Whenaxis ( contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 00:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
You recently provided some useful input regarding a d.o.b. controversy at Vijay Kumar Singh. The man has just popped up again, this time in a corruption enquiry (a common event in India!). Your eyes would be appreciated, as and when you can. I'll be trying to keep things within WP:BLP constraints etc but these Indian "scandals" tend to attract a fair amount of poor editing. - Sitush ( talk) 13:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Nonetheless, BLPN is worth a go if only as a convenient reference point should reverts etc become as common as I expect to be. So, I will do that thing. - Sitush ( talk) 13:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For the being one of the best admins I've ever known, and for your tireless contributions to keep wikipedia free from vandals at WP:AIV. Take this as a reward for your hard work! Ab hijay ☎ 13:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC) |
Salvio, since I see you're online and after reading your userpage, I am wondering if you could block an account for me. I have an alternative account ( User:Calabe1993) which I have lost the password for. I have a different alt account ( User:Calabe1991) which I had created as a doppelganger, but I believe I can still access and use instead as the alt account. Since it is inaccessible, could you block User:Calabe1993 as a doppelganger, and I will change the tags on it? Thanks. Calabe 1992 14:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Heh, when I wrote that above, I should have written move-sysop also. (Someone hijacked my userpage once so now I move-protect all of them.) Sorry for wasting so much time here. ;) Calabe 1992 15:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
— cyberpower ChatLimited Access 15:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
unblock decision | |
Thank you for assuming good faith in an unblock decision, saying "There are people who have gathered to lynch an editor they dislike and others debating linguistics, while only very few are discussing the actual merits of the block itself." and "blocks are not supposed to be punitive", -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC) |
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 01:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I saw on the Arb Enforcement page that you said "Regarding [Volunteer Marek], currently, the relevant policy states the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other. It may be unwise to do so, it may even invite drama in certain cases, but the point is that it is allowed and, so, Volunteer Marek should not be sanctioned either." However, a) VM's not meant to comment on Russavia (and therefore his DYKs) at all (see here, "The editors sanctioned by name in this decision [i.e. including VM] are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution." - there seems to be no end date given, so it's still valid), and b) if we're talking about the iBan - then the spirit of it (like all WP policies, such as 3 reverts) should be adhered to, not just a literal, hair-splitting interpretation. I was wondering if you'd looked at the issue like that? Thanks for your time, Malick78 ( talk) 17:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
What is the difference between commenting at an DYK and commenting at a AfD? During a previous AE report, another admin clarified that it was okay to comment at an AfD even if it was created by someone under an iBan [1]. This understanding was demonstrated by the subsequent participation by those under a mutual iBan including VM in the AfD. To state VM's note to the DYK page [2] is now a violation when participation in an earlier AfD was perfectly okay is a somewhat inconsistent application of iBAN policy. -- Nug ( talk) 05:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Now, to post on the same page as an editor you cannot interact with can still be a violation of the spirit of the restriction, if your actions are in bad faith, in my opinion, because, in such a case, you're basically subverting the original purpose of an exception intended to protect your ability to express your opinion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Salvio, I'm not sure what exactly are you asking. I've explained the situation with Malick78 at least twice already (recently), once at AE and once at AN/I
[4] (the part starting with "I don't have time to fully explain the Malick78 ..."). To repeat myself, two years go or so I had a disagreement with Malick78. He then began going through articles I created or spent a lot of time working on, trying to find something wrong with them, in retaliation (he didn't have much luck). Here's an early example
[5] (and my response
[6]). Here's another
[7] (lede's don't need citations if the info is cited in the text). I have asked him on at least three occasions to stop posting on my talk page, which he has ignored. He has been warned by others not to follow me around. Honestly, I should have just reported him back then and nipped this in the butt but I generally dislike reporting people unless they get really obnoxious. His comments at the
Feeder of lice DYK nom happened in the context of this discussion
[8] where he was basically doing the same thing - in this instance because I added a citation he requested to an article and removed an inappropriate sic tag. Note that OTHER editors on the talk page warned him about his behavior as well.
This has continued more recently, including his participation at the AE request. He has nothing to do with the AE request but merely showed up to just pour gasoline on the fire and agitate for a block. Recently, he edit warred to keep his comments on my talk page after I removed them - he was warned for this as well, particularly since he almost broke 3RR [9] [10] [11] - basically edit warring for his right to harass others. He also said things like "I will post on your talk page whenever I like".
Finally note that I did not report Malick78 for his participation in the Feeders of Lice DYK - though perhaps I should have. I don't have an interaction ban with him - though perhaps there should be one. He is currently possibly facing sanctions for edit warring here. What if I showed up there and started agitating for him to get hefty block? Maybe I should, since that appears to be the game he's playing. VolunteerMarek 17:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
What is my course of action when one of my stalkers arrives at a new article I created add adds a lot of coatrack crap which has no place in the article other than to distract from one nations hideous human rights records in the region? You know cos of the 1RR you put me on? Check it out [12], and tell me I am wrong. Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
All this drama came after I made just a single set of edits to the article. To me, the only thing apparent from this revert is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a bit of an article ownership ego. Now, coming to the question of hounding, that allegation is invalid because I first edited the article on 27 March. DS was aware of that but he didn't have any objections until that point. On 28 March, I started a thread on the on the talk page about proposing a section on human rights violations by Baloch militants and DS even took time to respond, saying " That is next on the list, currently reading sources. I intend to expand this article and bring it up to GA status. Any sources you find would be appreciated." Now that I edit the article myself finally, I get accused of "coatracking". In the other "hounding" links presented by DS, I think you'll agree that the diffs are quite non-controversial and self-explanatory: "2" and "3" are of me simply adding categories. Going through my edits, you will observe that I tend to add and create categories quite often (especially to new articles); out of my 28,000+ edits to Wiki, I have made 3,500+ edits to categories alone, and potentially thousands of other edits which have involved adding categories to articles. At "5", I was not the first to "turn up" at the article. Rather, User:Smsarmad was when he nominated Darkness Shine's article for an AfD. That article was later deleted by an admin, after a number of editors opposed its existence. And technically, neither does "7" count as hounding because here I am simply notifying a new user that an article they created ( Target killings of Hazara) is redundant to an already-existing article on the topic: Persecution of Hazara people. I would have made that point across anyway, because I made contributions to the latter article in September 2011 as the history shows and the new article is a mirror of that.
Based on the above, your proposal to "block for hounding" is far-fetched. Mar4d ( talk) 14:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Salvio, is it possible for my userpage to be deleted except for the current revision? I have some user boxes and things that I would like to dispose of permanently. Calabe 1992 19:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Salvio! :)
I recently requested that the Rafic Hariri article be fully protected, temporarily, on the grounds of a content dispute/edit warring. However, you declined, suggesting that I take it to WP:AN3 as it's only "one or two" editors. Please take a careful look at the article's history, and you will notice, that it definately isn't just one or two people - far from it. This edit warring/content dispute, is regarding a "corruption" section, and if you look through the last 250 revisions of the article, you will see it is constantly re-added, then removed. Please reconsider, thank you, -- MST☆ R (Chat Me!) 12:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
[24] Is an obvious sock. Appears out of nowhere and reverts all my recent edits. Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
BTW, Mar4d is from Peshawar just like the IP. IP started to follow DS after Mar4d was told to stop the same behavior. Anyways, TopGun is circumventing his 1RR by asking fellow friends on wikipedia to revert for him. See TG asking for rv [27] and then User:mustihussain (now Altetendekrabbe) promptly acting on it [28] as he did before. [29] What to do about it? JCAla ( talk) 07:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
A) Balochistan article: You made a general revert to reliably sourced content added by me. (This you do in a general matter to a lot of articles and sourced content by multiple editors. [36] [37]) B) Anti-Pakistan sentiment article: I removed content (not about anti-Pakistan sentiment!) which was previously extensively discussed and was not kept (until you, whenever - so much for hounding - put it back there). C) Based on point A and B, your allegation of hounding I consider a joke of 1 April. JCAla ( talk) 18:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, here we go. First of all, a request: please, do not discuss content issues here. Or, if you do, please do not expect me to take a side. I will only comment on behaviour and it would be far more productive to only focus on that, possibly with diffs. To solve content disputes there are various methods, but the intervention of an admin is not one; and rightly so, in my opinion. However:
I believe this is all; I apologise for the delay, and, if I have forgotten anything, please do let me know. Regards. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd say, either Akrabbe and me both are under 1RR (he already rv 3 times, btw, and his version stands for two days now without the reason given even being valid) because dispute involves TG (someone with 1RR) or we (Akrabbe and me) are both not under 1RR when dealing with each others' edits/reverts ... to make it fair (because I may have to assume good faith but I know better about the connection, so ...). JCAla ( talk) 11:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
To explain the situation.
Btw, TG is again claiming wrong consensus, a thing he was warned for in the past. The edits were accepted (except by him and Mar4d, who failed to read the full sources) until he asked for the removal and Akrabbe came in. JCAla ( talk) 12:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
JCAla has ignored your warnings to follow 1RR and reverted me for a second time in the same day while I BRD reverted his major edits considered as POV (yes he made edits first which I objected to, there's even an RFC on a part of it). First edit [38], changed the scope of the article, includes blanking, and other major POV edits and terminology. He uses "per talk" in edit summary with clearly no consensus on talk and clean up in another edit summary while he blanked sections. The second revert [39], I actually meant to revert all his edits (and explained them in editsummary and talk) and he labels it as a general revert and reverts to his preferred version again. 1RR on me is only allowing him to push POV. If you take a look at his contributions, that's all he does atleast nowadays. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 07:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Whoa, that article sure is controversial. I must admit that I'm tempted to fully protect it to allow you to hammer out a compromise version on the talk page... That said, no blocks today. Because: a. JCala did not violate his 1-rr – he made a bold edit, was reverted and he himself reverted only once and, then again, even if you count his first edit as a revert, the matter is now rather stale (though I must admit it wasn't when you reported him here) – and b. TopGun did not violate his 1-rr on the other article either, because the first reverted was made a week ago – and, honestly, it's really not appropriate to go dig up dirt on the person who reported you, althought it's quite widespread –.
With regard to Darkness Shines, a general principle first: editor A makes an edit, TopGun reverts, editor A reverts him, editor B undoes his edit and then Darkness Shines reverts editor B, you could probably make a case that he violated his interaction ban at least in spirit, though it can be difficult to determine, when there are many edits by many different users as in this case. Here, however, part of the disputed edit was:
Shortly after Pakistan's creation in 1947, the Pakistan Army invaded Kalat, a part of Balochistan which refused to accede to Pakistan. Prior to having been mader part of Pakistan, Balochistan had enjoyed autonomy as a princely state under the suzerainty of the British Crown. [1] [2]
and the following is Darkness Shines' edit:
During the Partition of India the Khan of Kalat, Ahmed Yaar Khan choose independence as this was one of the options given to all of the princely states by Clement Attlee. [3] In april 1948 however Pakistan mobilized it's armed forces and deployed them in Kalat, and the Khan was forced the Khan to accede to Pakistan. [1] The Khans brother Prince Karim Khan declared independence and fled to Afghanistan to seek aid and began an armed struggle which failed as by June 1948 Balochistan was subsumed as a region of Pakistan. [2]
I believe, therefore, that there was no violation, here.
Finally, two things: first, let me apologise for my delay. And, second, JCala, grazie per gli auguri di buona Pasqua; altrettanto a te ed ai tuoi cari! Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
That said, what's the harm in having a version you don't like appear in the article while the discussion is underway and until someone else comes around to revert it again?
Regarding the alleged IBan violation, I'll take a second look. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
It is not a revert to add content never discussed before or to restructure an article in a way never done before. The very meaning of re-vert is to re-store something which was there before. It is a "re"doing of something. WP:BRD is just an essay, not a policy. WP:BRD-NOT is just as important. When content added to an article is reliably sourced, in this case with The Economist, and the source is rightly presented, the case for BRD certainly becomes slim to none. BRD can be misused for censorship, that is why it is not a policy. Also, the editor citing BRD to revert a major overhaul of an article is obliged according to that very same essay to first consider how he/she could adjust the article according to what he/she thinks needs to be written by working with the improved version. JCAla ( talk) 08:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Grazie, Salvio. Now to my question. I should revert that general revert as everything was simply reverted in a general manner. No valid reason has been given as of yet for restoring the bad quality version in a general manner, except a "NPOV" yell. I expect TG and Mar4d to work with, instead of against, other editors. The version restored by TG and Mar4d does not cite any sources for controversial issues, while the article after the overhaul did cite the Stanford University Press, The Economist, etc. There are tons of examples why the rv is simply censorship with no interest in the article's quality. As an example, the bad quality version has the attacks of the group Jundallah which only operates in Iran placed under the section title "2004-to date (led by Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti and Mir Balach Marri)" which is only about Pakistan. I structured the article into one section for the Iran conflict and another for the Pakistan conflict, in order not to mix everything up. Another example. Look at this section which was restored this way: Balochistan_conflict#Development_and_Human_Rights_Issues. I had cleaned up the whole section and sourced everything appropriately. Then, in the bad quality version, there are three separate main sections for economic issues, I had integrated them into one. But because of a disagreement over one or two issues TG and Mar4d undo everything? Wikipedia rules require them to work on the content issues instead of simply restoring a truly bad quality version. Is is ok or not ok to revert considering these issues? TG and Mar4d can always work on the controversial parts without undoing a major clean-up including many uncontroversial subjects. JCAla ( talk) 07:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Salvio, this is not stale yet.. here it happens again. See [47].. I revert a part of his edit [48] and he makes a second revert [49]. This is clear cut baiting and 1RR vio. Also in this case, I removed this edition of JCAla a few days ago and discussion took place after that. So both edits are reverts regardless of the debate above (infact it applied to above too). -- lTopGunl ( talk) 09:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Bringing over the central point.
On the edit war report TopGun claims this is the version I allegedly twice reverted to. If you couldn't realize his agenda in the past, in this report it becomes plain to see. How can I in my first edit, on 8 April 07:39, "revert" to a version of 8 April 12:50? As far as I am aware I have no time machine as of yet. But seriously?! JCAla ( talk) 12:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I made
this report on Friday on the edit-warring noticeboard about POV pushing which is yet to be adjudged. I would appreciate if you could adjudicate it as you see fit, or failing that, advise me how to deal with this situation.
Best Wishes
Ankh.
Morpork
19:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you show me some diffs of the reason I got blocked? I'm not even sure of the behavior that led to it. LedRush ( talk) 03:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I've gone through List of Parkavakulam personalities, which is now empty as per my prediction on the article talk page. - Sitush ( talk) 12:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Slippery slope is only a logical fallacy if the eventual consequences are far removed from the original compromise. BabbaQ saying that if we start accepting requests for censorship on a regular basis that it will become a more common event isn't a slippery slope fallacy. The foundation does "censor" things via WP:OFFICE every now and then, but it's pretty limited in what they will do. The UK's speech laws are fairly draconian, not something we'd ever want to cater to. Replied here because I didn't want to insert a reply in the middle of the thread there and derail it. Gigs ( talk) 18:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is a war zone, there are two keepers who quite simply refuse to allow any expansion ans there is constant edit warring. I added a POV tag as the article is not even remotely neutral and it was removed without even an accurate edit summary [57] Neither of the article owners have even commented on the section on the talk page [58] And I put the tag back today [59] and now some IP sock has come along and removed it again [60] Is it a violation of the 1RR restriction to restore it? There are obviouly issues with the article. Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, There seems to more vandalism on this page. A new user called User:Kashrut-vigilante has popped up and reverted to edits made by banned users Koshervigilante, Kashrus-vigilante and Applesandhonee. This is also a single purpose account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kashrut-vigilante . This user has removed all sources provided and reverted this entry back to stub status adding the stub tags. The quality of this article was upgraded adding factual information and sources only to have him copy and paste his irrelevant and often derogatory comments ruining the article. This is the fourth time he has changed his user once spamming my user maned and numerous IP edits. Thanks Applesandhoney ( talk) 21:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Whenaxis ( contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 00:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
You recently provided some useful input regarding a d.o.b. controversy at Vijay Kumar Singh. The man has just popped up again, this time in a corruption enquiry (a common event in India!). Your eyes would be appreciated, as and when you can. I'll be trying to keep things within WP:BLP constraints etc but these Indian "scandals" tend to attract a fair amount of poor editing. - Sitush ( talk) 13:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Nonetheless, BLPN is worth a go if only as a convenient reference point should reverts etc become as common as I expect to be. So, I will do that thing. - Sitush ( talk) 13:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For the being one of the best admins I've ever known, and for your tireless contributions to keep wikipedia free from vandals at WP:AIV. Take this as a reward for your hard work! Ab hijay ☎ 13:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC) |
Salvio, since I see you're online and after reading your userpage, I am wondering if you could block an account for me. I have an alternative account ( User:Calabe1993) which I have lost the password for. I have a different alt account ( User:Calabe1991) which I had created as a doppelganger, but I believe I can still access and use instead as the alt account. Since it is inaccessible, could you block User:Calabe1993 as a doppelganger, and I will change the tags on it? Thanks. Calabe 1992 14:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Heh, when I wrote that above, I should have written move-sysop also. (Someone hijacked my userpage once so now I move-protect all of them.) Sorry for wasting so much time here. ;) Calabe 1992 15:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
— cyberpower ChatLimited Access 15:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
unblock decision | |
Thank you for assuming good faith in an unblock decision, saying "There are people who have gathered to lynch an editor they dislike and others debating linguistics, while only very few are discussing the actual merits of the block itself." and "blocks are not supposed to be punitive", -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC) |
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 01:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I saw on the Arb Enforcement page that you said "Regarding [Volunteer Marek], currently, the relevant policy states the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other. It may be unwise to do so, it may even invite drama in certain cases, but the point is that it is allowed and, so, Volunteer Marek should not be sanctioned either." However, a) VM's not meant to comment on Russavia (and therefore his DYKs) at all (see here, "The editors sanctioned by name in this decision [i.e. including VM] are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution." - there seems to be no end date given, so it's still valid), and b) if we're talking about the iBan - then the spirit of it (like all WP policies, such as 3 reverts) should be adhered to, not just a literal, hair-splitting interpretation. I was wondering if you'd looked at the issue like that? Thanks for your time, Malick78 ( talk) 17:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
What is the difference between commenting at an DYK and commenting at a AfD? During a previous AE report, another admin clarified that it was okay to comment at an AfD even if it was created by someone under an iBan [1]. This understanding was demonstrated by the subsequent participation by those under a mutual iBan including VM in the AfD. To state VM's note to the DYK page [2] is now a violation when participation in an earlier AfD was perfectly okay is a somewhat inconsistent application of iBAN policy. -- Nug ( talk) 05:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Now, to post on the same page as an editor you cannot interact with can still be a violation of the spirit of the restriction, if your actions are in bad faith, in my opinion, because, in such a case, you're basically subverting the original purpose of an exception intended to protect your ability to express your opinion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Salvio, I'm not sure what exactly are you asking. I've explained the situation with Malick78 at least twice already (recently), once at AE and once at AN/I
[4] (the part starting with "I don't have time to fully explain the Malick78 ..."). To repeat myself, two years go or so I had a disagreement with Malick78. He then began going through articles I created or spent a lot of time working on, trying to find something wrong with them, in retaliation (he didn't have much luck). Here's an early example
[5] (and my response
[6]). Here's another
[7] (lede's don't need citations if the info is cited in the text). I have asked him on at least three occasions to stop posting on my talk page, which he has ignored. He has been warned by others not to follow me around. Honestly, I should have just reported him back then and nipped this in the butt but I generally dislike reporting people unless they get really obnoxious. His comments at the
Feeder of lice DYK nom happened in the context of this discussion
[8] where he was basically doing the same thing - in this instance because I added a citation he requested to an article and removed an inappropriate sic tag. Note that OTHER editors on the talk page warned him about his behavior as well.
This has continued more recently, including his participation at the AE request. He has nothing to do with the AE request but merely showed up to just pour gasoline on the fire and agitate for a block. Recently, he edit warred to keep his comments on my talk page after I removed them - he was warned for this as well, particularly since he almost broke 3RR [9] [10] [11] - basically edit warring for his right to harass others. He also said things like "I will post on your talk page whenever I like".
Finally note that I did not report Malick78 for his participation in the Feeders of Lice DYK - though perhaps I should have. I don't have an interaction ban with him - though perhaps there should be one. He is currently possibly facing sanctions for edit warring here. What if I showed up there and started agitating for him to get hefty block? Maybe I should, since that appears to be the game he's playing. VolunteerMarek 17:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
What is my course of action when one of my stalkers arrives at a new article I created add adds a lot of coatrack crap which has no place in the article other than to distract from one nations hideous human rights records in the region? You know cos of the 1RR you put me on? Check it out [12], and tell me I am wrong. Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
All this drama came after I made just a single set of edits to the article. To me, the only thing apparent from this revert is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a bit of an article ownership ego. Now, coming to the question of hounding, that allegation is invalid because I first edited the article on 27 March. DS was aware of that but he didn't have any objections until that point. On 28 March, I started a thread on the on the talk page about proposing a section on human rights violations by Baloch militants and DS even took time to respond, saying " That is next on the list, currently reading sources. I intend to expand this article and bring it up to GA status. Any sources you find would be appreciated." Now that I edit the article myself finally, I get accused of "coatracking". In the other "hounding" links presented by DS, I think you'll agree that the diffs are quite non-controversial and self-explanatory: "2" and "3" are of me simply adding categories. Going through my edits, you will observe that I tend to add and create categories quite often (especially to new articles); out of my 28,000+ edits to Wiki, I have made 3,500+ edits to categories alone, and potentially thousands of other edits which have involved adding categories to articles. At "5", I was not the first to "turn up" at the article. Rather, User:Smsarmad was when he nominated Darkness Shine's article for an AfD. That article was later deleted by an admin, after a number of editors opposed its existence. And technically, neither does "7" count as hounding because here I am simply notifying a new user that an article they created ( Target killings of Hazara) is redundant to an already-existing article on the topic: Persecution of Hazara people. I would have made that point across anyway, because I made contributions to the latter article in September 2011 as the history shows and the new article is a mirror of that.
Based on the above, your proposal to "block for hounding" is far-fetched. Mar4d ( talk) 14:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Salvio, is it possible for my userpage to be deleted except for the current revision? I have some user boxes and things that I would like to dispose of permanently. Calabe 1992 19:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Salvio! :)
I recently requested that the Rafic Hariri article be fully protected, temporarily, on the grounds of a content dispute/edit warring. However, you declined, suggesting that I take it to WP:AN3 as it's only "one or two" editors. Please take a careful look at the article's history, and you will notice, that it definately isn't just one or two people - far from it. This edit warring/content dispute, is regarding a "corruption" section, and if you look through the last 250 revisions of the article, you will see it is constantly re-added, then removed. Please reconsider, thank you, -- MST☆ R (Chat Me!) 12:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
[24] Is an obvious sock. Appears out of nowhere and reverts all my recent edits. Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
BTW, Mar4d is from Peshawar just like the IP. IP started to follow DS after Mar4d was told to stop the same behavior. Anyways, TopGun is circumventing his 1RR by asking fellow friends on wikipedia to revert for him. See TG asking for rv [27] and then User:mustihussain (now Altetendekrabbe) promptly acting on it [28] as he did before. [29] What to do about it? JCAla ( talk) 07:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
A) Balochistan article: You made a general revert to reliably sourced content added by me. (This you do in a general matter to a lot of articles and sourced content by multiple editors. [36] [37]) B) Anti-Pakistan sentiment article: I removed content (not about anti-Pakistan sentiment!) which was previously extensively discussed and was not kept (until you, whenever - so much for hounding - put it back there). C) Based on point A and B, your allegation of hounding I consider a joke of 1 April. JCAla ( talk) 18:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, here we go. First of all, a request: please, do not discuss content issues here. Or, if you do, please do not expect me to take a side. I will only comment on behaviour and it would be far more productive to only focus on that, possibly with diffs. To solve content disputes there are various methods, but the intervention of an admin is not one; and rightly so, in my opinion. However:
I believe this is all; I apologise for the delay, and, if I have forgotten anything, please do let me know. Regards. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd say, either Akrabbe and me both are under 1RR (he already rv 3 times, btw, and his version stands for two days now without the reason given even being valid) because dispute involves TG (someone with 1RR) or we (Akrabbe and me) are both not under 1RR when dealing with each others' edits/reverts ... to make it fair (because I may have to assume good faith but I know better about the connection, so ...). JCAla ( talk) 11:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
To explain the situation.
Btw, TG is again claiming wrong consensus, a thing he was warned for in the past. The edits were accepted (except by him and Mar4d, who failed to read the full sources) until he asked for the removal and Akrabbe came in. JCAla ( talk) 12:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
JCAla has ignored your warnings to follow 1RR and reverted me for a second time in the same day while I BRD reverted his major edits considered as POV (yes he made edits first which I objected to, there's even an RFC on a part of it). First edit [38], changed the scope of the article, includes blanking, and other major POV edits and terminology. He uses "per talk" in edit summary with clearly no consensus on talk and clean up in another edit summary while he blanked sections. The second revert [39], I actually meant to revert all his edits (and explained them in editsummary and talk) and he labels it as a general revert and reverts to his preferred version again. 1RR on me is only allowing him to push POV. If you take a look at his contributions, that's all he does atleast nowadays. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 07:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Whoa, that article sure is controversial. I must admit that I'm tempted to fully protect it to allow you to hammer out a compromise version on the talk page... That said, no blocks today. Because: a. JCala did not violate his 1-rr – he made a bold edit, was reverted and he himself reverted only once and, then again, even if you count his first edit as a revert, the matter is now rather stale (though I must admit it wasn't when you reported him here) – and b. TopGun did not violate his 1-rr on the other article either, because the first reverted was made a week ago – and, honestly, it's really not appropriate to go dig up dirt on the person who reported you, althought it's quite widespread –.
With regard to Darkness Shines, a general principle first: editor A makes an edit, TopGun reverts, editor A reverts him, editor B undoes his edit and then Darkness Shines reverts editor B, you could probably make a case that he violated his interaction ban at least in spirit, though it can be difficult to determine, when there are many edits by many different users as in this case. Here, however, part of the disputed edit was:
Shortly after Pakistan's creation in 1947, the Pakistan Army invaded Kalat, a part of Balochistan which refused to accede to Pakistan. Prior to having been mader part of Pakistan, Balochistan had enjoyed autonomy as a princely state under the suzerainty of the British Crown. [1] [2]
and the following is Darkness Shines' edit:
During the Partition of India the Khan of Kalat, Ahmed Yaar Khan choose independence as this was one of the options given to all of the princely states by Clement Attlee. [3] In april 1948 however Pakistan mobilized it's armed forces and deployed them in Kalat, and the Khan was forced the Khan to accede to Pakistan. [1] The Khans brother Prince Karim Khan declared independence and fled to Afghanistan to seek aid and began an armed struggle which failed as by June 1948 Balochistan was subsumed as a region of Pakistan. [2]
I believe, therefore, that there was no violation, here.
Finally, two things: first, let me apologise for my delay. And, second, JCala, grazie per gli auguri di buona Pasqua; altrettanto a te ed ai tuoi cari! Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
That said, what's the harm in having a version you don't like appear in the article while the discussion is underway and until someone else comes around to revert it again?
Regarding the alleged IBan violation, I'll take a second look. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
It is not a revert to add content never discussed before or to restructure an article in a way never done before. The very meaning of re-vert is to re-store something which was there before. It is a "re"doing of something. WP:BRD is just an essay, not a policy. WP:BRD-NOT is just as important. When content added to an article is reliably sourced, in this case with The Economist, and the source is rightly presented, the case for BRD certainly becomes slim to none. BRD can be misused for censorship, that is why it is not a policy. Also, the editor citing BRD to revert a major overhaul of an article is obliged according to that very same essay to first consider how he/she could adjust the article according to what he/she thinks needs to be written by working with the improved version. JCAla ( talk) 08:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Grazie, Salvio. Now to my question. I should revert that general revert as everything was simply reverted in a general manner. No valid reason has been given as of yet for restoring the bad quality version in a general manner, except a "NPOV" yell. I expect TG and Mar4d to work with, instead of against, other editors. The version restored by TG and Mar4d does not cite any sources for controversial issues, while the article after the overhaul did cite the Stanford University Press, The Economist, etc. There are tons of examples why the rv is simply censorship with no interest in the article's quality. As an example, the bad quality version has the attacks of the group Jundallah which only operates in Iran placed under the section title "2004-to date (led by Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti and Mir Balach Marri)" which is only about Pakistan. I structured the article into one section for the Iran conflict and another for the Pakistan conflict, in order not to mix everything up. Another example. Look at this section which was restored this way: Balochistan_conflict#Development_and_Human_Rights_Issues. I had cleaned up the whole section and sourced everything appropriately. Then, in the bad quality version, there are three separate main sections for economic issues, I had integrated them into one. But because of a disagreement over one or two issues TG and Mar4d undo everything? Wikipedia rules require them to work on the content issues instead of simply restoring a truly bad quality version. Is is ok or not ok to revert considering these issues? TG and Mar4d can always work on the controversial parts without undoing a major clean-up including many uncontroversial subjects. JCAla ( talk) 07:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Salvio, this is not stale yet.. here it happens again. See [47].. I revert a part of his edit [48] and he makes a second revert [49]. This is clear cut baiting and 1RR vio. Also in this case, I removed this edition of JCAla a few days ago and discussion took place after that. So both edits are reverts regardless of the debate above (infact it applied to above too). -- lTopGunl ( talk) 09:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Bringing over the central point.
On the edit war report TopGun claims this is the version I allegedly twice reverted to. If you couldn't realize his agenda in the past, in this report it becomes plain to see. How can I in my first edit, on 8 April 07:39, "revert" to a version of 8 April 12:50? As far as I am aware I have no time machine as of yet. But seriously?! JCAla ( talk) 12:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I made
this report on Friday on the edit-warring noticeboard about POV pushing which is yet to be adjudged. I would appreciate if you could adjudicate it as you see fit, or failing that, advise me how to deal with this situation.
Best Wishes
Ankh.
Morpork
19:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you show me some diffs of the reason I got blocked? I'm not even sure of the behavior that led to it. LedRush ( talk) 03:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I've gone through List of Parkavakulam personalities, which is now empty as per my prediction on the article talk page. - Sitush ( talk) 12:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Slippery slope is only a logical fallacy if the eventual consequences are far removed from the original compromise. BabbaQ saying that if we start accepting requests for censorship on a regular basis that it will become a more common event isn't a slippery slope fallacy. The foundation does "censor" things via WP:OFFICE every now and then, but it's pretty limited in what they will do. The UK's speech laws are fairly draconian, not something we'd ever want to cater to. Replied here because I didn't want to insert a reply in the middle of the thread there and derail it. Gigs ( talk) 18:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is a war zone, there are two keepers who quite simply refuse to allow any expansion ans there is constant edit warring. I added a POV tag as the article is not even remotely neutral and it was removed without even an accurate edit summary [57] Neither of the article owners have even commented on the section on the talk page [58] And I put the tag back today [59] and now some IP sock has come along and removed it again [60] Is it a violation of the 1RR restriction to restore it? There are obviouly issues with the article. Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, There seems to more vandalism on this page. A new user called User:Kashrut-vigilante has popped up and reverted to edits made by banned users Koshervigilante, Kashrus-vigilante and Applesandhonee. This is also a single purpose account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kashrut-vigilante . This user has removed all sources provided and reverted this entry back to stub status adding the stub tags. The quality of this article was upgraded adding factual information and sources only to have him copy and paste his irrelevant and often derogatory comments ruining the article. This is the fourth time he has changed his user once spamming my user maned and numerous IP edits. Thanks Applesandhoney ( talk) 21:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)