asking for help. Since I've been involved you have consistently responded by assuming bad faith of others and refusing to address their concerns. --Ronz (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)" == Evidence of Meat Puppetry == Sock puppetry Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block; nor ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone. Clearly, this is a violation of wikipedia policy when you stated that your friends have asked you to help them. Marburg72 (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

: Further evidence of Sock Puppetry is seen on Paul B's talk page, when Trochos asked him to sign the page in support of his claims: Marburg72 I have just filed an RfC about user Marburg72, whose edit you recently reverted. If you would like to add any comments, under the headings "Other users who endorse this summary", or "Outside view" or in the "Users who endorse this summary:" at the end of Marburg72's "Response" section, please do so

Pauls request for endorsement of the RFC is in direct violation of Wikipedia policy listed as "Sock Puppetry" or possibly Meat Puppetry". As stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry

Paul Also asked Ronz on Ronz talk page to endorse this claim, again severely in violation of wikipedia policy - and weakens these claims severely.

Ronz, I've just put in an "Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" summary, and your name keeps cropping up. Would you like ::to sign in the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" section? David Trochos (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is to avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

Wikipedia has policies and processes to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry:

1. Consensus in many debates and discussions is not based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. Newcomers are unlikely to understand Wikipedia policies and practices , or to introduce any evidence that other users have not already mentioned . 2. In votes or vote-like discussions, new users tend to be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. 3. For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity. 00:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The only evidence of any discussion with Paul B is based on a revision to the hourglass page when I was asked to move information from the Walam Olum page to the Midewiwin page, then to the hourglass page. then it was moved again upon suggestin of Paul B from the hourglass page to the Midewiwin page. This is purely information about the historical symbolism of birchbark scrolls and their use of hourglass motifs. I believe that pauls endorsement on behalf of Trochos should be removed because Paul B was told what to say by Trochos - which is a violation of Sock Puppetry.

Furthermore, I am not accusing anyone of lying - a fact that is misinterpreted numerous times by Doug and Trochos. Both have stated that and it is putting words in my mouth. In no case did I ever accuse anyone of lying or racism. The discussion on Mound 72 burials being evidence of buried alive was discussed on the talk pages about mound 72 and it was agreed that the sources on Mound 72 did not specify this opinion. It was only an idea of some professor from Arkansas who said it in a lecture. This is an unreliable source for Wikipedia standards. Also, the inormation added to the midewiwin page on hourglass symbolism is citing scholarly sources and added correctly.

Nor have I damaged pages by creating ungrammatical sentences at any time.

Trochos and Doug are making accusations of misinformation on the website, however this could not be farther from the truth. The website includes citations and supported information - as well as first hand accounts from experts in the field. It is infact relavent to the discussion of excavations at Monks Mound. Trochos's claims otherwise are misguided perpetuating claims made by the responsible parties of the damage.Marburg72 (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the dimensions added to the Monk's Mound website are false according to the citation. The actual dimension were from a topographic map survey that states length, width and height of the mound. These dimensions are verifiable by reading the source. Why is it that Trochos is repeatedly adding false information that is not presented in this source? The evidence of construction materials and limestone slabs in the mound construction is an important fact about the mound that should not be removed either. The statements removed from Trochos edits to the Monks Mound article each do not add to the article, and they present information that is false.Marburg72 (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "outdated" sources, I assume that Trochos is referring to the discussion of the Walam Olum, in which recent debunker by the name of Oestrieicher has attempted to damage the reputation of an ancient indian document. Repeatedly, Trochos and Doug have removed the evidence and sources that do not agree with Oestreicher. Oestreicher was not reviewed in any schoarly journals and his effort to create a debunking story is refuted in numerous articles by the majority of historical and even more current writers. This can only be explained by incorporating a personal bias into the article, which violates NPOV standards. Valid sources should be added to confirm the archaeological context of this document - and the uncited opinions should be removed.Marburg72 (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Allow me to make constructive edits to be made that cite scholarly resources, like all wikipedians are supposed to be allowed to do. Also stop namecalling and slander efforts to call my work "Fringe" on behalf of Doug. Marburg72 (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, a particularly problematic conflict. Marburg72 insists on including in the Walam Olum article laudatory comments made about it by Joe Napora, who made a poetic translation of the text. When he saw David Oestreicher's 1994 demonstration that the Walam Olum was a hoax, Napora accepted his argument, and was later quoted as such by Oestreicher. However, in 1996, a French magazine published a French translation of Napora's introduction to the first published version of his Walam Olum poetry (1981), and the online version of this translation included no reference to Napora's change of position, or to the 1981 date of the translated text, acccidentally implying that Napora had not changed his position after 1994. As can be seen on the talk page, Marburg72 effectively accused other editors of lying when they presented evidence of the 1981 date. How Napora would feel about the current representation of his views in the Walam Olum article if he were aware of it remains mercifully unknown. Talk:Walam_Olum#Source of Napora translation (current version as at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walam_Olum&diff=220326093&oldid=220311174 )

In response Joe Napora did not "change his mind" - this opinion was only published by a debunker named Oestreicher. Napora considered both sides of the arguments for and againt the document. The effort to push this unpublished claim is essentially carried out without a reliable source - which is against Wikipedia Standards

Quoting a 1963 article, which contained a basic chronological weakness, as a source for claims of ancient links between Western Europe and America, and making accusations of attacks against Native American culture. Note also repeated command "Drop it!" Talk:Walam_Olum#My removal of Marburg72's recent edits (current version as at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walam_Olum&diff=222868889&oldid=222685532 )

The 1963 article is appropriate for the discussion of Walam Olum symbolism, dating of motifs on Birchbark scrolls and their origin, and it is getting very old that Doug and Trochos have repeatedly reverted edits about this.

False statements about results of archaeological investigations in an effort to prove a contentious point (e.g. "the skeletons were so badly decayed that they had turned to dust"- published photographs of the disputed skeletons show otherwise). Accusations of racism and mendacity; refusal to accept a book published in 2000, co-written by the director of archaeology at Cahokia, as adding to the information in a book published in 1999, co written by the same person. Talk:Cahokia#Mound 72 Vertical fingers equals Buried Alive? (current version as at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cahokia&diff=221445234&oldid=221442715 )

The statement that the skeletons were so badly preserved is directly from Fowler's book on Mound 72. It is clearly stated that the long bones had been reduced in thickness by 50% and it was also stated that few were even removed intact. Any discussion of human burials and claims made about them should once again be considered in terms of racial bias.

Related to the above: comment on edit to his own talk page: " I dont care to participate in this stupid racist discussion any more" note also the command "drop it!" in the older edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marburg72&diff=prev&oldid=222897988

Evidence of trying to resolve this disagreement with Dough and his apparent eagerness to perpetuate this claim is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cahokia#Monk.27s_Mound_Excavation

I dont care to participate. I have that right. And Trochos and Dough seem to be harping on it and bringing the topic of Mound 72 burials being alive over and over into my personal webpage. This is harrassement at worst that they do not respect the facts presented by Fowler and that they continue to post this on my talk page for no reason.

Link to own website; probable COI (website also contains much unreliable original research- e.g. claim that Cahokia Mounds is the "Quiguate" visited by Hernando de Soto conflicts with accepted interpretations of his route) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thunderbird_%28mythology%29&diff=222816366&oldid=221759211

Quiguate is one name that falls along the path of DeSoto through Illinois, a direct quote from DeSoto Chronicles is included with supporting information. This is not original research - other experts on De Soto have discussed the presence of DeSoto in Illinois visting Quiguate as the largest city in the country, on a large hill made by hand. Not circumstantial eveidence. The description corresponds to the actual site.

A symptom of another problem; Marburg72 feels he has the right to insert material relevant to his interests exactly wherever and however he wants, with no regard for the surrounding material. Original edit at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hourglass&diff=222809260&oldid=222484863 ; it's also worth tracking subsequent edits; and see discussion at: User_talk:Marburg72#Hourglass (current version as at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marburg72&diff=223022551&oldid=222991910 ) David Trochos (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The infomration that I presented on Hourglass page was upon the suggestion on the talk page. Trochos suggested moving it from Walam Olum. Another editor suggested moving it to Hourglass, and yet another suggested removal of the information from Hourglass, upon which it was suggested that this be added to the Midewiwin page yet again. The addition of productive, relavent information is not disruptive, and It is a goal of wikipedia to provide schoarly sources as I have done. It is my opinion that Doug and Trochos are carrying out this a personal attack against me for thier own entertainment.

wp:3RR violation today, for Monk's Mound. This is very complex (the common issue is that Marburg72 is reverting/revising largely to information based on research in his own website) so it is easiest to follow a single clause in the article introduction, relating to the size of the Mound. In this particular instance, according to the discussion at User_talk:Marburg72 his figures have been obtained by his own calculations from the map on page 3 of "The Great Knob" ( online flipbook at http://www.archive.org/details/greatknobinterpr00skel )- but pages 1-2 of the same book give specific figures which differ significantly from Marburg72's calculations. Marburg 72 version: "its size was calculated in 1988 as about 92 feet (28 meters) high, 951 feet (290 meters) long and 836 feet (255 meters) wide" Version based on figures quoted in book: "its size was calculated in 1988 as about 100 feet (30 meters) high, 955 feet (291 meters) long including the access ramp at the southern end, and 775 feet (236 meters) wide" Some "reversions" were achieved by cut-and-paste rather than undo, but here are the diffs and times:

The edits on the site are clearly not on the same day (two on July 1, two on July 2) and 2 each for the each of those portraying these accusations per day). And the editors Doug and Trochos have joined forces to attempt to revert any changes that I make.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monk%27s_Mound&diff=222966485&oldid=222965899 23:24, 1 July 2008 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monk%27s_Mound&diff=222968676&oldid=222967627 23:36, 1 July 2008 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monk%27s_Mound&diff=223090360&oldid=223032188 15:00, 2 July 2008 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monk%27s_Mound&diff=223101165&oldid=223096601 16:01, 2 July 2008 Note also that in the midst of these complex revisions and reversions, a ref name=/ tag was orphaned: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monk%27s_Mound&diff=222975710&oldid=222975231

the tag was corrected shortly thereafter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monk%27s_Mound&direction=next&oldid=222977673

and a comparison to the base area of the Great Pyramid at Giza was rendered ungrammatical: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monk%27s_Mound&diff=222975231&oldid=222972048

This statement is gramatically correct : This makes Monk's Mound larger in size at its base than the Great Pyramid of Giza (13.1 acres / 5.3 hectares), but unlike Egyptian pyramids which were built of stone, it was constructed almost entirely of layers basket-transported colored soil and clay. Should have been than rather than as. Still it is incorrect that Monks mound is about the same size as the great pyramid - and this opinion is unsupported by actual dimensions or by Travel Channel comments later in the article. Marburg72 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the mound is composed of Limestone and colored clays - which I added and Trochos disruptively removed, despite the questions of another editor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monk%27s_Mound Marburg72 (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints inclduing a "general refusal to accept information which conflicts with his own ideas" (e.g. in many cases, recent sources are ignored in favour of superseded sources. This is entirely false, I have no obligation to agree with the sources such as Oestricher, however, I do not ever remove any sources, only provided relavent information to provide a fair and neutral and balanced viewpoint from Scholarly sources. This is the problem with Trochos - clearly he is trying to use this medium RFC for providing a means of attacking an adversary with information cited that does not agree with his sources. That is not a fair and neutral presentation by any means.Marburg72 (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Trochos added the link on the Monk's Mound Page that apparently shows that he thought a conversation from Site management was important enough to add to the page as an inline citation:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TriNotch/Cahokia2007 But later removed the publication of the Wotanging Ikche, a Native american Newsletter Volume 15 issue 51 in which this was copyrighted and published by NANEWS.org, which includes aboriginal perspectives. The website located here http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound is a complete record of comments from National Geographic, Archaeologist Tim Pauketat, who stopped the destruction and He stated "I am in agreement that the state needs to review the methods in which our state historic treasures are preserved.

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 "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

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.

Outcome

I'm closing this due to the inactivity of Marburg72 after his block. I have warned him to edit constructively, and ideally this behavior should not continue, else increasing blocks will be needed. Wizardman 00:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Marburg72&oldid=1142569927"