| Revision as of 01:45, 4 May 2010 editWtsao (talk | contribs)190 edits removed kangaroo court proceedings← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:55, 5 May 2010 edit undoSarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators51,820 edits →Assume good faith: which? | ||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == |
==The consensus process== | ||
| ⚫ | Following up on the listing at the administrators' noticeboard, I wanted to be sure that you understand the ] process on Misplaced Pages, since you seem to be a fairly new user. Your edit summaries suggest that you are not familiar with this policy, particularly when you state : "There is no excuse for bulk undoing my edits." To quote from the consensus policy, "When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary." This cycle is so common that there is a common acronym for it: ], "bold, revert, discuss." The discussion stage is crucial. | ||
| ⚫ | While I know it is distressing to have somebody else come in and undo your hard work, it's important to try to put aside your feelings about it to see if there is some merit to their concerns. If you find yourself unable to reach consensus with another contributor (or group of contributors), you may pursue ] to get input from uninvolved contributors. Meanwhile, your work is not lost, but remains in history to be restored if consensus should find it appropriate. But even if you are strongly convinced that the other person is wrong, you can't simply keep restoring your preferred version. When another editor reverts you, this is not vandalism in Misplaced Pages's definition. To quote '']'', "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". Restoring your preferred version is therefor not exempt from ]. And even if you don't technically cross the threshold of 3RR it may constitute ]. | ||
| Whether or not this is the result of a conflict, you have a bias and should also be careful with] and ]. Promoting the questionable criticism section to the top of the article was particularly problematic. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub>sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 00:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| At this point, conversation is needed to resolve disputes at ]. Further edit warring is likely to lead to blocks to any parties attempting to promote their preferred versions without first reaching consensus. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the guidance. It's hard to be stay calm while being bullied around (not to mention falsely accused) but I'll try. ] (]) 01:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: See ] - citing ] without associated policy violations can be considered a ] and calling yourself a "neutral third party" when you have a is disingenuous at best. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 09:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Vandalism reminder == | |||
| You might want to read up on that a bit more before {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SamJohnston|360348041|360347230|filing groundless accusations}}.--] (]) 19:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, at least one of ], such as the one you made to ], did not appear to be constructive and has been ] or removed. Please use ] for any test edits you would like to make, and read the ] to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 00:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:With all due respect, you can't expect to hide behind ] when you are part of an obvious ]. As an experienced editor, you should know better. ] (]) 19:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::With all due respect, am I an experienced editor, or a sock puppet? Make up your mind. --] (]) 20:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR warning == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ''']'''  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the ]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to ] to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. Please stop the disruption, otherwise '''you may be ] from editing'''. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 10:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive and tendentious editing rampage by User:Wtsao == | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:|The discussion is about the topic {{#ifexist:]|]|{{{1}}}}}.}} <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 11:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==The consensus process== | |||
| ⚫ | Following up on the listing at the administrators' noticeboard, I wanted to be sure that you understand the ] process on Misplaced Pages, since you seem to be a fairly new user. Your edit summaries suggest that you are not familiar with this policy, particularly when you state : "There is no excuse for bulk undoing my edits." To quote from the consensus policy, "When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary." This cycle is so common that there is a common acronym for it: ], "bold, revert, discuss." The discussion stage is crucial. | ||
| ⚫ | While I know it is distressing to have somebody else come in and undo your hard work, it's important to try to put aside your feelings about it to see if there is some merit to their concerns. If you find yourself unable to reach consensus with another contributor (or group of contributors), you may pursue ] to get input from uninvolved contributors. Meanwhile, your work is not lost, but remains in history to be restored if consensus should find it appropriate. But even if you are strongly convinced that the other person is wrong, you can't simply keep restoring your preferred version. When another editor reverts you, this is not vandalism in Misplaced Pages's definition. To quote '']'', "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". Restoring your preferred version is therefor not exempt from ]. And even if you don't technically cross the threshold of 3RR it may constitute ]. | ||
| At this point, conversation is needed to resolve disputes at ]. Further edit warring is likely to lead to blocks to any parties attempting to promote their preferred versions without first reaching consensus. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:55, 5 May 2010
The consensus process
Following up on the listing at the administrators' noticeboard, I wanted to be sure that you understand the consensus process on Misplaced Pages, since you seem to be a fairly new user. Your edit summaries suggest that you are not familiar with this policy, particularly when you state here: "There is no excuse for bulk undoing my edits." To quote from the consensus policy, "When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary." This cycle is so common that there is a common acronym for it: BRD, "bold, revert, discuss." The discussion stage is crucial.
While I know it is distressing to have somebody else come in and undo your hard work, it's important to try to put aside your feelings about it to see if there is some merit to their concerns. If you find yourself unable to reach consensus with another contributor (or group of contributors), you may pursue dispute resolution to get input from uninvolved contributors. Meanwhile, your work is not lost, but remains in history to be restored if consensus should find it appropriate. But even if you are strongly convinced that the other person is wrong, you can't simply keep restoring your preferred version. When another editor reverts you, this is not vandalism in Misplaced Pages's definition. To quote that policy, "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". Restoring your preferred version is therefor not exempt from WP:3RR. And even if you don't technically cross the threshold of 3RR it may constitute edit warring.
At this point, conversation is needed to resolve disputes at Cloud computing. Further edit warring is likely to lead to blocks to any parties attempting to promote their preferred versions without first reaching consensus. --Moonriddengirl 15:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the guidance. It's hard to be stay calm while being bullied around (not to mention falsely accused) but I'll try. Wtsao (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Assume good faith
You might want to read up on that a bit more before filing groundless accusations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- With all due respect, you can't expect to hide behind WP:AGF when you are part of an obvious puppetry. As an experienced editor, you should know better. Wtsao (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- With all due respect, am I an experienced editor, or a sock puppet? Make up your mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)