| Revision as of 01:01, 1 June 2022 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,525 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Ancheta Wis/Archive 12) (bot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:17, 20 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,525 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Ancheta Wis/Archive 15) (bot | ||
| (197 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 70K | |maxarchivesize = 70K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 15 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == |
== Happy First Edit! == | ||
| <!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --> | |||
| I’d prefer not to initiate a ] regarding the block you imposed for my 3RR infraction at ]. Bear in mind that I’m not denying the 3RR violation nor am I contesting the propriety of the block. Instead, my concerns relate to circumstantial behaviors you demonstrated as a sysop and the subsequent comments you made about the incident. Specifically – | |||
| {{ombox | |||
| # You seemed to ignore the 3RR implications regarding six reversions by ] (i.e., ; ; versus ; versus ; versus ; versus . To be clear, I have no complaint whatsoever re D.Lazard nor do I care that the six reversions violate the 3RR guidelines. Indeed, two of those reversions – one of which prompted my public thanks in keeping with ] – improved upon my own edits. My only concern is that you targeted me for a 3RR block without applying similar rationale to D.Lazard. That, to me, speaks of an untoward bias from whatever source and for whatever reason beyond my interest in speculating. To reiterate from my email, I neither expected nor desired administrative action against D.Lazard and am merely highlighting the capricious disparity of treatment. | |||
| | name = First Edit Day | |||
| # If your reason for the block, noted as “cooling off time” is construed as “intended solely to ‘cool down’ an angry user” as provided by ], such a block is prohibited under the blocking guidelines. Moreover, no anger was – nor is it now – part of anything that I felt or observed regarding the edits at issue. | |||
| | image = ] | |||
| # The block contravenes WP guidelines that state, “Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators.” In this instance, you initiated a content dispute and . Thus, you needlessly inserted yourself into a substantive controversy and immediately thereafter engaged in the corresponding administrative controversy. | |||
| | imageright = ] | |||
| Please be aware that I don’t intend to vilify you, and I’d rather not escalate my concerns by bringing them to further attention via WP:ANI. Meaning, we all make mistakes and I hope to avert the bureaucratic scrutiny of a WP:ANI. Instead, I’d like you to consider doing the following: | |||
| | style = border: 2px solid CornflowerBlue; background: linear-gradient(to left, Gold, #FFF600); | |||
| # Please delete . I’m not particularly offended by it, but (a) the post is superfluous in light of editors’ ability to readily see in the “View History” window, and (b) the “3RR is now in effect for K.D. for 31 hours” contravenes the purpose “]. | |||
| | textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center; | |||
| # Please revert . Why? The post- | |||
| | plainlinks = yes | |||
| ::* Presumes too much about the acceptable speed of change for the venue, as evidenced by D.Lazard’s response. | |||
| | text = <big>'''Happy First Edit Day!'''</big><br />Hi Ancheta Wis! On behalf of the ], I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made and became a Wikipedian! ] ] 16:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Disparages mathematicians in a supposedly humorous way that nonetheless reeks of a unflattering stereotype. | |||
| }} ] ] 16:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Patronizes mathematicians as unable to understand the type of rationale I provided in my edit summaries. | |||
| :::<small>(I’m not personally offended at the characterization that my edit summaries somehow “barrages words against them”. Also, I’m not asking you to reconsider whether (a) any mathematicians might disagree that an edit summary within the provided word limit constitutes a ''barrage'', and (b) words in an edit summary provided ''for'' {{tq|everyone's}} benefit can be rightfully recast as words ''against'' them, as if mathematicians are the only ones who read the edit summaries for the article. Instead, in lieu of an apology to mathematicians and others who might interpret your comments as condescension, please simply remove the post to avert prospective controversy.)</small> | |||
| : 3. Please do a re-revert of your reversion re the mathematics article. The edit {{endash}} three mentions of "of" in a six-word span {{endash}} relates solely to readability and not at all to substance. Alternatively, please offer an explanation why you prefer the current wording seeing that you neglected any explanation in the edit summary. | |||
| Cheers, --] 15:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :{{anchor|It is prudent}}It is prudent to observe the behavior of the community of editors for a well-trafficked, well-established page; often the culture of that community becomes apparent to its observers. You may wish to study the history of editors of that page before mooting more possibilities for our interactions. --] ] ] 15:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :{{to|Kent Dominic}} Apparently you do not understand the 3RR rule, when you accuse me of breaking it. You did 13 edits in a row; some were improvements, some not. My 6 reverts are each a single revert of one of yours 13 edits. So, from the 3RR point of view, they count as a single revert, and even as a partial revert since half of your edits were kept. On the other hand you have clearly been ] since, when one of your edit is reverted, you revert the revert instead of discussing the issue on the talk page, as you should do per ]. IMO, this is clear ] and justifies your edit block. ] (]) 16:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::To set the record straight, I don't ''accuse'' you of breaking the 3RR rule. I've merely observed, without alleging faut or blame and without any complaint whatsoever about your edits, that both you and I transgressed the rule {{endash}} you to the tune of 6 reverts versus my 4 reverts. Indeed, before this episode, I had misunderstood the 3RR rule in much the manner you just described it. Subsequently, I learned that your both your reversions of my edits ''and'' your tweakings of my edits technically count as six separate reverts: | |||
| :::An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether ''involving the same or different material''— within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part — counts as a revert. The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. | |||
| ::If you somehow construe your six reverts to be ''one revert'', then my four reverts should be similarly construed. But, that's not what the rule says. At least, that's not how Ancheta Wis interpreted the rule as applied in my case. There's no language in the 3RR rule that limits it to re-reversions, as I had believed, and as you misstated the rule. ] 17:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == |
==Happy First Edit Day!== | ||
| <!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --> | |||
| <div style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center">]<span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:125%;">Happy First Edit Day!</span>] | |||
| Have a very happy first edit anniversary! | |||
| From the ], ] (]) 06:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I've made two reverts @Mathematics in the past 24 hours and I'm set to make my third in the spirit of ]. I'll be surprised if the edit survives the day, much less an outpouring of consensus on the talk page. Two requests: (1) If you don't care for the edit, please allow another editor to revert it rather than doing it yourself; (2) if an editor who has already made three reverts initiates a fourth by undoing the edit, please block that editor in the same manner that you blocked me. Cheers. --] 08:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| I appreciate , but here's the rub: you have your preferred MO for editing; I have mine, which favors ] and an inevitable slew of reversions. Ordinarily the disparate approach is not be problematic. In this case, however, you complicated things by offering , thus inserting yourself into the substantive issues AND subsequently blocking me, contrary to WP policy which says admins can't block someone re a substantive issue to which they're a party. That's why I've asked you to undo your reversion to negate the conflict of interest you created for yourself. | |||
| Again, I'm not bitter about the block. I just want you to follow the rules. If you undo the reversion, you're entitled to block me again if need be. Otherwise, the rules say you're supposed to consult with another administrator to block me. Do you really want to jump through those bureaucratic hoops? | |||
| Secondarily, I see you've struck one of your @Mathematics posts about your rationale for the block. The striking was well considered since the post isn't relevant to the substantive issues. Please also revert (or strike) for the same reason. Cheers. --] 11:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :{{anchor|Someone else}}Someone else struck that post. | |||
| :I have not followed the sequence, but I hope that the article lede has remained stable. | |||
| :A cascade of reversions to any article is disruptive, and is to be avoided, please. --] ] ] 11:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::A cascade of reversions is obviously disruptive. Only you know why you blocked me for my ''four'' inadvertent reversions while ignoring another lucky editor's ''six'' cascading reversions. | |||
| ::Whether I deserved the 3RR block has never been at issue. The sole point of contention is that you were not entitled to initiate the block upon inserting yourself into the substantive controversy by your own revert two minutes before the block. You've yet to acknowledge that the rules require ''an impartial administrator'' to initiate the block. My question remains: Do you wish to correct your error by undoing , or would you rather that I brought this to light via ]? | |||
| ::Again, it's not about the block; it's about how you did it. --] 11:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::See ]. A pattern of behavior (a track record) needs to be established to avoid being categorized as disruptive. --] ] ] 12:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your immediate reply and your previous reply deflect from the impropriety of administratively blocking an editor for disruptive edits amid an issue ''in which the blocking administrator is substantively involved and thus in a position of compromised partiality'' contrary to the published WP guidelines. For the third (and hopefully last) time, in order to alleviate the appearance of impartiality, do you wish to undo , which has nothing to do with the @Mathematics lede, or are you content to explain your involvement via ]? I really would prefer that you undo the edit so we can let this thing go. --] 13:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm seeing a pattern. Enough said? You yourself are building my case. How about letting this go, to break the pattern I am seeing. The encyclopedia is not about winning. --] ] ] 13:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Forgive me for scrupulously caring about one particular edit, but this is not at all about "winning." Hear me out... | |||
| ::::::You made moments before blocking me. I suspect you had actually intended to revert the substance relating to the lede . I would really, really, ''really ''like to restore the language you reverted, but it's probably not the most prudent thing for me to revert a reversion by an admin who blocked me, right? | |||
| ::::::So, I keep asking you to do the reversion yourself. Problem solved. Conflict negated. End of story. This whole thing could have been avoided if you had simply blocked me without reverting anything. | |||
| ::::::For the umpteenth time: This isn't about holding your feet to the fire. It's not about winning. I'm not asking for an apology. I'm not angry about you or anyone else. I don't want arbitration that might affect your sysop credentials. I just want you to fix a wording change that I {{endash}} a lowly editor {{endash}} don't have the temerity to fix on my own under the circumstances. I'm pretty sure that's why the rule says an admin should find ''another'' sysop to block someone after becoming substantively involved in an editing matter. ] 15:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:17, 20 January 2025
Welcome. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Happy First Edit!
 | Happy First Edit Day! Hi Ancheta Wis! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |  |
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)