Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

They just cant drop it

These guys still insist Tesla was born in Croatia and are misleading other users at other discussions regarding this issue. They are clearly unable to accept consensus reached here and now they tried to mess up the Military Frontier article and are trying to eliminate me. Just look at Michael Cambridge comment here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Report_on_FkpCascais_personal_attacks. He insists in trying to present the case as if they are right and it is me not accepting the facts. Can I ask former participants of these discussions to please provide a word or two regarding these users behavior? FkpCascais (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

History is set, no amount of arguing is going to change the well documented reality of where Tesla was born. I think we are doing a disservice to ourselves repeating ourselves to users that already know this but refuse to accept it. We will not engage in revisionism no matter how much certain national interests would prefer it.

I propose that we begin to ignore repetitive arguments made from the same people. Our failure to respond to a filibuster in no way gives permission for edits against consensus to be made. If new people come with the same arguments we should politely direct them to the discussion. If the same users continue to try to win by exhaustion I think we should seek out a behavioural remedy. Chillum 13:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing is that their strategy now changed and they are trying to attack from behind now, altering content on Military Frontier article and then planning to return here. Once I had to revert them and provide again a full set of reliable sources, they reported me. So ends up a bit hard ignoring them all the way. In my view they are clearly breaking the rules of WP:TE, WP:POV and WP:NOTHERE at least and boomerang would be deserved so we could solve it once and for all. FkpCascais (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Whatever changes they manage to make on a less supervised page are unfortunate and require vigilance to correct, however it changes nothing here because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I would not worry, the ANI report is doing plenty to draw attention to this issue and I have every confidence the community will see what is going on here. Chillum 17:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Chillum. You are an experienced editor. The important thing is not to get sucked into disruptive editing yourself, which will destroy your credibility, and eventually result in sanctions. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I also obviously agree with Chillum, but OK, lets see what will happened. All I know is that they will not give up and a time will come when POV-pushing will have to be dealt. Ignoring is the most comfortable solution, but that is more easily possible if one cares only about one article they are dealing with, but once they start messing more articles one ends up having to confront them in each and every one of them, an ungratefull task. FkpCascais (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais, I'm not suggesting you give up, just deal with it through WP procedures. There is a flowchart on WP:Disruptive editing for dealing with disruptive editors. Single-issue editing is prohibited, so if editors are doing that an ANI case can be brought against them. You're doing the right thing now, by involving other editors. Nobody can change the Nikola Tesla article without consensus. There are a number of editors who don't want to get involved in the endless arguments, but who will if there is a change to the article itself, or an RfC. I think you can see that, as Chillum implied, endless personal argument on the Talk page, in addition to being disruptive editing, is also futile. State your case, but don't get drawn in. Chillum, I, and others defended you on the ANI, but I couldn't say you were innocent yourself because of statements like this: [1]. Y If you would refrain from violating WP rules yourself, flagrant POVpushing by other editors will be obvious. Have you ever heard the saying, "Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves"? --Chetvorno^TALK 01:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Come on diff. I cant believe you are equalizing me with them, that is why I made you that comment. For us dealing with them since the beginning is really enough already. FkpCascais (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

When dealing with those who distort reality one must remain faultless or get sucked into their nonsense. While you comment was tame see how much distraction it allowed to be created at ANI. Don't give them any extra tools to use in distorting reality. Don't consider this an admonishment, or a comparison with others, take it as good advice. Disruptive editors are far easier to deal with inside of the Wikipedia system if you do not get frustrated. Chillum 13:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I fully understand your point, but it is impossible not to get frustrated when facing such tactics and tricks these users are using. As MrX pointed out, we should indeed have a quick and efficient mechanism for dealing with these kind of situations. Even now, seems that Michael Cambridge will be spared and continue their crusade. Nikola Tesla article was a great exemple of how we lack an efficient mechanism to deal with a group of POV-pushers and how much time they can make us waste just because they want to (they don't even have sources and are able to maintain a crusade for months now). FkpCascais (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

What do the editors here think of applying to article Talk pages, the part of the policy WP:NPA which says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor."? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

When behavioural problems disrupt the talk page getting a bit off topic is likely. I agree completely that an article talk page is not the best place to discuss this conversation. However please don't confuse discussing behavioural issues with personal attacks, they are not the same thing. Perhaps now that the sock puppet case has revealed we were being gamed we can move on. Chillum 18:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyone else care to respond regarding the policy principle "Comment on content, not on the contributor" for article Talk pages in general? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Bob, I think the main issue here were the reliable sources. Once we gathered and analised all RS and archived consensus, the only way to reopen the issue is if some editor brings some reliable source(s) that were missed in the previous discussion and that might have enough weight to alter the consensus. What clearly happened here is that those editors, facing the fact that they lack sources, simply decided to engage in infinite wikilayering hoping to archive a change in the consensus by force and hoping editors will give up. That same group using different accounts and IPs has been pushing that POV for some time here on our article. It all started with them wanting to change Serbian-American inventor to Croatian-American inventor, but once they noticed that was not going to be successful, they changed the plan to force the idea that Tesla was born in Croatia, thus, he is Croatian-born Serbian-American inventor. However, even that ended up not being correct, because nowadays Smiljan is indeed part of Croatia, but at time of his birth the situation was much more complex and Smiljan was part of the Military Frontier and by that time it was not sure what will happened with that territory in future, and it was ruled by Austria directly. When, after immense discussion at the talk-page, they failed to archive that, they moved to the article Military Frontier, and tried to impose their POV there so they could later return here and say "Look, MF was Croatian, so Tesla was Croatian-born". I had to go there and bring RS to prove them wrong, and then you all know what happened, it ended at ANI. Since I know well the kind of nationalistic-POV pushing in that region, I often immediately recognize what is their final goal, since they often tried it in a disguised approach. Here at Tesla for instance, it was all about the wording in the lede, since they are well aware the lede is the one having the greatest impact. To resume myself, I think that if users come with reliable sources, they have a case, and the sources can be discussed, but if they come without any sources, they should be ignored, because otherwise it will end up just in talking and talking and often talking about contributors, since they lack sources to be talked about. So my message would be: if you want to discuss, bring RS, otherwise, respect consensus. FkpCascais (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bob, I think that's a great idea. What seems to have happened here on the Talk page is that personal attacks escalated until both sides were invested in the fight and couldn't let go, even at the ANI. If WP:NPA can be made the standard then hopefully this sort of fight won't get started. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I have had enough of your highly disruptive behaviour FkpCascais. You resort to telling lies about me to protect yourself as evidenced at the ANI. It is written there for everyone to see how you claim that I didn't bring any reliable sources to the discussion on Nikola Tesla's country of birth. I in fact brought several reliable sources to this discussion as seen above. The only reason that the Military Frontier won out was because there was more support for it, and it wasn't due to any unreliability of sources. As we know, there were reliable sources provided to support both Croatia and the Military Frontier as Nikola Tesla's place of birth. If I see you writing anymore lies about me you will be reported again.--Michael Cambridge 14:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Michael Cambridge is disruptive editor along with Asidis and Detoner and he should have been blocked along with them. Even if he is not the puppet from the style of their irrational stands it is obvious that they belong to the same group of people who attacked this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.104.83.208 (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay that is enough. How about we talk about the article here and any further sniping at each other can be done on our talk pages. Chillum 14:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, no personal attacks here. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. And IP176, yes, that seems quite evident for all, but please do not respond or talk about them anymore. Lets just move on and close this chapter. FkpCascais (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Be Aware. IP editors promoting Croatian nationalistic ideas are probably Detoner/Asdisis.. and should be banned emediately as that appear. Also it is not excluded that some new registered editors are his puppet. They all should be banned. I think we are finished with this Croatian attack on this article. Michael Cambridge should be banned if he continued with the behavior that got Asdisis-Detoner banned. Detoner had bragged he will continue to edit as IP and that he will start all over the question of Telegram which is proved falsificat. IF that happened we know who is behind the IP or sock account. 89.255.92.42 (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)