Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Leifern (talk | contribs) at 04:09, 3 February 2008 (→Pallywood). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you're here to request an admin action, consider using the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard. If you need me in particular to deal with it, please email me. I do not expect any situations where I should be personally needed.

Pallywood

Please review the history of edits before applying "discretionary action." ChrisO made a number of unilateral edits based on his views; I reverted, asking for further discussion; he reverted back to his version and then went running to you to impose the restriction. Given that ChrisO insists on gutting the article to a meaningless version, I am inclined to put it up for deletion, anyway. This is a contentious topic, and the only way to avoid the appearance of taking sides is to investigate a matter before taking admin action. --Leifern (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to admit, I'm unable to grasp the concept of being belligierent to a complete stranger who is trying to keep involved parties abiding by arbitration remedies, especially those that may well result in blocks.

The 1RR restriction is for your own good: Without it, the Israel-Palestine related articles will likely have edit-war flareups and with it, numerous long-duration blocks and possibly longer article bans.

So, I feel a few notes are in order:

1. I don't know ChrisO from Adam. Really, to my knowledge he and I have never had a single interaction before now, on-wiki or off-wiki. I am not one of his "buddies on irc" and resent the implication. I am in no way interested in your view of the veracity of this statement, also, so feel free to keep your view to yourself in this regard.
2. The enforcement applies to all editors of the article, including ChrisO. How that's taking his side is beyond me.
3. The entire point of the enforcement is that it's a contentious topic. That's why it gets enforcement in the first place: If you don't grasp how the article is related to the Palestine-Israel arbcom case, please ask a different uninvolved admin for an explanation.
4. If you'd like the action reviewed, take it to one of the admin noticeboards, where I'm sure you'll get more attention on the topic than I'm both willing and able to offer.
5. Happily, I can say I did in fact review the edits before applying the enforcement. Oddly enough, I'm not in the habit of going to random articles and applying random arbcom enforcement rules to pages. Go figure.
6. I noticed that the most questionable edit is Chris's. Don't you think the 1RR restriction, therefore, actually hinders him more than it hinders you?
7. Before ever, ever reverting again, read Help:Reverting. I don't mean for "how to revert", but for reviewing the cases where reversion is appropriate. Notice the "DO NOT" section, and where it says "Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view." His edit was not vandalism, it was a dispute between you two on article content. Let me rephrase this: "If you revert a non-vandalism edit (as determined by the blocking admin) on this article, you will be blocked for a minimum of 24 hours."

Now, as far as your deletion suggestion goes, if you can point to someplace in our various deletion guidelines where the deletion is anything other than bad-faith, feel free to nominate the article on articles for deletion, but recall that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good-faith nomination reason.

This reply is posted to both my talkpage and yours, along with your original edit. If you think it incivil, please suggest resolution, but otherwise, I'll thank you to kindly go about productive editing instead.

I hope that clears up the matter. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, my comment to you was intended as friendly advice. I have several times seen truly uninvolved admins wade into these articles, thinking that by decisive action will calm things down and stabilize them. And before they know what happened, they find themselves entangled in a mess they probably wished they'd stayed far away from. This is one of the reasons I don't think I've ever asked for admin assistance on any contentious issue, with the possible exception of blatant sockpuppet vandals. Even the arbcom has made this mistake on several occasions that I've witnessed. So I wanted to make you aware that ChrisO's call for help was blatantly self-serving. I'm reassured when you say you caught on to this fact. But I have to say that your condescending tone is both uncalled for, unproductive, and inappropriate given your role in this. --Leifern (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You are quite correct on the uninvolved admins staying out of these sorts of issues due to getting mired into debates that they have no desire being dragged into, which is why I attempted to explain every facet of the situation and was trying to discourage any response.

I've dealt with undesired situations before and while your desire to assist my naive self is appreciated, it's also unneeded and seemed itself slightly condescending. Now, while I'm absolutely sure that you didn't intend that tone, I'm also sure that I have nothing to do with your dispute on the article, other than to review the edits to the article and place the action.

You used the revert function to revert a non-vandalism edit. That is verboten, forbidden, not allowed. It's an abuse of revert and the reason I placed the limitation, and is completely in the spirit of the restrictions placed by ArbCom as well as the reason that reversion is available to begin with. I'll explain again: Do not revert non-vandalism edits. That's it.

I know that ChrisO had his own interests in mind when he placed the notice, and that's exactly why I put the restriction (1RR/7d) on the article the way I did, as well as notify the both of you regarding the restriction. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I'm blind to the subtleties of Wiki-politics, either yours or his.

I expressly asked you to not reply to me so that I can stay out of the situation. He asked for a restriction to be placed on an article, I notice that the restriction is applicable (it fits the case), and added it.... then you decided to deny my request by ignoring the fact that I asked you to not reply.

If you dislike the tone, please stop talking to me. I'm usually a very kind, civil person (really), but I gritted my teeth and growled while adding the restriction because I knew someone was going to make a big deal over this, I knew someone was going to get uptight over editing restrictions. Congratulations, you're the one who decided to make my job difficult this time, not ChrisO.

If you dislike the enforcement decision, leave a note on WP:ANI asking for it to be lifted. I'm not going to do it, I'm not having anything else to do with the situation at all. I want a different admin, each time, to perform the blocks. I want a different admin to remove the 1RR restriction at the end of 30 days. Hopefully, with the work distributed, no single admin has to deal with more than a small amount of headache with these situations.

I have no further interest in this situation. If you feel my attitude towards getting involved in a situation that even ArbCom feels is a massive headache is inappropriately negative, then feel free to file an Request for Comment on the matter. I simply want to get on with the next task and be left alone. Have a nice day. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So many ways to respond to this self-contradictory rant. Although I have no obligation to respect your request, I will as a gesture of the kind of good will you're obviously unwilling to extend to me. Wishing you a good day and an even better tomorrow. --Leifern (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)