| Revision as of 10:44, 16 May 2009 editArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,227 edits →Long term conflict regarding Falun Gong articles: Response to PCPP.← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:47, 16 May 2009 edit undoArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,227 editsm →Long term conflict regarding Falun Gong articles: Format.Next edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| == Long term conflict regarding Falun Gong articles == | == Long term conflict regarding Falun Gong articles == | ||
| {{/S|Resolved}} | |||
| My edits on the Falun Gong related articles are always systematically reverted by a group of overzealous Falun Gong activists. | My edits on the Falun Gong related articles are always systematically reverted by a group of overzealous Falun Gong activists. | ||
| I'm really getting tired of these people with clear conflicts of interest patrolling the Falun Gong articles with little regard for the arbcom probation , following me around and trying to stop my right to edit wikipedia. This has been going on for 2 years with no end in sight, and we all have been blocked for edit warring. | I'm really getting tired of these people with clear conflicts of interest patrolling the Falun Gong articles with little regard for the arbcom probation , following me around and trying to stop my right to edit wikipedia. This has been going on for 2 years with no end in sight, and we all have been blocked for edit warring. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| There's further details on the ongoing dispute here .--] (]) 17:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC) | There's further details on the ongoing dispute here .--] (]) 17:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| : From the evidence you have cited, I draw three findings: | :: '''Response'''. From the evidence you have cited, I draw three findings: | ||
| :# ] and ] are improperly reverting your edits, on the basis that they are removing cited information. In my mind, that's an improper approach to take; where reliably sourced information is being deleted from an article, the correct course of action is to, in the first instance, open discussion with the user regarding it; in the second, to open talk page discussion; and, if the editor is being patently disruptive, to contact an administrator. Reverting the user is not the correct course of action simply because if an administrator later reviews the situation, s/he is faced with two editors reverting differing, but seemingly sourced, presentations of information; sysops are not judges of content, and so both editors can expect to be treated as part of a standard edit war. | ::# ] and ] are improperly reverting your edits, on the basis that they are removing cited information. In my mind, that's an improper approach to take; where reliably sourced information is being deleted from an article, the correct course of action is to, in the first instance, open discussion with the user regarding it; in the second, to open talk page discussion; and, if the editor is being patently disruptive, to contact an administrator. Reverting the user is not the correct course of action simply because if an administrator later reviews the situation, s/he is faced with two editors reverting differing, but seemingly sourced, presentations of information; sysops are not judges of content, and so both editors can expect to be treated as part of a standard edit war. | ||
| :# Similarly, you are in the same situation, PCPP; the above advice applies equally to you. | ::# Similarly, you are in the same situation, PCPP; the above advice applies equally to you. | ||
| :# There is a striking lack of cooperation amongst you three editors. That you are having trouble working together is not a surprise. Please sort it out—whether my putting your differences aside, or by reducing your activities in the article—or you will probably find yourself in serious trouble at a later juncture; the Arbitration Committee looks dimly upon editors whose dislike for other editors manifests itself in their uncooperative editing. | ::# There is a striking lack of cooperation amongst you three editors. That you are having trouble working together is not a surprise. Please sort it out—whether my putting your differences aside, or by reducing your activities in the article—or you will probably find yourself in serious trouble at a later juncture; the Arbitration Committee looks dimly upon editors whose dislike for other editors manifests itself in their uncooperative editing. | ||
| : I've therefore issued warnings to all three editors, on the understanding that, if the warnings are violated, more decisive action will be taken. | :: I've therefore issued warnings to all three editors, on the understanding that, if the warnings are violated, more decisive action will be taken. | ||
| : ] 10:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC) | :: ] 10:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == WTC controlled demolition conspiracy theories again == | == WTC controlled demolition conspiracy theories again == | ||
Revision as of 10:47, 16 May 2009
|
"Whatever happens at all happens as it should; you will find this true, if you watch narrowly."
This is the user talk page for AGK. You can also send this user an internal email. I have taken 68,260 actions on Misplaced Pages: 54,362 edits, 3,301 deletions, 2,661 blocks, and 7,936 protections. You are welcome to reverse any of them, except if my reason mentioned "checkuser", "arbitration", or "oversight". |
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
- Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
- Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?
Long term conflict regarding Falun Gong articles
User talk:Arcticocean/S My edits on the Falun Gong related articles are always systematically reverted by a group of overzealous Falun Gong activists. I'm really getting tired of these people with clear conflicts of interest patrolling the Falun Gong articles with little regard for the arbcom probation , following me around and trying to stop my right to edit wikipedia. This has been going on for 2 years with no end in sight, and we all have been blocked for edit warring.
There's further details on the ongoing dispute here .--PCPP (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Response. From the evidence you have cited, I draw three findings:
- Asdfg12345 and Dilip rajeev are improperly reverting your edits, on the basis that they are removing cited information. In my mind, that's an improper approach to take; where reliably sourced information is being deleted from an article, the correct course of action is to, in the first instance, open discussion with the user regarding it; in the second, to open talk page discussion; and, if the editor is being patently disruptive, to contact an administrator. Reverting the user is not the correct course of action simply because if an administrator later reviews the situation, s/he is faced with two editors reverting differing, but seemingly sourced, presentations of information; sysops are not judges of content, and so both editors can expect to be treated as part of a standard edit war.
- Similarly, you are in the same situation, PCPP; the above advice applies equally to you.
- There is a striking lack of cooperation amongst you three editors. That you are having trouble working together is not a surprise. Please sort it out—whether my putting your differences aside, or by reducing your activities in the article—or you will probably find yourself in serious trouble at a later juncture; the Arbitration Committee looks dimly upon editors whose dislike for other editors manifests itself in their uncooperative editing.
- I've therefore issued warnings to all three editors, on the understanding that, if the warnings are violated, more decisive action will be taken.
WTC controlled demolition conspiracy theories again
Hi AGK — a quick update on the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories issue. After reliable third-party sources have been found, the information on the publications have been removed again, citing WP:UNDUE. (These publication are actually part of the article's subject here, not sources on another subject. There is an article Collapse of the World Trade Center, where including these sources would actually give undue weight to them.) See Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories#Undue weight?. — Regards. Cs32en 23:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)