Misplaced Pages

User talk:SilkTork: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:38, 13 October 2013 editSilkTork (talk | contribs)Administrators104,130 edits Question: commenting← Previous edit Revision as of 17:29, 15 October 2013 edit undoAhnoneemoos (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,167 edits ARBCOM: Reverts and ban performed by User:SilkTork regarding Mayoralty in Puerto Rico: new sectionNext edit →
Line 260: Line 260:
:If you wish, you may now enter the discussion phase of ]. However, not everyone has the patience to get into the discussion part, especially if it means dealing with people that may be difficult, and that is fine. There are plenty of other articles which also need work. Though if you do feel you have an interest in the topic and how information is being presented in the lead, then please do initiate a discussion on the talkpage. If it does start to become unpleasant, you can look for input from others, though you can still make the choice of moving on. In this situation, I would be comfortable with providing some further input if you do start a discussion, and you feel it's becoming unpleasant. But, as I say, you don't need to feel obliged to either initiate or carry on a discussion which is unpleasant for yourself. Nor do you need feel responsible for the improvement of the article - if there is inappropriate bias in an article, it tends to get ironed out over time. Those articles where a handful of editors may be attempting to preserve a bias are eventually spotted, and through our procedures such editors are dealt with. So if you stay or move on, it's up to you. :If you wish, you may now enter the discussion phase of ]. However, not everyone has the patience to get into the discussion part, especially if it means dealing with people that may be difficult, and that is fine. There are plenty of other articles which also need work. Though if you do feel you have an interest in the topic and how information is being presented in the lead, then please do initiate a discussion on the talkpage. If it does start to become unpleasant, you can look for input from others, though you can still make the choice of moving on. In this situation, I would be comfortable with providing some further input if you do start a discussion, and you feel it's becoming unpleasant. But, as I say, you don't need to feel obliged to either initiate or carry on a discussion which is unpleasant for yourself. Nor do you need feel responsible for the improvement of the article - if there is inappropriate bias in an article, it tends to get ironed out over time. Those articles where a handful of editors may be attempting to preserve a bias are eventually spotted, and through our procedures such editors are dealt with. So if you stay or move on, it's up to you.
:As regard the remark about "holy", that is because in your revert you reinstated that word by mistake. This can happen with reverting. I would suggest only using the revert button to deal with obvious vandalism or disruption, or to correct minor errors, as otherwise such mistakes can occur, and also because reverts can sometimes be felt as hostile. I tend to make a normal edit, and directly adjust the text that concerns me. I feel more part of it then, and may actually see something I hadn't noticed earlier. ''']''' ''']''' 23:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC) :As regard the remark about "holy", that is because in your revert you reinstated that word by mistake. This can happen with reverting. I would suggest only using the revert button to deal with obvious vandalism or disruption, or to correct minor errors, as otherwise such mistakes can occur, and also because reverts can sometimes be felt as hostile. I tend to make a normal edit, and directly adjust the text that concerns me. I feel more part of it then, and may actually see something I hadn't noticed earlier. ''']''' ''']''' 23:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

== ARBCOM: Reverts and ban performed by User:SilkTork regarding Mayoralty in Puerto Rico ==

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
* ];
* ].

Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice -->

&mdash;] (]) 17:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:29, 15 October 2013

Old dusty archives
Modern clean archives


Welcome!!! Pull up a chair, let's have a nice chat. I'm glad you called. I'll put the kettle on.
SilkTork

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama

Your actions related to Mayoralty in Puerto Rico

Hi, The actions you performed regarding Mayoralty in Puerto Rico and List of current mayors of Puerto Rico have been reverted. Please see the rationale at Talk:Mayors of Puerto Rico and join the discussion there. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

User has been blocked for disruptive and abrasive behaviour. SilkTork 18:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou Silk Tork. Not only did you have a quick look as I asked, but totaly sorted out the problem. Please accept this barn star to add to your collection. Op47 (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar
For completely solving an otherwise insoluble problem Op47 (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - I always appreciate a barn star. SilkTork 18:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Op47, if SilkTork does not mind, I would also like your input on my questions below; I saw you were one of the editors warring with Ahnoneemoos. Did you call in an admin back during the Nov'12 portion as well? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you dead certain you did not just ban the only editor doing any work on that article?

Hope that got your attention.  :-) I was reading one of Ahnoneemoos's ... err... okay, this is a talkpage, please don't give me trouble about the posessive. Now where was I... rare essays published in the passive voice by Ahnoneemoos on the reasons that the number of wikipedia editors was declining, and had just finished writing up an mini-essay on how Bad Cops were misusing their ban hammers, when I visited Ahnone.... the talkpage owned by Ahnoneemoos and saw that Right This Instant they were involved in a dispute with yourself, and that you had given them a timeout, to sit in the corner and think about what they had done. Well, *that* seemed like an ironic twist. So, I did a little reading and tried to figure out the situation. If you don't mind, I'd like to talk it over here with you, and get your motivations, and your take on the idea that reverts and ban-hammers are actually *not* the best way to grow the number of contributors to wikipedia articles. As opposed to, say, meta-discussions *about* wikipedia articles, or meta-meta-discussions about theoretically *editing* wikipedia articles by hypothetical editors that may or may not exist, in the reasonably near future, if driven away. WP:BITE is the key here. I have plenty more to say, but in case you are available on wikipedia this weekend, I will go ahead and submit this, to give you a heads-up that somebody is chatting your direction. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If a user is being abrasive, uncooperative, and disruptive, and rather than responding to consensus and reason they continue to behave as though everyone who disagrees with them is wrong, then yes they get blocked in order to allow collaborative work to continue. I don't think this particular user quite understands what they are doing wrong, and that concerns me. SilkTork 17:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure! Umm.. wait. Citation needed. Abrasive? Uncooperative? Disruptive? Is two against one consensus? Is it possible that everyone who disagrees with them, on some talkpage about some article about the mayors of a small island, way off in the boonies (figuratively speaking -- no offense to puerto rico -- I'm just talking about the lack of attention the article receives) of wikipedia, is in fact ... pause... The Consensus ... of all right-thinking beings in the universe? I agree they don't understand what they did wrong. Neither do I. Please explain to me as if I was not involved. I wasn't, but that's beside the point. Misplaced Pages is not a kindergarten. You cannot put somebody in timeout just because they were failing to act like a well-behaved kindergartener, standing in line, doing as they are told. From my cursory look at the dispute, I'm leaning towards Ahnoneemoos having policy on their side. How were they wrong, exactly? Honest question. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

First off, I will start off by pointing out that you and Ahnoneemoos have conflicting philosophies about our mutual purpose, here.

  • #1A. "We are not the internet, we are an encyclopaedia." --SilkTork
  • #1B. "Misplaced Pages should be the sum of all human knowledge." --Ahnoneemoos (more or less exact cite)
  • #2A. "Every word we add to Misplaced Pages matters." --SilkTork
  • #2B. "Every word we DO NOT add to Misplaced Pages matters." --Ahnoneemoos, kinda sorta, taking some creative liberty with their true thoughts
  • #3A. "Deletionist: someone who is willing to revert and ban over a single not-quite-right word." --SilkTork, *very* rough caricature, taking significant creative liberty with their true thoughts
  • #3B. "Inclusionist: every bit of knowledge is worth saving, even if we edit it out later." --Ahnoneemoos, *somewhat* rough caricature, taking some creative liberty with their true thoughts

I definitely lean more inclusionist (albeit with a strong dose of law&order to fight vandals and spammers and other unsavory characters). I am 100% with Ahnoneemoos about #2B (otherwise I would be against an *open* encyclopedia and prefer Nupedia/Citizendium/etc). As for #1A, I'm 100% with SilkTork there; Ahnoneemoos is flat wrong... but it is a somewhat subtle distinction. Arguably, wikipedia ought to cover every major branch of knowledge, deeply and substantively. WP:NOTPAPER Actually, when the web was young, *I* thought that is what it would become... now that I'm older, I see my mistake, and use wikipedia as a substitute for what I hoped the internet would turn out to be.  :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I totally embrace different, including conflicting, viewpoints. What I cannot embrace is abrasive and uncooperative behaviour. SilkTork 18:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, you are more intellectually flexible than me. I like to think of things in terms of right, and wrong. Ahnoneemoos is wrong that wikipedia should include everything there is. WP:EVERYTHING I'm not sure whether you were wrong to ban them, or not, but I intend to find out. This is of interest to me in a more general sense -- I think that part of the trouble wikipedia experiences with getting new editors involved, and new admins involved, is that current admins are too free with the ban hammer. I'm not saying that is the case here, but I would like to use this one as a case-study, to probe your thinking on where exactly that line is. I mean, if I tell you that you are wrong, and that every word we add to wikipedia does *not* matter, that's not being abrasive. I could sugar it up, and say, well, you are entitled to your point of view, and I like you as a person, but I think I would have to suggest that maybe your assertion is too strong? Gag. "Some people say weasel words are great!" To quote your userpage.  :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I think if you don't find that user abrasive and uncooperative, then I think we have to agree to differ, and I don't think I will be engaging further in this conversation. SilkTork 18:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is certainly your right to refuse to discuss you actions. But it seems a poor way to run a railroad. You were just involved in some case about the Ayn Rand article, which you closed by pointing out that sometimes people make mistakes. You seemed to have the right idea, there. Of course, there *is* a right and a wrong way to write the article in question -- either the lady is a philosopher, or she is not. Either she is from Russia -- the previous edit war on that article -- or she is not. But your decision was about administrative penalty for behavior, not about article-content. That is also your position here, with Ahnoneemoos: that you are administering a specific penalty for specific behavior, rather that blocking them so you get your way in the article. If enough people were to become interested in the article, and decide that the proposal to maintain two separate lists was more kosher, then you would go along with the consensus. Be that as it may, your criteria seem to indicate that you did not hear me the first time, so allow me to repeat: I was not involved. I have never edited with Ahnoneemoos before. How could I find them abrasive or uncooperative? All I've done is read one of their userpage essays, and look through the edit-history of their conflict with you and Op47 and Mercy11 and Timtrent and a bunch of other people. Reading the *contents* of the 25-kilobyte talkpage, and the 10-kilobyte-or-so of article content, which the edit war concerned, is something I'll do if you absolutely insist... or you can just give me the 100-word summary. I'm not the inquisition, here to get your confession, or else. But I *do* think that admins use the ban-hammer too often, and so I'm trying to find out what they are thinking. This case is particular fresh in your memory, and since I happened to run across it, I figured it would not hurt to ask. If you decide you have no further interest in the discussion, that's up to you. I won't be offended particularly. If so, is it okay for me to post the rest of my thoughts here, in case you change your mind at some point, and decide to come back later? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Guess that would be a big-nope? In that case, I'll put my further comments over at my own talkpage -- easier for me if you reply there anyways, since I'll get a popup. I would point out, though, that your decision to stop listening to me, because you *think* I might disagree with you (something which is not at all certain to turn out to be the truth), does contradict the Obama quote you have right at the top: I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Anyhoo, as I said, I'm not too offended. I'll go read the gory details for myself, and you are welcome to comment over on my page if you like. See you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

details of the case-study conflict

You can delete this from your talkpage (or archive it or collapsible-hat-tag it or whatever) if you feel it gets in the way, after our discussion. These are copied straight from the relevant pages, but I edited them to remove excess parens and such.

 
Summary of the contents of the 1500-word article:  
	122-word summary 
	279-word bkgd 
	143-word powers & reqs 
	231-word removal & election 
	519-word list now 
	212-word refs 
Summary of work accomplished since January 2012:  
	Ahnoneemoos has performed several re-reverts on various adversaries, and sometimes tagged.  Additions to the article difficult to judge, but definitely kilobytes.  Comments:  verbose.  10900 + 11400 talkpage bytes.  
	SilkTork has performed one massive revert on Ahnon, plus cleaned up the see-also.  Moved content from a list-page to this page, no net size gain.  Comments:  closed talkpage, banned Ahnon for 60 hours.  zero + 1800 talkpage bytes. 
	Op47 has performed one massive revert on Ahnon, plus deleted a move-tag.  No additions at all.  Comments:  no concensus(sic).  zero + 4600 talkpage bytes.  
	Timtrent has performed one massive revert on Ahnon, plus modified a navtag.  Filled in 32 references adding 2000 bytes of content.  Comments:  duplicating is inappropriate.  4700 + zero talkpage bytes.  
	Mercy11 has performed three massive reverts on Ahnon, plus inserted one cn-tag.  No additions at all.  Comments:  use sandbox, diminished quality, uncited material.  3000 + zero talkpage bytes.  
	24.54.246.74 has performed no massive reverts on anybody, and modified no tags.  Rearranged list of current mayors slightly, no net size gain.  Comments:  n/a.  zero + zero talkpage bytes.  
	Good Olfactory has performed no massive reverts on anybody, and modified category tags.  No additions at all.  Comments:  n/a.  zero + zero talkpage bytes.  
Detailed history of the slow edit-war on the article, and the chatter on the talkpage, grouped by timespan:  
	15:17 12oct'13‎ SilkTork    ‎m 26163 +9907‎ Reverted edits by Ahnoneemoos (talk) to last version by SilkTork
	14:20 12oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  16256 -9907‎ rv: per WP:RFC in order to allow the discussion to extend up to 30 days since so few people have participated
	18:07 11oct'13‎ SilkTork    ‎m 26163     0‎ SilkTork moved page Mayoralty in Puerto Rico to Mayors in Puerto Rico: In line with other such articles
	18:06 11oct'13‎ SilkTork    ‎  26163   -58‎ →‎See also: cleanup
	16:58 11oct'13‎ SilkTork    ‎  26221 +9965‎ →‎Current mayors: merge from List of current mayors of Puerto Rico per talkpage consensus
	14:24  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎m 16256     0‎ →‎References
	04:43  4oct'13‎ 24.54.246.74‎  16256    -1‎ →‎Current mayors
	04:02  3oct'13‎ 24.54.246.74‎  16257   +13‎ →‎Current mayors
	03:58  3oct'13‎ 24.54.246.74‎  16244   -27‎ →‎Current mayors
	03:43  3oct'13‎ 24.54.246.74‎  16271   +14‎ →‎Current mayors
	22:42 29sep'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  16257  +142‎ 
	19:30 29sep'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  16115 +5641‎ Undid revision 575036512 by Op47 (talk) rv: see talk page and WP:EMBED
	19:08 29sep'13‎ Op47 	   ‎  10474 -5641‎ Undid revision 574997702 by Ahnoneemoos (talk) Please see talk page
	13:00 29sep'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  16115 +5641‎ →‎Current mayors
t	13:07 13oct'13‎ SilkTork	   ‎  38365    +1‎ →‎Threaded discussion: typo
t	05:57 13oct'13‎ Kingdylan   ‎m 38364  +147‎ 
t	15:23 12oct'13‎ SilkTork    ‎  38217 +1715‎ commenting
t	14:29 12oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  36502   +58‎ →‎Threaded discussion
t	14:28 12oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  36444  +788‎ →‎Threaded discussion
t	14:22 12oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  35656 -1359‎ rv: per WP:RFC in order to allow the discussion to extend up to 30 days since so few people have participated
t	18:07 11oct'13‎ SilkTork    ‎m 37015     0‎ SilkTork moved page Talk:Mayoralty in Puerto Rico to Talk:Mayors in Puerto Rico: In line with other such articles
t	16:58 11oct'13‎ SilkTork    ‎  37015 +1359‎ →‎RFc for list of mayors: closed discussion
t	12:06 11oct'13‎ SilkTork    ‎  35656   +29‎ tags
t	17:53  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  35627  +834‎ →‎Threaded discussion
t	17:47  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  34793 +1965‎ →‎Threaded discussion
t	17:39  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  32828 +1941‎ →‎Survey
t	17:38  6oct'13‎ Op47          30887  +910‎ Threaded discussion
t	17:20  6oct'13‎ Op47          29977  +849‎ Answer
t	14:22  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  29128  +352‎ →‎Survey
t	14:17  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  28776   +12‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	14:11  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  28764  +894‎ →‎RFc for list of mayors
t	14:03  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  27870 +1280‎ →‎Threaded discussion
t	13:54  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  26590  +216‎ →‎Survey
t	13:52  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  26374  +791‎ →‎Survey
t	13:05  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  25583  +241‎ →‎RFc for list of mayors
t	11:48  6oct'13‎ Op47          25342 +1881‎ RfC
t	04:41  5oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎m 23461     0‎ →‎Threaded discussion
t	04:40  5oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  23461  +923‎ →‎RFc for list of mayors
t	02:14  5oct'13‎ Kingdylan   ‎  22538  +148‎ →‎Survey
t	22:28  4oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  22390  +905‎ →‎Threaded discussion
t	18:52  4oct'13‎ Dailycare   ‎  21485  +296‎ →‎Survey
t	14:00  4oct'13‎ Legobot     ‎  21189   +14‎ Adding RFC ID.
t	13:20  4oct'13‎ Op47          21175  +573‎ →‎RFc for list of mayors: new section
t	19:29 29sep'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  20602  +230‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	19:12 29sep'13‎ Op47          20372  +381‎ The list of current mayors...
	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
	18:48 12may'13‎ Op47 	   ‎  10474   -90‎ Remove move tag, no concensus to do this at this time.
	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
	01:23 25dec'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  10564  -133‎ 
	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
	08:55 30nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎  10697  +164‎ Filling in 11 references using Reflinks
	08:51 30nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎  10533 +1826‎ Filling in 21 references using Reflinks
	05:52 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   8707  +355‎ →‎Background
	04:18 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   8352  +768‎ →‎Background
	03:54 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   7584  +109‎ 
	03:53 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   7475    +2‎ →‎Background
	03:53 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   7473  +136‎ →‎Background
	03:48 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   7337  +186‎ →‎Background
	03:30 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   7151  +199‎ 
	03:28 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   6952   +79‎ →‎Background
	03:25 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   6873  +116‎ →‎Background
	03:14 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   6757  +106‎ →‎Background
	03:11 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   6651   +88‎ +1 reference
	03:06 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   6563   +49‎ 
	03:05 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   6514   +63‎ +1 reference
	02:58 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   6451   +75‎ +1 reference
	02:45 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   6376 +2740‎ Undid revision 525635611 by Mercy11 (talk) rv per WP:IAR and WP:CONSENSUS. WP:BURDEN also states: consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step which you clearly have not done
	02:04 30nov'12‎ Mercy11     ‎   3636 -2740‎ Per talk page. Uncited material
	18:15 29nov'12‎ AnomieBOT   ‎m  6376   +19‎ Dating maintenance tags: {{Move portions from}}
	17:54 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   6357  +138‎ →‎Election
	17:34 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎m  6219   +23‎ →‎References: |state=autocollapse for both navigation templates, which distract the reader from the article
	17:29 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎   6196 -5936‎ →‎Current mayors: duplicating a list held elsewhere is inappropriate
	16:48 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  12132   -86‎ 
	16:44 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  12218  -242‎ 
	16:41 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  12460    +5‎ 
	16:41 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  12455  +435‎ 
	16:37 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  12020    +9‎ 
	16:35 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  12011   +35‎ 
	16:32 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11976   -51‎ 
	16:31 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  12027  +429‎ 
	16:13 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11598   +15‎ →‎References
	16:11 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11583    -1‎ →‎Background
	15:50 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11584   +80‎ 
	15:34 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11504 -4041‎ Undid revision 525547164 by Mercy11 (talk) rv: they do not diminish the quality of the article
	15:27 29nov'12‎ Mercy11     ‎m 15545 +4041‎ Reverted good-faith edits by Ahnoneemoos to last version by Mercy11: the edits diminished the quality of the article. User notified to discuss his edits at the article's Talk Page.
	04:22 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11504   +64‎ 
	04:18 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11440  -180‎ 
	04:11 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11620 -3925‎ Undid revision 525482121 by Mercy11 (talk)
	03:29 29nov'12‎ Mercy11     ‎m 15545 +3925‎ Reverted good faith edits to last version by Thief12: Don't experient here; use the WP:sandbox instead
	22:54 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11620    +2‎ →‎Background
	22:53 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11618    +7‎ →‎Background
	22:52 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11611   +10‎ →‎Background
	21:41 28nov'12‎ Good Olfact ‎  11601   +10‎ removed Category:Mayors of Puerto Rico; added Category:Mayors of places in Puerto Rico using HotCat
	20:26 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11591   +51‎ →‎Current mayors
	20:25 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11540 +1747‎ →‎Current mayors
	19:34 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   9793   +81‎ 
	19:33 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   9712    -2‎ 
	19:26 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   9714    +4‎ 
	19:24 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   9710 -5835‎ 
t	13:23 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  19991 +1674‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	10:52 30nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎  18317  +597‎ →‎The list of current mayors...: thank you
t	10:45 30nov'12‎ SMcCandlish ‎  17720 +1371‎ →‎The list of current mayors...: Maybe worth merging.
t	05:53 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  16349    -3‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	04:40 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  16352    -2‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	04:40 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  16354    -2‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	04:40 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  16356  +559‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	02:53 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  15797    +1‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	02:48 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  15796  +811‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	02:40 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  14985  +816‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	02:04 30nov'12‎ Mercy11     ‎  14169 +1648‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos: comments
t	23:06 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  12521  +293‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	23:00 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎  12228  +260‎ →‎The list of current mayors...: yes, but no :)
t	22:56 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11968  +291‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	21:00 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11677    +1‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	21:00 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11676  +235‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	19:51 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎  11441  +684‎ →‎The list of current mayors...: it's good to disagree in a civilised manner
t	19:33 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  10757 +2464‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	18:57 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎   8293 +1246‎ →‎The list of current mayors...: thoughts
t	18:34 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   7047  +856‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	18:11 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎   6191  +524‎ →‎The list of current mayors...: registering my opposition to the proposed migration of material
t	18:02 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   5667  +528‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	17:57 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎m  5139    +1‎ →‎The list of current mayors...: typo
t	17:56 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎   5138  +719‎ →‎The list of current mayors...: we disagree
t	17:49 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   4419  +818‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	17:30 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎   3601  +315‎ →‎The list of current mayors...: new section
t	17:11 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎   3286  +357‎ →‎Please form a consensus. War is not needed.: new section
t	17:06 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   2929 +1180‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	16:31 29nov'12‎ Mercy11     ‎   1749  +910‎ comment
t	15:37 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎    839    +2‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	15:36 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎    837  +347‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	15:27 29nov'12‎ Mercy11     ‎    490  +440‎ bad edits
t	22:44 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎     50   +23‎ 
	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
	01:58 26aug'12‎ Thief12     ‎  15545   +97‎ →‎Removal from office: removing cn, amendment was on the External Links section, added it here.
	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
	02:39 27apr'12‎ Good Olfact ‎  15448   -25‎ removed Category:Puerto Rico using HotCat
	19:43 12apr'12‎ AnomieBOT   ‎m 15473   +16‎ Dating maintenance tags: {{Cn}}
	19:22 12apr'12‎ Mercy11     ‎  15457    +6‎ →‎Removal from office: cn
	00:36  3mar'12‎ Thief12     ‎  15451   -28‎ →‎Current mayors in Puerto Rico
	23:24 15feb'12‎ Thief12     ‎  15479   +17‎ →‎External links: added PR template

Question

Hi SilkTork,

I'm wondering what to do. I noticed an addition to the Quran article that was poorly done. I corrected that. Then the fellow came back and put the same topic into the lede. It's about how some scholars believe that the Quran is not what the Muslims claim. I reverted it because the topic is dealt with in the article below, and to put such in the lede is inflammatory--and said so. The Bible article does not show counterclaims in its lede, and it seems biased to put such in the the article about the Quran.

Now another fellow jumped into the fray by reverting my revert, claiming to not see what would be inflammatory and--strangely--saying to not use the word "holy" (I didn't, and the word is not in the article at all).

Rather than just my using a second revert on that page within 24 hours, I would like to talk with one of the two--but, do I use the talk page for the article? From the background each fellow shows on their profiles, they do not seem neutral on this issue--and their edits are not neutral. Moreover, the edit that they are defending is not consistent with the style book. This could get messy fast. What do you suggest?

Regards, Desertroadbob (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If you wish, you may now enter the discussion phase of WP:BRD. However, not everyone has the patience to get into the discussion part, especially if it means dealing with people that may be difficult, and that is fine. There are plenty of other articles which also need work. Though if you do feel you have an interest in the topic and how information is being presented in the lead, then please do initiate a discussion on the talkpage. If it does start to become unpleasant, you can look for input from others, though you can still make the choice of moving on. In this situation, I would be comfortable with providing some further input if you do start a discussion, and you feel it's becoming unpleasant. But, as I say, you don't need to feel obliged to either initiate or carry on a discussion which is unpleasant for yourself. Nor do you need feel responsible for the improvement of the article - if there is inappropriate bias in an article, it tends to get ironed out over time. Those articles where a handful of editors may be attempting to preserve a bias are eventually spotted, and through our procedures such editors are dealt with. So if you stay or move on, it's up to you.
As regard the remark about "holy", that is because in your revert you reinstated that word by mistake. This can happen with reverting. I would suggest only using the revert button to deal with obvious vandalism or disruption, or to correct minor errors, as otherwise such mistakes can occur, and also because reverts can sometimes be felt as hostile. I tend to make a normal edit, and directly adjust the text that concerns me. I feel more part of it then, and may actually see something I hadn't noticed earlier. SilkTork 23:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

ARBCOM: Reverts and ban performed by User:SilkTork regarding Mayoralty in Puerto Rico

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Reverts and ban performed by User:SilkTork regarding Mayoralty in Puerto Rico and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)