Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:21, 28 July 2007

Archives

Archive 1 - Archive 2

The Queen and all that

I'm not sure it's all that appropriate for me to be recruited into a content dispute. I've already provided two quality sources that the Commonwealth forms a personal union - and if you want sources for something else, I'm always happy to dig up sources for stuff. Cheers, WilyD 21:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded to at User talk:WilyD#British Monarchy --G2bambino 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Lonewolf - while I got off on the wrong foot with him, it seems like it's straightened out now. If it's just a personal union thing - the cites are there in Monarchy in Canada anyhow, and Lonewolf seems to accept them as reasonable. Other editors may not - but I would recommend you cross that bridge when you come to it. Anyways, I'm always happy to find references on JSTOR, since I realise not everyone has access. Cheers, WilyD 22:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

British monarchy

"Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." References were indeed deleted without reason, reason for removal of content was not readily apparent as no legitimate explanation was provided. Frankly, I'd be pleased if an administrator could step into the whole sordid matter at British monarchy, as it's spilling over into other articles. (My apologies for having to create another unblock request, but it seems this is the only way to communicate with the "outside world."

I see that the edits you reverted were discussed on the talk page and have support. Calling them vandalism is not civil: they are not attempts to damage the article on purpose, but only edits you don't agree with. Trying to rely so closely on the wording of WP:VAND is Wikilawyering, and we take a dim view of that. Moreover, explanation was provided on the talk page that you were aware of as you responded to it, and saying that no "non-frivolous" explanation was given is again either being rude to the editor who gave the explanation, or being deliberately obtuse in not understanding it. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this unblock request indicates a lack of willingness to work collaboratively with others, and I fear this situation will get worse before it gets better, if you don't reexamine your behavior. Mangojuice 19:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe you'll find that the discussion at the talk page related specifically to one sentence in the article, however, the editor reverting my work was repeatedly taking out cited content not discussed at talk, and using a personal and optimal interpretation of an unclear vote of only six people as justification for his actions; hence, the edit summary provided was neither relevant to the majority of the removed/altered content, nor was it supported by actual evidence. Further, I don't appreciate your insinuations regarding my reading of the very WP page I was directed to by another admin; as per what is described there, what User:LonewolfBC was doing what could be interpreted as vandalism, and hence my reaction could be justified. I am not seeking complete pardon from guilt, only a little understanding of the situation and perhaps a less severe consequence; as a longstanding contributor of a huge amount of relatively decent content at Misplaced Pages, who does generally work collaboratively, but who does not accommodate bullying, I also expect not to be told to "reexamine" my behaviour. --G2bambino 20:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your reaction is not justified and is not justified by the text of WP:VAND but even if it were, that would indicate that WP:VAND is in need of correction. Let me quote: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages." You can only call this a deliberate attempt to compromise Misplaced Pages by making a massive violation of WP:AGF. As for severe consequence... It's a 24 hour block. That's about as short as blocks get around here. Mangojuice 20:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I have an extremely hard time assuming good faith on the part of the relevant editor when his reverts were evidently blind, automatic, and not fully explained or justified reversals of numerous edits I had made in an effort to accomodate everyone's requests, as well as add cited and relevant material. If it's not vandalism, then it's certainly bordering closely on it. That said, I too performed automatic reverts, which certainly aren't desired, nor do I enjoy doing them; however, it seems that sometimes a full revert is necessary to restore what was removed without proper discussion or even explanation. As for the 24hr block, so be it for British monarchy, but at present I can't even edit a talk page besides my own.

It seems my first step tomorrow will unfortunately have to be to open a case at ArbCom. --G2bambino 21:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Over a 24 hour block? Why don't you try an WP:RFC first, if you feel like discussion on the talk page has been exhausted? I notice the mediation seems to have failed. What you should do is try to get more opinions of editors involved, if you think that the sample is too small, this might help. ArbCom won't take the case, I'm almost certain, because (1) you haven't tried all steps in dispute resolution, and (2) it's a content dispute and they are very steady about not ruling on content disputes. Mangojuice 21:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, no... over the whole affair at British monarchy; the potential mediator already raised the suggestion at the request for mediation I filed earlier. I had thought of an RfC, but it really seems that the dispute has come down to two editors not compromising and, though they have had nearly every one of their demands satisfied or refuted, now insist on removing not only three simple words from the article, but also on reverting any edit made that isn't theirs, and one in particular is presently taking the "result" at British monarchy as justification to make similar POV edits to other articles. This seems more like a behavioral problem than a legitimate content dispute. --G2bambino 21:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Mangojuice 21:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Some Advice

Listen, I realise that you're in a frustrating situation, but let me give you a little advice. Back and forth reverting is going to get you anywhere or win you any allies. Remember that the articles in question are being watched by a lot of editors - and they're the ones you need to convince. Fighting with unproductive editors alone won't do anything but give you stress and a reputation as an edit warrior. If you convince the masses, one or two other editors won't make a difference to the end result. Use the talk page, find the relevant citations - and if you make your case, other editors will step in to stop troublemakers.

And remember that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. Articles can be fixed tommorow, or saturday. It doesn't need to be today.

Look, you're a good editor and a valuable contributor. I'd hate to see you get so stressed out you quit, or incure further blocks because you let yourself get baited. It's not worth it. Cheers, WilyD 22:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:WilyD#Advice --G2bambino 22:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Greetings and salutations. You have violated WP:3RR on British monarchy. This edit warring has become very disruptive to the article. Please stop. Thank you. --Son 19:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason for the block given is: "for violating the three-revert rule" at what I'll assume to be British monarchy (the block notice doesn't make this clear, which leads me to wonder if the blocking admin really took the time to look at the relevant edit history, or simply followed the incorrect 3RR warning placed by User:Son). A quick survey of the edit history of British monarchy will show why Son's assertion of 3RR violation is incorrect:

• this edit addressed the concern of the previous editor, though directly replaced one word (what's that? a "half-revert"?)
• this edit did not revert the previous, instead edited it within proper standards
• this edit was direct revert #1 with a request for the other editor to resolve at Talk:British monarchy
• this edit replaced text that was seemingly mistakenly removed during an edit claimed to be only about the dablink
• this edit did not revert the previous, instead addressed the previous editor's concern & attempted to find a solution acceptable to both of us

Thus, though I'm dealing with a very difficult editor, 3RR was never breached, nor was there even any "edit warring" per say. The block should be removed. Thanks.

Decline reason:

From WP:3RR: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." and "Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours." In the future, please take more care to discuss issues on the article talk page and seek dispute resolution if needed. — Vassyana 04:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I will leave this up for another admin to look at, but a glance at the article history reveal what I would call edit warring. Further, as I looked through the article history, I did indeed count four reverts in a 24 hr period. G2bambino, I have every reason to believe that you are a productive editor and an asset to wikipedia - please lay off the reverting and use other dispute resolution methods. Pastordavid 18:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is indeed a breach of 3RR, someone will have to point it out to me, as I honestly can't see it. My own study of the edit history between 17:04, 14 July 2007 (my first edit in nearly 2 days) and 17:43, 15 July 2007 (my last edit) shows the following:

• Article body:

1. this edit restored only two words ("Monarch" and "Elizabeth II") of my previous edit, that affected more than two paragraphs, and was made 43 hrs & 43 mins previously. Does reinserting two words really constitute a full revert?
2. this edit restored one word ("Elizabeth II") of my previous edit, and addressed the interim editor's valid concern regarding the repetition of the word "monarch." Does reinserting one word really constitute a full revert?
3. this edit restored text that was lost during User:TharkunColl's revert that claimed to only concern the dablink; I later noticed that the text had been removed without due explanation or even notice, and thus, assuming it's removal to be a mistake on the part of TharkunColl, replaced it.
4. this edit did not revert to my previous edit at all; instead I addressed User:TharkunColl's concern about the "misplaced mention of the current sovereign" and used a non-specific descriptor instead

• Dablink:

1. this edit did not revert to my prior edit at all; instead I edited the dablink down as per WP policy
2. this edit was my one obvious revert, with a request that the other editor take up the issue at Talk:British monarchy, where I initiated discussion Talk:British monarchy#Dablink

So, to me it seems there was one undoubted revert and, at best, two rather dubious ones, which still puts me within 3RR. Further, as per edit warring, I see how successive reverts can be construed as textual combat, but a string of quick revisions does not necessarily mean an edit war is under way. In fact, I ceased all-together to touch the dablink after TharkunColl’s last revert of it.

It seems to me that in this instance certain admins have had a knee-jerk reaction to a given situation, assuming it (perhaps understandably) to be identical to what occurred previously, when it actually wasn't.

As I don't believe I'm guilty of the crime for which I was charged, I would appreciate it if this sentence could be duly and judiciously reviewed. --G2bambino 18:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(PS- Thank you, however, for your temperate comments re my work at Misplaced Pages. --G2bambino 18:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

It took more than 24 hours from the time I posted the request for unblock until the notice received due attention. However, the decline affirms my opinions that a) admins are quick to block but generally slow to review their actions; and b) that general editors are at the mercy of empowered individuals who mostly seem unconcerned with anything aside from bulldozing blocks over people to solve any and all perceived problems. Twice now, in about the past month, I've been incorrectly accused of and blocked for edit warring; on the first occasion the block was finally overturned by the impulsive admin who imposed it; the second time presented evidence and explanations that contradict the charges are simply ignored. Now, because of two undeserved blocks, my record is set and I've been smeared as a common criminal, and am forever more to be suspected of ill-intent and malevolent motive. I dare say I see a pattern emerging, wherein some Misplaced Pages admins are exercising what looks more like a gross parody of justice and a travesty of appeal, rather than a balanced and astute exercise of authority (those who do a good job, of course, not included). I'm duly unimpressed. --G2bambino 14:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mate, I know its frustrating, but try not to be discouraged. I dont think youre being targeted in particular. After all, Tharkuncoll has been blocked as well. And while he's silent, the British Monarchy discussion has become much more balanced. Think of all the people who say your a good editor. You certainly are. Chin up!--Gazzster 23:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the comments. However, I certainly don't want to come across as though I feel my contributions aren't appreciated; my motives aren't as selfish as that. Rather, it's more that I've been editing Misplaced Pages for over two and a half years, and only recently have admins seemingly been so generous with their doling out of blocks. Disputes happen, but not every dispute is an edit war; seeminly, the difference seems to matter less and less to those in charge, and people's reputations seem to matter even less still.

Nice to see things being resolved at British monarchy; interesting, though, that Thark won't revert anyone else's edits, only mine. Not that I'm really all that surprised, though ;) (Comment also left at User talk:Gazzster#Talk page comments) --G2bambino 00:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ta

Thanks for droppin by my page. Ive been on Misplaced Pages about 2 years. I have to say I still dont understand a lot of what goes on. It seems that yes, administrators don't always act consistently and fairly. As Misplaced Pages gets bigger, it will necessarily become more admin orientated, and its management will get more out of touch with what's happening on the ground. Hopefully the executive is aware of this and addressing the problem. Tharkuncoll has already attempted to edit the dablink in British monarchy and also Monarchy in Australia. It seems to me that his actions can be provocative, and they can provoke someone into breaking the 3 revert rule. Perhaps that rule needs to be revised. Not abolished, but revised. Cheers--Gazzster 01:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Rob Church's second law: Some people are only alive because it's against the law to kill them. Some people are only able to edit Misplaced Pages because it's against the "rules" to block them.

Sometimes it's just difficult to deal with people who are shit disturbers, but are (generally) civil. It's hard to identify those kind of problematic editors in a flyby, and it's hard to justify blocking anyone when you're close to the situation and there's any "grey-ness". WilyD 13:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:XAndreWx - Second city of UK

Re: 18:45, 18 July 2007 and 18:46, 18 July 2007

Did you extend the same courtesy to User:TharkunColl in regards to warnings about violation of the 3RR ? No ? Because you'd had a disagreement with them over another topic perhaps ? I have no interest in that discussion, but it's fair to mention your potential motives isn't it.

This is extermly unhelpful - if you look at the history for the Second city of the United Kingdom you'll see that User:XAndreWx has repeatedly violated the 3RR, seven times after his last 'block' just two days ago. At least four differing people have reverted the changes that XAndreWx re-instated - doesn't this suggest that his is *not* the concensus view ?

I know that when someone upsets you on wikipedia it can be very hurtful, but please don't allow this to 'domino' into other topics which are already extremly heated.

Sprigot 10:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Sprigot#Talk page comments --G2bambino 14:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your well tempered and objective reply - I will take note. Sprigot 14:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox ship

Copy of note put on User talk:Mauls.... I see you have edited this info box a few times, do you know why RMS Queen Mary 2 infobox has `cost` duplicated? can you fix? Thanks Palmiped 16:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed. Mauls 16:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dablinks

Too right it's silly in this context. WP policies are (or should be) guidelines that allow for exceptions if appropriate in individual cases. In this case, since the whole point is that the realms are theoretically equal in status, it's a conflicting message to follow this guideline too rigidly. I think the exception is wholly justified.

The way to avoid making an exception, if that's really necessary, is to retitle the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article as Elizabeth II, with a redirect under the old title.

--Chris Bennett 17:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Chris Bennett#Dablinks --G2bambino 17:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. What I propose to do is to revert to my original version and add a brief discussion of the point which is identical on the talk page of each article. --Chris Bennett 17:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a fine solution by me, if you're willing to do it to all the others please go ahead. I had been thinking about putting a similar note on the talk page, but this is probably bretter because its in context and not subject to archiving. --Chris Bennett 17:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See my response on your latest concerns at Talk:Commonwealth realm#dablink; I think its a scoping issue. --Chris Bennett 17:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Stickler for policy"

Regarding the above comment posted here that appears to be directed towards me: I don't really see how there's any need for that insult. Such policies have arisen for a reason: they result in better articles and a better Misplaced Pages. Personally, I don't think they should be ignored simply because an editor wants an article to be written a certain way.

And as a side note, no offense but I think you're getting way too obsessive over these particular articles, to be honest, to the point where I think it's getting pretty ridiculous. A good example is the DAB link: is it really such a massive deal that it made reference to "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" (the actual title of the link) instead of "Elizabeth II"? -- Hux 20:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Hux#Talk page comments. --G2bambino 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hux Be fair, it wasn't G2bambino who started this, it was me. No, it's not a big deal, it seemed to me to be a trivial and obvious alignment. Except in the UK article, it is incorrect and misleading to refer to the monarch as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. In the context of articles about her other monarchies, that is not her role, and to single that role out implies a notion of subordination which no longer has any constitutional basis. In the case of the UK, it would be correct of course; I only changed that one for editorial symmetry.

As to this policy question, of course policies make for a better Misplaced Pages, but they are only tools and guidelines to be used, not the word of god to be obeyed at all costs. Besides, User:nat.tang pointed out a perfectly reasonable solution that meets both objectives. --Chris Bennett 20:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps you misunderstand me. I agree with everything you say above when it comes to how such links should appear in the body of non-UK articles on which the Elizabeth II article is linked. However, I was not discussing that. I'm only talking about the DAB and in the DAB all links should be the exact title of the page they are linking to, because (as I already said at Talk:Commonwealth Realm) the purpose of the DAB is to get the reader to the page they were trying to get to in the first place, hence no piped links or redirects because of the potential for confusion. Vaguely real-world analogy: if a person wants to get to "Colored Street" it doesn't make sense to give then the directions to that street but to tell them to look out for "African-American Street" out of fear that they will be offended by the street's actual name.

And also, your last point is not correct: there is official policy and there are guidelines. The former must be adhered to at all times while the latter has room for maneuver, but it's considered a good thing to stick by them anyway. -- Hux 05:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR breach

I've your breach of the 3-revert rule, on "Monarchy in Canada". -- Lonewolf BC 22:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)