Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:01, 1 September 2006

Redirect to:

• User:AaronS

AaronS has quit Misplaced Pages. It just don't work.

Talk archives: here

You have been blocked for 48 hours

You have been blocked for 48 hours for a 3RR vio on Anarchism. It's your 3rd 3RR block in just over a month. --Woohookitty 10:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Response

Regarding my alleged 3RR violation, I ask that you, again, take a look at the substance of those edits. You might also want to note that DTC has been trying to retaliate against me for quite some time for putting a suspected sock puppet tag on his user page. Anyway, here are a few facts: this is not my third violation in a month. The last one was a mistake, as was eventually admitted by all involved (I was reverting the edits of a banned user). Second, if you take a look at my edit summaries (beyond the part where I note that it is a revert), you'll see that I was not reverting anybody's edits, but rather reverting the unintentional removal of completely unrelated edits during wholesale reverts by users. Hence the following:

"rv to AaronS: if you want the note in, put it back in, don't delete all of my edits"

"rv to AaronS: please learn how to revert some edits without deleting other edits"

"rv: please learn how to revert without deleting a myriad of unrelated edits; it's not my job to sift through your revert"

Note that these were reverts of two different users, not simply DTC. That's Hot, the other user, said:

"aaron, i didn't see your edit. it must have happend right before i hit the button. I'm noting now that what old individualist anarchist meant by capitalism was state capitalism."

So, if this is a violation of the 3RR, what was I exactly reverting? I was not reverting anybody's additions; I was reverting wholesale reverts that deleted a lot of unrelated information, asking, in my edit summaries, for the editors to be more careful. To me, this seems like a clear case of "reverting without edit warring."

I'm really tired of administrators unintentionally facilitating the gaming of the system that goes on every day at the anarchism-related articles. It's quite clear who the good editors are, and there are a lot of us. There are only two or three who, they admit, engage in edit wars and sock puppetry. It's really, really disappointing to be following the rules only to have an administrator who hasn't examined the situation closely enough come barreling through and making the situation far, far worse. I apologize if I sound reproachful, but, as I said, the last time I was blocked was an error, and I strongly feel that this time is, too. Weeks ago, I tried to draw attention to the nature of the situation at Misplaced Pages talk:3RR, WP:AN/I, and the rest, and received very little response.

I urge you to reconsider the matter. I've been here for years, and I'm afraid that I may be the second or third decent editor of these articles to quit Misplaced Pages in disgust (I have already come close) in less than a month because of the gaming of the system that goes on.

Again, please don't take my tone as reproachful or anything like that, if it seems that way -- I hope that it does not. But I am finding it difficult to hide my disappointment at Misplaced Pages in general, which seems to reward a clever manipulation of the rules -- it's nothing personal.

Best, --AaronS 13:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are the one attempting the manipulation. These are the reverts: , , and . Those are comparisons between one revert and the next. Every single one is a "pure" revert, i.e. you are reverting to previous versions that were done by yourself. None of the edits consist of simply readding material. They are all reverts by AaronS to versions of the article by AaronS. Just no way around that. --Woohookitty 14:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have already established that I was reverting. Again, you're failing to note the reasons why. I reverted back to my version, asking the editors who were engaging in more comphrensive reverts to choose their deletions more carefully (so that they would not remove information completely unrelated to what they intended to revert). My version was simply the status quo, i.e. the version without the unintentional deletions. When they did revert more carefully -- indeed, even making edits that I might disagree with -- I did not revert them. This is called "reverting without edit warring." It's quite clear to me, now, that you haven't made much of an attempt to fully understand the situation, and can't quite get past the fact that these are four (rather unrelated) reverts in a row. I ask you, again, to please consider the situation with a bit more attention. I understand that you're busy, and that you deal with this on a daily basis (and with many users who cry foul), but I have good reason to believe that you're making this decision in error. I'm also rather disappointed at the fact that you're accusing me of manipulation. Please don't add insult to injury. --AaronS 14:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

When I reverted you I did mean to revert away your edits while reverting mine back in. This is because you were misinterpreting sources as well as ignoring many many existing sources by moving the anarcho-capitalism section. You were also reverting away the edits of others while simultaneously reverting yours back in. The difference with you though is that you did it over and over and over and over and violated the 3RR and edit-warred. DTC 18:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny that you made no fuss of it at the time. I guess that it only mattered once you developed a major grudge against me (even going so far as to suggest that I and other users might edit while drunk). Regardless, two of the reverts were of That'sHot, who mistakenly removed unrelated edits. One of my reverts of you had absolutely nothing to do with sources. There was no edit warring. This just has to do with you wanting to retaliate against me for suspecting you of being a sock puppet of User:RJII, which, for the record, is a suspicion that I still maintain. --AaronS 18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I should also note that WP:3RR is meant to be preventative and not punitive. What are you trying to prevent? Where was the edit war? --AaronS 15:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Response #2

Alright, this is pretty ridiculous. I should have known better than to question the perfect rectitude of the action of a long-standing administrator. I forgot how easily some administrators are offended when their righteousness is called into question, however politely. Discussion is moot.

I had my fun with Misplaced Pages, but that's all Misplaced Pages will ever be -- a fun place for people. It will never be taken seriously as a scholarly resource, because scholarship is not determined by majority rule, but rather by merit. The articles that I have been most heavily involved in have a good amount of excellent editors who are willing to compromise and more than happy to consider each other's points of view (for we all have points of view -- what matters is whether or not one's point of view is grounded in reality as opposed to fantasy). Unfortunately, there are a few people who have been gaming the system and using sock puppets so that they might "defend the cause." So long as there are zealots, sophists, and partisans who are clever enough to game the system, Misplaced Pages will be a mess, and good editors like me will get bored with their game.

I'm the second or third editor in less than a month to quit Misplaced Pages because of the actions of these users, and because of the manifest incompetence of the administrators. Many administrators are so enveloped in "The Process" and their own sense of self-importance (for they, too, are "defending the cause," just like the worst trolls) that they fail to see the forest for the trees. Thus we have administrators, like the one above, who are easily tricked by trolls who have long since learned how to game the system into punishing good editors with whom they disagree. These administrators only see Misplaced Pages as a series of processes, and only interact with others on Misplaced Pages through their imagined role in these processes. Being ignorant of context and situation, it's no surprise that they often make incorrect decisions. Having such a sense of self-importance, it is also no surprise that they are unwilling to admit this (except as a platitude).

I thus bid you all farewell. I am not discontented, because I never took Misplaced Pages as seriously as most. I am, however, a bit disappointed, because, when I signed up nearly three years ago, I thought that Misplaced Pages still had promise. Perhaps it still does, but not until major changes are made.

So long, --AaronS 13:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You will be missed

It was nice working with you. Maybe in a while things will get better, but probably not. Well, RJII won another psychological battle it looks like. I can't blame you though. Ungovernable Force 04:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hardly. The only thing these "psychological battles" prove is that most people here are normal individuals, whereas he's bat-fuck insane. --AaronS 13:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh well fuck. --GoodIntentions 04:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you're leaving. You've been a valuable contributor, and will be missed. Things might not actually improve, but it's not a bad idea to take some time off and take a break from all the conflict. Owen 06:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea to take a break, and remember... - FrancisTyers · 09:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. It was nice working with you all. We had fun. --AaronS 13:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)