Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KillerChihuahua (talk | contribs) at 01:28, 1 February 2006 (response and warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

KillerChihuahua 23:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, please review the history of Jonathan Sarfati. Links (that were not in dispute) were accidently deleted, and when I added them back in, an editor 'reverted' and claimed it was a concensus that I needed to abide by. I put the links back in and left a message in Talk that the links were not disputed content, and now find myself blocked. There are several issues going on, not the least of which is admin bullying. Please review this issue and reconsider the block. I have well documented my dispute issues, and although have several edits, they are for different issues (restoring accidently deleted links, adding a weasel word box in for disputed content, adding source links where none existed, etc.). There are several editors that are tag-team reverting anything I put in, in an obvious attempt to bully me and make me give up, so their POV pushing can remain (complete with weasel words and bald assertations that are not supported by sources). I have a request for mediation (as well as a request for admin abuse review) for this very problem. Thank you agapetos_angel 23:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

NB: Please see this entry in talk

FeloniousMonk reported three revert rule violation:

• 1st revert: 00:13, 30 January 2006
  • JoshuaZ reverted and removed (nearly--I was incorrect in comment) all the new links I had just added; the POV revert is discussed in talk but he was ignoring talk (at that time) and just reverted entirely, regardless of edits.
    • (1)& (2)
• 2nd revert: 01:46, 30 January 2006
  • Guettarda, calling another editor's revision a "continued attempt at whitewash", reverted the entire article, removing new edits and links (and undisputed content). I put it back in and commented in Talk. (NB, one thing that keeps being reverted, for example is where a bracket around a link was added to http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_18March2002.asp in the article; the wholesale reverts keep removing content like that)
    • (3)
• 3rd revert: 15:04, 30 January 2006
  • This was not a revert of any prior content, but rather an addition of the weasel word warning box
    • (4) Addition of new content
• 4th revert: 15:21, 30 January 2006
  • When Duncharris reverted, without validation, it mangled the header again; fixed this and reworded for greater clarity.
    • (1 - might be considered a revert, but NB that was done with the best intentions to fix content that had not been listed)*5th revert: 15:26, 30 January 2006
  • I realized that Duncharris had also removed the weasel word warning box, so I replaced it and commented in talk; unrelated to any previous reverts.
    • (4 - first revert)
• 6th revert: 16:03, 30 January 2006
  • Jim62sch, without checking, reverted to remove the weasel word box, stating that 'some' was not a weasel word, and in the process he went to an older version which deleted valid links. I added them back in.
    • (3 - sorta; this was an ongoing issue of reverts that weren't being checked properly first)

At the worst, AFTER the blocking (or during the request for it, evidently), I reverted FeloniousMonk for a second revert of (3) because (again) this content did not seem to be under any dispute, but rather a byproduct of kneejerking.

So what you have is (1) (2) (3)(3)(3) (4)(4)

While that constitutes several edits, it's not in violation of the 3rr.

FeloniousMonk jumped in and reverted (again, another editor that is merely reverting without cause). His claim of 'consensus' is not valid, as the content of the section I fixed is not in any sort of dispute. Please note that any edit I made on that article was being reverted, regardless. If this were related to the ongoing disputed content over the 'Scientist?' section, I'd understand their concern, but I requested mediation and have continued to attempt to reach a consensus (without agreeing to ignore wikipedia guidelines against weasel words). As it stands, it's just bully tactics being employed to make me give up and go away. agapetos_angel 00:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Or abide by policy... take your pick. FeloniousMonk 00:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not policy, is it, to revert the entire article, removing valid things like bracket additions, and calling it a consensus version? You didn't review the changes, but just kneejerked and reported me. If the intro was in dispute (before I was blocked), it should have been listed in Talk. As it stands, it seemed like the kneejerks were removing valid content. agapetos_angel 00:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the diffs before I blocked, I will double check. KillerChihuahua 02:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I make 5 of the diffs changes to the top para, identical. 2 of them you also deleted a section; 3 of them you did not. The first para you have reverted 5 times, with the addition of removing a section in the first two of the reverts. You moved on to WP:EW with the weasel template, which you did take to talk, which is good, but you also reverted, which is edit warring. I'm going to let the block stand. 5 reverts which are identical in one section and have the additional removal of a section in another section for two of the five is still five reverts of the first section, and you did not have consensus or even support that I can see. Next time, take it to talk and keep it on talk until consensus is reached. It appears several editors were in consensus that your edits were not in the best interest of improving the article, and reverting is not the answer to that situation. That you stopped also removing the section on Scientist does not make the 5 reversions of major edits any less 5 reversions of major edits. Technically you may not have made 4 identical reversions, but it is gaming the system to change one aspect and continue to revert in essense. If this is redundant I apologise, I want to make it clear what I see from the edit history so rather than possibly be unclear I have stated the same thing three slightly different ways. Let me know if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua 02:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I was not 'gaming the system', but rather (if you will note in comments) adding back in links and text that I thought were not consensus driven (there was no dispute existing in Talk for their removal, but rather a series of kneejerked reverts to everything I was editing with no supporting documentation why that was happening). I did add a note in Talk asking why those reverts were taking place, which were adding syntax and copyedit errors back into the text. Other than a claim of consensus in commentary (again: consensus of WHAT exactly?) there was no discussion on that topic until after I was blocked, and that came from one editor who was not previously involved in the edits, who justified deletions after the fact. If you will also note, the information existed to begin with. If its deletion were due to disputed content, if I understand you correctly, then the editor that deleted it should have indicated in Talk why that was done, right? That it was not disputed content by any reasonable review, and that the text was simply reverted along with all the errors, I believe shows my point that this was at the very least just "reverting to revert" (aka ornery), (and at the worst bullying--which I am more inclined to believe because there were also (mild) personal attacks aimed at me), not a reasonable attempt at consensus. The weasel template was to go along with the request for mediation regarding the 'Scientist?' section (and that was also put into talk); I don't think it was unreasonable to put it back in (once) and explain why it should remain. Again, the removal was part of a history of admin/editors reverting every edit I made, regardless of the content and usually without supporting reason in Talk. If you will note, I was erroneously blocked yesterday by Duncharris (see user:gregasche for agreement that it was wrong). Again, I respectfully ask a more thorough review of the situation. agapetos_angel 03:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

KC, here is another example of what I am talking about. I am blocked and cannot add any content other than on this page so it's not me (220 IP is in another state, anyway, regardless of the accusations by the one editor in talk).

*12:03, 31 January 2006 220.245.180.133 (→Scientist - although the age of the earth and origins has no bearing on most scientific work)

*12:08, 31 January 2006 JoshuaZ (Reverting to last version by Canadianism ( 220.245.180.133, please stop adding your POV))

5 minutes after content was added, a revert was done to an earlier version that took out not only the disputed bit that JoshuaZ was referring to (I assume he has no problem with 'club captain') but also other text that was not in dispute. These are the type of kneejerk reverts to which I am referring. If an editor is going to get involved, they should not merely revert, but support in talk what that revert is necessary. The spirit of Wiki, I assume, is not for a group of bullies to dictate content, right? agapetos_angel 03:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

(reduce)This is not about other editor's behavior, this is about your behavior. You reverted, you edit warred - both of which can be blockable offenses. None of the other parties were in violation of 3RR, nor were they reported as such. Your block is half over. I suggest you spend that time thinking of how to approach this in a more constructive manner rather than asking me to examine the attitude and behavior and edits of every editor to this page, which I am not editing and have little interest in. You were reported for 3RR, you were blocked. If the other editors are acting in "knee-jerk" fashion, try to find a way to discuss and gain consensus for your edits on the talk page prior to making them, thus avoiding an edit war. KillerChihuahua 14:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I can only reply with disappointment that I believe your admitted lack of interest led to an apparent lack of proper examination of the situation. Being reported for 3RR and being guilty of same are two completely different things. I did not ask you to "examine the attitude and behavior and edits of every editor to this page", but to note that there are a handful of editors who are bullying the others in tagteam fashion by complete reverts, usually without supporting their position (or even indicating, in many cases, that they even have a position of dispute). I believe if you had reviewed the situation, rather than dismissing my complaint with a patronizing admonishment, you would have seen that your comment of "try to find a way to discuss and gain consensus for your edits on the talk page prior to making them" is invalid because that is precisely what I did do (as did some others who were reverted without the reverting editor posting any sort of comment in talk). The knee-jerk reverts I outlined for you were the result of a group of editors not even attempting a consensus. How, KC, do you suggest that I and the other editors gain consensus with this group of editors, who without impunity, revert material they do not discuss in Talk? Isn't that a form of vandalism? I think that lack of interest in examining the situation protects their inappropriate behaviour. As I outlined above, I did not to violate 3RR, because the multiple edit you indicated was an honest attempt to put back in valid material that was undisputed in Talk, and repair syntax and punctuation errors that were repeated with the knee-jerk reverts. Instead of suggesting how I spend my time, could you please use a little more of yours to make fair judgments of situations you involve yourself in? By being the admin who blocked me, you assumed the responsibility of making a thorough assesment to insure that the 'punishment' is fair and appropriate. agapetos_angel 01:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed. I was thorough in my review.

Using an editors real name or other personal information without their specific permission can result in a ban. I advise you not to do this.

KillerChihuahua 01:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)