User talk:Bradv/Archive 20

2608:, working as I do, to fight it; all I can do is hide from the issue.) DS was originally instituted to prevent one or two determined admins from forming a ring to prevent blocking of a friend, and it has ending the sort of unblockable editors that were prevalent at the time. It has now reached the opposite direction, and permits one or two determined admins to force blocking of an opponent. The problem isn't WP, but the polarization of some real issues, which has led some people here to conclude that some views are so dangerous that they cannot be permitted in WP--at least not without conspicuous content warnings. What NPOV means is that we do not do that, but some people at WP no longer consider NPOV the highest value, but rather their own deeply felt POVs. The first and clearest and simplest step is to remove DS from the repertoire, as having outlived its usefulness. Many people will still prefer not to discuss AP on WP, but enough additional people will be willing that there's a chance a true consensus can form. I'm prepared to admit there may be situations that actually do call for direct action, but if we ever reach that point, those wishing to participate in it should do so outside WP. The basic principle remains, that WP should not be used for advocacy. At some demonstrations in my neighborhood in Brooklyn this summer, had I been 50 years younger I might have been out on the streets, but I wouldn't try to bring the streets into WP. 3506:. You closed it as "no consensus", saying that "With the comments evenly split between the current name and the proposed name, with accusations of canvassing on both sides, there's simply no way to declare a consensus here". I think that both parts of your statement do not properly reflect the situation. Even with comments evenly split (one or two !votes more in the "support" side, if I am not mistaken), the consensus should be determined based on the weight of arguments against Wiki policy, not just the number of !votes. As for the mutual accusations of canvassing, it has become "normal" to see editors from srwiki coming to enwiki and "voting" out of the blue, and other editors in others discussions have raised concerns about that. Hence the number of !votes has not been that important in other recent Balkan disputes where roughly the same editors were involved ( 3523:. In any case, since mutual accusations are not sth to be taken lightly, another way to judge the situation could by weighting the comments by non-Balkan editors, ie editors who are not focused on the Balkans, and might be more neutral rather than canvassed or biased. There were five such editors in the discussion (Ortizesp, Red Slash, Roman Spinner, Bermicourt, Blindlynx) and all of them !voted "Support". It is very meaningful, and that alone shows that your closure does not serve Knowledge as it should. I expect from an experienced and valuable admin as yourself to take more into account such things in the future, as what benefits Knowledge does not necessarily depend on how many commented somewhere or how much a discussion might appear to have no consensus. Cheers, 1985:

has issues, they outnumber the opposition and tag team to restore the challenged material - what purpose is 1RR supposed to serve? If the purpose is to prevent attack pages or whitewashing, it has failed because it opens the door to POV creep at the expense of NPOV. I also thought that when an edit is added and reverted as UNDUE in an article that is under DS, the ONUS to restore is on the editor who wants to restore it, which is more inline with BRD, meaning they must discuss on the TP and acquire consensus first. Instead, what I'm seeing is a bit of back and forth by opposing editors, each side reverting or restoring, while ONUS and consensus are ignored. What part am I not understanding about how DS 1RR is supposed to benefit the project?

2604:

either side thinks is fair enough to live with. They don't have to prefer it, they just have to accept it. I'll use myself for an example: The consensus at the schools RfC was interpreted in a way I thought profoundly wrong--I for a few weeks said I would fight every AfD until people realized it was wrong, but after month or two I decided I could live with it. It just affect inclusion, not NPOV. The consensus at some discussions in American Politics have been so wrong as to destroy NPOV, but those supporting one side (which in this case happens to consist of people whose politics I very much agree with in Real Life) is so determined that it isn't practical to fight it. (At least, not practical for

3564:

other discussions such as the recent Balkan AfDs linked by me above. If one side has the usual Balkan-focused editors most of whom roughly make the same !votes in every Balkan discussion they take part in, and the other side has among itself several editors who see things from a non-Balkan point of view, that is meaningful. As for the arguments themselves, the policy supports the usage of the name in the local language ("official language") if the common English name is unclear. Such dicussions might become lengthy; arguments and consensus might be apparent or not. Whether one is willing or capable of seeing them is another matter.

2787:

sanctions or enforcement if anything is to change. These editors know the rules very well (you can see them deploy them elsewhere). Valjean should be commended for following the process, which is starting to show a consensus. That is how it should work. The deeper issues with the article still need to be resolved. ONUS is black letter policy, and the BRD guidance should be followed. If it isn't, should there be more regular sanctions in the very difficult AP space? That is for the admins to decide. Thank you to those who have participated in this discussion, as I think it is helping to move things forward.

2085:, I don't think it is any secret that several of those editors closely watch our edits and those of their "close collaborators," for lack of a better way to put it. In my case, one in particular has a peculiar habit of arriving at articles I've recently edited to simply revert me and move on. What I learned recently at the AN where we last discussed ONUS was that it's ok to not follow the policies if you are convinced the other side has a different POV. If the restrictions were to ever be enforced, those editors who restored the text while discussion was underway should receive sanctions. 3542:, and both sides presented arguments and evidence rooted in that policy. However, none of them were compelling enough to sway a significant number of editors, and therefore I could not declare a consensus in either direction. Your suggestion of ignoring all comments from editors of Albanian and Serbian heritage, or those who focus on the Balkans in general, is an interesting one, but not one that has a basis in policy or precedent. I would prefer to gauge all editors' contributions from the strength of their arguments, and not based on their ethnicity or where they come from. – 4214:

trouble for. I would appreciate if you could re instate my editing privileges to that article. I am also of the understanding that I must be very careful since another block could lead to even more editing privileges being taken away for a much longer period of time. To personally combat any inclinations I feel to edit war, I will 1) use the talk page, 2) get other editors involved using resources such as the tea house and an rfc, 3) if the first two don’t work, I’ll just step away from the article for a while. I appreciate your time. Happy editing!

1049:

meaning of the article. No one has reached a consensus on either of these two things, and considering that these edits have been on this page for such a large length of time, the meaning of the article should have a consensus on the talk page before they are deleted. The other editor has continually deleted them while I have pointed them to this. I also pointed out to the other editor that I would be happy to debate on the talk page which I’ve been doing. However, no consensus has been reached and the other editor continually deletes these edits.

1325:. The previously mentioned user of Lima Bean Farmer, however, then opted to knee-jerk revert my edit as well, requiring a "source" despite the fact that changing to NPOV - especially where the NPOV is used on the page for the incident in question - should not require a source of its own. I then observed that the user had been involved previously a week ago in apparent battleground behavior on similar pages to this one, and that you created the partial editing block on said user; so I thought I'd bring the info to your attention. 3211:, if you think adding well sourced material and reverting a hard to understand edit summary with no cited policy, and then starting a discussion shortly after is disruptive, then I guess you must block me. What I argued against above, and indeed noted in my edit summary you quoted, was editors ignoring BRD and not participating in relevant talk page discussions to jump in and revert. I note your description of me as hypocritical, and simply have to laugh because you don't apply it to anyone else in your "mirror" situation. 676: 4344: 890: 4354: 852: 31: 523: 4319: 831: 609: 4388: 4330: 842: 287: 4614: 3673: 3280: 3232: 452: 4469: 965: 1272: 764: 2114:? Anyone can look at your contributions today and see that posted here one minute after I posted in the dossier discussion, and they can also see that you responded to my article talk page post eight minutes later. I really think you should stop pretending to be a victim. If you believe that you are being bullied, baited, and harassed, you can take your evidence to AE. I'm not going to stand for you casting aspersions about me or other editors. - 2563:, Mr Ernie and myself have described are closer to the reality that we experience - editors and admins alike - and why so many don't want anything to do with controversial articles. Burn-out comes quickly to volunteers who are just trying to get the article right but not so quickly when an editor has more at stake. Fewer eyes/editors working on controversial articles are not necessarily a good thing. Thank you for your input, and happy editing! 575: 2064:. I just want him to stop his highly disruptive behavior. It takes away from my enjoyment as a contributor on WP - and I'm not the only who is being treated in this manner. I have no desire to escalate it, and believe that a simple reminder to MrX to back off would prove helpful. I am to the point where I'm afraid to express my views for fear of being attacked and harassed. I can't even come here and consult you without being harassed. 4442: 4515: 712: 2690:(Valjean, SPECIFICO, MVBW, VolunteerM, MrX, O3000, JzG) and 3 opposing (Mr Ernie, PackME, Atsme). Nobody has reverted anything more than once (yay), but the content has been through 3 full revert cycles (frown). Brownie points to Valjean for immediately starting the talk page discussion and to PME for attempting a compromise edit. Frownie points to Volunteer Marek for further extending a tag-team edit war with a drive-by revert. 592: 879: 4407: 901: 3762:, and recent edits to ANI. You left some instructions in your block notice, but I blocked account creation: four accounts were created from there, and I am not sure how to handle your request. Do as you see fit--but the note you dropped on my talk page the other day, that was the same person. They returned to file a fake complaint cause I told them to fuck off, which apparently violates something. Thanks, 736: 3579:

Simple support and oppose votes had the same weight as votes with legit arguments which dealt specifically with the subject, although it was proven that many users came from other Wikipedias only to vote without ever editing English Knowledge. Whether they were in support or oppose of the RM, arguments were not taken into account at all. I feel as if the RM was treated without taking it seriously.

4843: 4684: 4311: 823: 2258:

confusing – I would love to see the rules simplified, but the more I discuss it with people the more I realize that's impossible. Listen to other editors, take your time, and don't try to game the rules to gain an unfair advantage. The collaborative editing process works best when people work with each other, rather than against each other. The rules are designed to encourage that. –

4081:. Blocking those smaller ranges around the Wiki Education server would hopefully be a good solution that keeps this from coming up again for a while. Moving our server inside WMCS isn't a practical option for a few reasons; we're actually weighing an eventually move of outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org out of WMCS because it's running into some of the limitations of WMCS servers.-- 2897:-- both of those, the existing text is begging for improvement. While all sourcing and content policies must be followed, old versions are likely to be improved and it is false to cite ONUS as a mechanism to freeze whatever happened to exist before the improvement. If no improvement is needed, that should be addressed on the substance of the sources and article text. 2762:

it became clear that was not the situation. But a quick reinstatement of an invalid revert is the quickest and best resolution more often than not. In this case, the length of the article was the edit summary for the removal of a notable expert's comment. That is not, on its face, a valid reason to remove this particular content.

1956:, I think I addressed this in my talk page if you could take a look at that. I know we had some disagreements on the Kim Jong Un page a while back but since then I’ve apologized to you and have tried to continue constructive editing since. As you can see I wasn’t attempting an edit war. Please remove my block. Thank you. 1686:) 14:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Edit: to be clear these are not my views and was intended as a joke. I found it amusing that NBB went out of his way to nudge someone who he disagrees with so much though I too support Arbs who I disagree with because I value the thought, energy, and perspective they bring. Best, 1374:, I intend to do so there. I should note that my details here regarding the specifics of my interaction were only to give context. The reason I brought the info to you was not to resolve that individual edit conflict, but rather to note the continued battleground behavior from the user previously warned for it. 1531:, but he has not replied; I know that on enwiki there are sometimes arrangement when one editor takes mentorship over another (and even sometimes takes on responsibility to guide an editor as a condition for allowing him to be unblock), therefore I ask for your comment and Mentorship in this discussion 4057:

On further review, I can only see a handful of account creations from this range anyway. There are only about 10 in the CU window. So maybe they don't really use this range for account creation anymore. If they do complain, then we will remove the ACB on the /30, and place ACB blocks on the 92FF /96,

3339:

sentence, sourced to Youtube per BLP. I'm not going to dispute it; I find the caste-warring stuff on Knowledge to be very tiresome, but for my own understanding of how we're applying BLP in general, is not not permissible to use a Youtube video in which a subject gives information about their family?

2761:

I had the same reaction as VM, but I just happened to see it a short time before he did. It is often the case that a single editor makes a "bad", revert, i.e. for no valid reason, and that when another editor undoes that the matter is resolved. After a number of editors joined Ernie on the talk page,

2279:

Yes, well, this is kind of exactly the point Atsme and I are trying to make. I reverted material yesterday. Valjean followed the process and opened a discussion, which is still ongoing. SPECIFICO, MVBW, and VM all re-reverted to include that material before discussion had concluded, and only MVBW has

334:

If you are reading this page we have probably interacted in some way. If you are here in order to promote a particular person, company, or point of view, I hope that this page will somehow help you understand why I do what I do, and maybe even inspire you to join me in building this encyclopedia. The

318:

As with any new phase in human history, we are having trouble adjusting. We used to get our news and information from sources we implicitly trusted – the bookstore, the newspaper, the government, the church. Now we struggle with knowing who to trust. A flood of information from many different sources

4213:

Hello Bradv! I come to you with apologies. I appreciate that you blocked me on the Republicans opposing trump page, that conversation was getting just too riled up. I am sorry for edit warring and promise to not do it again, on any page. It seems like something that editors often get themselves into

4193:

Yes, Brad, I read what you wrote earlier about external links. Given that I'm new to this, would you please give me an example in my piece of what you mean by such a link? You mean links to the Budoshin site? Or to material to other Knowledge articles? (Tried figuring out what you mean from Wiki

4136:

Hi Bradv. Thanks for your suggestions on Budoshin Jujitsu, which was declined but I believe has potential to be corrected to be acceptable. I understand your point about using independent, third-party sources, but can you please clarify what you mean about removing "external references"? Does this

3618:

I actually did not ask you to undo your closure. I know about the move review option, but based on the past, I think that the best way to proceed is to open a move request later, like a year from now. That would be another test for the community's stance on the issue. Several move requests on Kosovo

3392:

Hi Bradv, I am asking that this page gets deleted rather than a redirect. A redirect causes for it still to index on google with a knowledge panel. I want stiff little fingers to index but not jake burns. i dont see the purpose of having a title page with no content. I apologise for editing when you

3364:

to justify that removal, in that the caste information is both poorly-sourced and actively contested. While the page is protected, the interested parties can discuss whether this information should be included at all, rather than edit warring over whether the mother or father should come first. Once

2786:

I don't have a problem if consensus turns out to be against what I think is best. What I have a problem with is regular, experienced editors ignoring ONUS etc. to simply revert because they say "this should be in." The process was not followed, starting with SPECIFICO's restoration. There have to be

2705:

a discussion before any revert, partial revert, or any edit similar to the original "challenged" edit can be made. But in a case like this the end result of all 3 sanctions is the same...whenever you have twice as many people supporting as opposing something, the majority eventually wins out and the

2379:

Thanks for the background, Mr Ernie. Wow, Brad, I'm one of the most active admin (well, generally, but also) enforcing DS, and I have always viewed a revert as simply a revert when enforcing 1RR. I think it would defeat the potency of 1RR to have, for example, the following scenario: editor1 reverts

1984:

Hi, Bradv - what exactly is the purpose of the 1RR sanction in the following scenario: an edit is made, and challenged as UNDUE in an article that is outdated and riddled with noncompliance to appear more as an attack page that pushes a particular POV, but one side refuses to accept that the article

1211:

The fact that you still think this is ridiculous is concerning. What assurance do I have that you won't immediately make a bunch of reverts to this article? Have you even tried to discuss any of your proposed changes on the talk page since I've issued this block? Regardless, my talk page is not the

3806:

to create accounts and make edits on behalf of wikied students. If we need to place an account-creation block, we should exempt the dashboard's IP. Looking at the checkuser results for that /30, I think we can do that pretty easily. Let me calculate the range blocks. However, I would recommend that

3578:

Although Knowledge is no democracy this case has been dealt with just like that and not as the situation requires. It's sad to see that there is still no uniform way in approaching those kind of RM's and the outcome of such an important decision depends on the person who currently handles the case.

3563:

Hmm, nowhere did I suggest to ignore people. As I said in one of my comments at the RM discussion, all editors are welcome to comment regardless of their background, but just the number of !votes is never enough, as your closure wording implies. That is common practice, as seen from the closures of

2739:

I object and resent the accusation that I am “tag teaming” or “abusing the system”. I saw a bad edit and I undid it (it’s also false to say that my ES was a straw man). All you’re seeing here is multiple editors disagreeing with one editor. If anything that means that editor is making edits against

2603:

of the 500 active admins as improper can be changed without a long discussion. There are repeated topic questions in WP where a small majority is able to dictate content, by forcing an appearance of consensus. A true consensus is a wording or inclusion or deletion that every good-faith editor on

2550:

It sounds good in theory, Brad, but that isn't what happens at controversial articles. When a small group "controls" an article, they don't have to discuss it - that's a fact - and therein lies the problem I've been trying to relay. I've made my point and all I can do now is hope you will give it a

1660:

It's mainly some disagreements on your AC judgements - including on things like the disputed admin desysoppings earlier this year, usage level of DS (though I disagree with all but 1 arb on that, so that's not that surprising!) and so on. Actually editing around the site, and also on general policy

1248:

I’m blocked from the page. I’ve made the last edit on the talk page but no one's responded. I’ve read that article before and tried to apply before but it takes weeks for an unblock to occur. If you won’t do anything, I’ll probably wait it out but I’d like my full editing privileges back. Thank you

1247:

What I think is ridiculous is that I was blocked, not that what I did wasn’t wrong. I agreed not to do it again and if I did, I’m sure you and plenty of other editors would be happy enough to block me indefinitely or for a long time. It’s happened to me before. I haven’t tried to discuss it because

1048:

You claim that I am in an edit war when these edits have been on this page for weeks (some over a month) at this point. I have pointed to the other editor that they should be left (currently) due to edit consensus and I would be happy to debate on the talk page about their conclusion as well as the

314:

Thanks again. Peace, 'Roy' Robert Jan van de Hoek Los Angeles, California Why do I edit Knowledge? We are in the midst of the biggest literary revolution the world has ever seen. Not since the invention of the printing press has there been such a leap forward in humanity's ability to record, share,

4593:

What more could I do to get an unblock from the page? Not only have I laid out in detail my plan to prevent edit wars and to only add reliable and clearly opposing names, given examples of names, and agreed to the terms which every admin has set, I apologized and was friendly to everyone who I had

4043:, I appreciate your time and your expertise. All of this is going over my head very quickly, but whatever you can do to slow this down is great. Also, the WMF is well aware of this abuse. If you could drop me an email I'd appreciate that also, cause I have a few things I'd like to ask you. Thanks, 3110:

I'm coming here from the talk:Verifiability discussion. I'm very sympathetic with the question regarding 1RR and cases where those pushing for a change have a few more editors than those saying no. Several of us have been involved in a recent case like this. There is an open request for closure

2428:

According to the restrictions on this particular page, yes, each editor gets one revert. That's because this particular page uses "Enforced BRD" rather than "Consensus required", so anyone can restore contested material except those who have previously added it in the past 24 hours. The "Consensus

1137:

This block is ridiculous. After adding so many good edits to an article, this block should have never occurred. And, after you gave me a warning, I stopped editing it! I’ve been through the process before and it takes a few days if not weeks to get unblocked. However, I’m appealing to you directly

326:

We are getting used to being lied to. Humanity is together getting better at sorting fact from fiction, and separating those who are seeking to inform from those who are seeking to mislead. And at the forefront of that effort is Knowledge, a project to document the sum of all human knowledge using

3187:

is the editor who most violated ONUS and BRD by adding the material to the article twice in the same day without any talk page discussion. There's not a formal BRD sanction on the article, so it's not a blockable offense, but it still seems hypocritical to ask that other editors follow ONUS while

2689:

was a straw man that didn't address the concerns expressed in previous edit summaries (notably WP:UNDUE). Also, at least 3 additional editors have chimed in on the talk page (MrX, Objective3000, JzG/Guy) all supporting the inclusion of the new text. So by my count that makes 7 supporting the text

2163:

thread. This is where I am basing my interpretation from. The example in question, which I highlighted in my first post there, showed 2 entirely different reverts separated by other editor contributions. The discretionary sanction wording is "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to

2832:

I most certainly disagree with the contention that the “status quo” version should be privileged. There is no logical reason to assume that it is better and privileging it goes against the spirit of Knowledge, where the whole point is to IMPROVE articles. If a “status quo” version is sub par and

2242:

Well that content was by definition added at some point (in this case a while ago) by an editor's actions. If someone comes across a random, little-visited article and removes a poorly worded sentence added 3 years ago by an IP, you would consider that a revert? I have to say, the more you and I

3119:

editors, any removal can be met with one or two editors who are happy to restore. I think this is the sort of case where 1RR fails and should probably be changed to mandatory BRD or mandatory consensus. Is it really the intent of things like 1RR or 3RR to effectively allow and disputed change

2939:

Right, but we are here discussing the misrepresentation of ONUS -- which actually is in favor of reworking text to sort out DUE WEIGHT from the much larger volume of facts and statements. ONUS is not a policy of freezing articles. And we don't know what would have evolved had American Politics,

2257:

Yes, but the letter of policy that would count as a revert. Of course, that is not an issue with the average article, but when an article is contentious and highly active, it is best to stick to one revert per day in order to allow for other editors to catch up and discuss. And yes, I know it's

322:

The struggle to adapt to all this new information is evident throughout our institutions. News articles write clickbaity headlines in order to get more ad revenue. Advertisers make false promises in order to enrich themselves. Politicians spread fake news to prey upon our fears and sow discord,

110:

I am grateful you figured out how to remove the article I inadvertently created while trying to help with cleanup. I know zero about trot music, but I wanted to help a new editor who had put lots of work into the article and was threatened with speedy. So many new editors stub toes on WP:PROMO,

2956:

Yes, I do believe we are agreed. The big picture of how to write an encyclopedia (or indeed, how to build a society) is important, and the overall trend has to be an upward one. It is easier to destroy than to create, so our systems and policies need to be biased toward continuous improvement.

4854:

concerns. In this case, I investigated a report submitted to that email address, and looked at a combination of technical evidence, behavioural evidence, and offwiki evidence. There was no SPI created. As with any block that involved private evidence, this may be appealed to the Arbitration

4281:

Bradv, I completely understand. Especially since I can not promise no conflict, only that I will follow the above steps and use my own common sense to avoid it. Edit warring again within like an hour of my first unblock was probably the worst thing I could’ve done. I will follow the unblock

2957:

Therefore, crying ONUS at every change is detrimental to the project, and the burden is properly on all editors to work together to find compromise in order to improve the encyclopedia. The fact is, many of our articles are complete crap, and if ONUS prevents people from improving them it

4906:. However, I noticed the protection you put in is significantly shorter than the previous protection, which expired only a short time ago. The page itself has been protected more than once over the past month or so, actually. Would you please consider making the protection longer? 4748:

That's true, I have to state that I'm editing with a COI. Totally agree that it's not a welcomed thing here but, honestly I was new to Knowledge once I got blocked in the past cause that wasn't aware of the Knowledge terms of use and once I have disclosed they rejected my unblock

3619:

were closed as "no consensus", just to be moved a year later. Time will tell. Also, I did not understand your last sentence. Where did I assume bad faith or insult you? All I said on your editing on Wiki in my comment above is that you are an experienced and valuable admin.

2893:, but it is a separate issue. In some high quality articles, existing content reflects longstanding sources and the partipation of a large number of editors over an extended period. In others, either on controversial topics such as American Politics or Gender, or -- as at 1588:

and today's reinstatement of my block by Barkeep49 (and as I said above, I do fully understand that per unwritten rules of enwii adminship, only the sysop who blocked a user can unblock them, so my request is not about unblocking but more of a request of comment here

3182:

I find it intersting that this is a mirror of the other edit war I analyzed above. The "teams" have switched places, this time with Mr Ernie's team trying to add new information over the objections of WP:UNDUE from the other team. Notably, Mr Ernie, who above said,

2684:

Valjean started the talk page discussion, and all of the editors named above participated in that discussion except SPECIFICO and Volunteer Marek. All the editors used reasonable edit summaries referencing policy or the talk page, although Volunteer Marek's summary

330:

Is Knowledge perfect? No, obviously not, it's a work in progress. Thousands of people come here every day to promote their own products, agendas, and ideas. But thousands of people are also working tirelessly to help improve the encyclopedia and achieve its vision.

1661:

stuff, we are usually reasonably in line. I'm interested on where you stand on the "editors who are accused are entitled to all information in all but the most severe cases (health, blackmail etc)" viewpoint that I seem to conflict with others on most frequently.

1873:

Not true. I admit, the additions of certain people like Upton should not have been added back. However, the additions I made were 100% based on the article qualifications. I added quotes and states all the info on Muboshgu’s talk page if clarification is needed.

4246:, we've been through this before. Although I'm glad you are apologetic, I'm still not convinced that unblocking you won't result in further disruption. But because I was the one who placed the block, I will leave it to another admin to review. Please place an 2007:, the purpose of 1RR is to slow down the rate of edits and force discussion on the talk page, rather than through edit summaries. There will still be edits that people won't like, they'll just happen at a slower rate and allow more room for discussion. – 3854:

The latter is no problem. The former contains the wikied dashboard. I do not currently see any other activity on the same /112 as wikied, so we can place the following set of blocks to block account creation from everyone in that /96 except for wikied:

315:

and transmit information. We read books, newspapers, online news articles, blogs. We write Facebook posts, tweets, emails, and text messages. All that time we spend staring at our phones? We're reading, writing, and sharing information with each other.

2319:

As to how to work within this particular set of circumstances, your best bet is to draw further attention to the dispute, either by means of an RfC or a noticeboard post, and hope that those who show up don't choose to just continue the edit war. –

2471:

Which brings the discussion back to my original question - how does that process benefit the project when the material being added back violates PAGs, but the number of editors available to game the system are skewed in favor of adding it back?

1499: 304:

As a fairly new editor, nearing 500 edits, now at 450+/-, I connected with your conclusion that we are in a "revolution" in language and communication, in journalism, linguistics, geography, and you wrote such a beautiful essay.

924: 3419:

The redirect is still appropriate as Jake Burns is mentioned in the target article. Whether Google still indexes that is up to them. Also, please don't delete my comments at AFD, or your own comments once I've replied to them. –

4025:

If this is expected to be a long term problem, there are phabricator tickets documenting the problem here. But the best solution is probably for WikiEd to host themselves inside of WMCS instead of in a heavily abused webhost.

1558:

I think you may be overestimating the amount of effort necessary to contribute to a requested move discussion. Personally, I try to make a single comment containing my !vote and a meaningful rationale, and leave it at that. –

2459:

Well, revisions may evolve, but there would still be two individual reverts on the book, regardless. But the heart of the matter is whether 1RR should reflect 3RR, or be less strict. I think they ought to be equally strict.

397:

Hello Bradv, I just wanted to issue an apology for previous edits I made on the Kim Jong Un talk page many months back. While the issue is over, I still wanted to issue a formal apology as I continue editing. Happy editing!

2709:

If people are asking to go back to widespread application of the "consensus required" rule, I would suggest that before doing that we try applying the rule to individual editors instead of entire articles. If editors like

4676:

Comments that include private evidence about other editors may not be shared publicly. If you have private information pertaining to paid editing that you wish to bring to an administrator's attention, please email it to

745: 4726:

There is occasionally a backlog, and sometimes things get missed. Also, I should note that we occasionally get emails from paid editors anonymously reporting their competition, and those don't usually get a response. –

1618:

I certainly disagree with some of your viewpoints, but as an arb who actively engages with large numbers of editors (your participation in the drug pricing case particularly impressed me) I'd much rather see you again!

2982:

I feel that if disputed changes are made to text which has explicit or implicit consensus those contentious changes should not remain in place through a discussion and RFC process that could extend for over a month.

3515: 4785:& would perfectly understand if you refuse to reply me, but I’d have to take my chance & ask all the same, I’m a very active anti UPE editor & would want to understand what happened with the block on 4194:

help guides, without complete understanding.) I'm also revising the piece to emphasize third-party (non-Budoshin) support, as well as making the tone less promotional and more neutral. I appreciate your help.

3120:

simply by one side having an extra editor, or in the case of just two editors, A adds (not a revert), B reverts (1RR), A restores (1RR) now the disputed content is in even though per, NOCON, it should be out.

3274: 2352:

A removal of longstanding text is not a revert necessarily. It may be involve the removal of material added by many editors. That removal should not be seen as having undone the edits by all of those editors.

180:

is in English. There are other English sources that talk about him and about trot music (popular with older people it seems) -- multiple spellings of Minho/Min-ho/Min Ho complicate finding them. I just found

3185:"What I have a problem with is regular, experienced editors ignoring ONUS etc. to simply revert because they say "this should be in."...ONUS is black letter policy, and the BRD guidance should be followed." 4608: 2056:

discussion. I don't want to make another mistake that I have to strike if I can avoid it. Is that too much to ask? I'm doing my best to adhere to our PAGs, but the harassment, bullying and aspersions are

977: 2880:

of ONUS, it is telling us only that among the set of all verified statements relating to any article, the article will incorporate only the subset that editors agree conforms to NPOV, speicifically DUE

3667: 3226: 1639:, thanks for your support and your kind words. I don't recall ever getting into a disagreement with you, so I'd be interested to hear more about these viewpoints that you "certainly" disagree with. – 3050:

I'm not entirely sure what conversation prompted this discussion, but I hadn't seen that one. I think this conversation is intended to be more general in scope, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. –

1788: 3365:

there is an agreement that the information is relevant, neutral, and properly sourced, it can be added back in. I have no preference – I'm just trying to offer a compromise and follow BLP policy. –

2599:

there is no fair way to apply our customary edit restrictions without giving a first mover or second mover advantage The effect is much stronger with DS, because a removal on insertion that strikes

311:

And I am referring to your superb reflection essay, reprinted below, so I will not forget to read again, and for others. I am going to email your essay to me, so I have your writing close at hand.

2294:

In my opinion, this is a flaw in the restriction applied to this page. Anyone can restore contested material without waiting for consensus to develop, provided they don't do it twice in 24 hours.

2697:

I would note that regular 1RR itself does not actually force talkpage discussion. It just slows things down (as Bradv noted elsewhere). The BRD sanction further encourages, but still doesn't

1809: 3453:

article is constantly getting vandalized by IPs or new accounts who change sourced material, is there a way to protect the article again? At least from new members and IPs? Best regards --

2490:

This doesn't strike me as a fair question – clearly you think the content is inappropriate, but others don't. Who decides whether it violates PAGs? Who decides who is gaming the system? –

1552: 335:

same applies if you are a new editor, or if you haven't yet made your first edit – please join us in our pursuit to document the sum of all human knowledge. After all, it is a revolution.

2511:

It is a fair question because you just confirmed that we need consensus to decide what is appropriate and the 1RR DS that you described prevents that from happening. Do you see my point?

143:, before I go and check through all these sources written in a language I don't speak, which would you say is the very best source in the article? Then I can just look at that one. :) – 3715: 2701:

discussion, by making people discuss before making their second revert (even if that second revert is days after their first revert). The "consensus required" sanction goes further,

2551:

bit more thought because what we're dealing with in the trenches is not fun and it's not good for the project when you read the criticisms about WP in the media. It would be nice if

4500: 3940:

If you want to go one step further and block every single IP in that /96 that isn't wikied, you can use these as well, but I don't know if Linode's addressing policy requires it.

992: 4167:

The draft is full of external links. If these are being used as references, please format them as references. If not, they should be removed from the body of the article, per

3317: 2410:

So they can only revert new material that was added without a history? Another editor can come along and revert that revert as long as they haven't reverted something else?

1425: 4651: 4419: 2529:

As I said in my first reply to you, the purpose of 1RR is to force discussion on the talk page, rather than through edit summaries. You can work it out on the talk page. –

359: 1346:, I recommend discussing your proposed change on the article talk page. And remember to discuss the content, not the contributors (e.g. don't reuse this section title). – 1302: 3748: 3710: 3269: 946: 4799:

but I can’t seem to find an SPI case file substantiating this, if you could explain what transpired there id be grateful but if you can’t, I understand perfectly well.

2555:

weighed in here, too, since he has been in the trenches, and is close enough to it to understand it from a hands-on perspective. I vaguely recall reading something from

4582: 2221:

Does it "undo another's actions"? I haven't looked into the history so I'll let you decide that, but by the letter of policy I suspect these edits count as a revert. –

1748:

Since you’ve blocked me on this page, it appears someone vandalism’s Larry Hogan’s name on this page. I ask that you please restore it since I am unable to. Thank you.

1535:(I do fully understand that per unwritten rules of enwii adminship, only the sysop who blocked a user can unblock them, so my request is not about unblocking but about 679: 4764: 4717: 4666: 4381: 4377: 4373: 4369: 4365: 1858:

Bradv, the week-long block on LBF from editing the page has expired. And, their editing behavior has resumed as it was pre-block. I can elaborate if you need me to. –

913: 1037: 4504: 4156: 4142: 3511: 595: 446: 3781:

for comment, as these were his instructions – I just removed the talk page access. And, to be honest, I haven't the foggiest memory of this. Hopefully ST47 does. –

871: 867: 863: 185:

which I am about to turn into yet another reference. Basically, he has in-depth multiple coverage and has won a major contest and placed in the final 6 of another.

4195: 4018: 4013: 4008: 4003: 3998: 3993: 3988: 3983: 3978: 3973: 3968: 3963: 3958: 3953: 3943: 750: 4299: 177: 3803: 981: 386: 105: 2280:

joined the discussion. I and I think Atsme are contending that this is gaming the system if not an outright violation of at least ONUS. So what do we do now?

1179:

I know why I was blocked, it was for edit warring. To go forward I will discuss before adding anything back so an edit war can be avoided. Does that meet it?

811: 4759:

The ugly truth that other paid editor taking the clean up work as a cover for their paid work. I'm not reporting competitors here, I'm reporting bad editors.

4058:

and on the first batch of 16 ranges I listed. And go ahead and email me if you like, I'm working on some other stuff ATM but I'll reply when I get a chance.

3948: 3933: 3928: 3923: 3918: 3913: 3908: 3903: 3898: 3893: 3888: 3883: 3878: 3873: 2914:

It's important to remember that in the beginning there was nothing, and then there was an encyclopedia. This did not happen by elevating the status quo over

2159:

The quote in particular is "generally people are allowed to make multiple reverts provided they are to different content" and it is in Brad's first reply in

1430: 327:

the power of the Internet. Never before in the history of the world has such a project been possible, but never before has such a project been so necessary.

4541: 4488: 988: 120: 3868: 3863: 4921:

Yeah, I looked into the history a bit more, and this seems to happen every time the protection expires. I've set the protection duration to indefinite. –

1901: 1435: 1257: 1318: 1306: 489: 3847: 3842: 3076: 1305:. Upon heading to the page, I saw several users apparently arguing over what persons to include and what language to use in reference to them, notably 1678:, I just see the campaign posters now. "Bradv: Wrong on admin desysoppings. Wrong on the usage of DS. Right for ArbCom. Vote bradv at ACE2020". Best, 1453: 3858: 3287: 2380:

content added by editor2. A few hours later editor3 adds different content — is editor1 allowed to revert this, as well? To be able to revert twice?

424:, I'm not entirely sure what this is about, but thank you for saying it. I hope you find satisfaction in helping to write an encyclopedia. Cheers. – 1317:, opting to change that to the reverse, "being confronted by a Native American activist." Since I believe both of those qualify as non-neutral POV, 135: 3045: 1116:. I'll be looking for two things: 1) that you understand why you were blocked, and 2) that you have a plan to edit constructively going forward. – 4831: 4594:

previously bothered on that page, including yourself. Could you please be sympathetic and unblock me? I don’t know what more you’d like me to do.

3729: 3436: 1965: 1883: 4559: 1288: 1014: 3588: 2756: 4291: 4272: 1922: 1846: 1832: 1800: 1782: 1236: 1206: 1188: 1147: 1132: 1087: 440: 3066: 3013: 2992: 1709: 1695: 1443: 1439: 4850:, set up to receive reports of undisclosed paid editing, including reports based on private information that may not be shared onwiki due to 4743: 4721: 4707: 4564: 4347: 4282:

procedures to gain privileges to this article again. Most likely the reviewing admin will ask you about it anyways. Thank you for your time!

2862: 2845: 1019: 4937: 4187: 3613: 261: 240: 222: 194: 159: 4887: 4871: 3680: 3507: 3412: 3381: 1197:

Honestly this is ridiculous. If I agree to not add this (or anything similar to this) back without discussion, will you please unblock me?

2773: 2110:. Do you really expect people to believe that you came here about a discussion that has been stale for 11 days, and not the discussion on 1737: 1670: 1655: 1602: 1581: 1575: 893: 855: 344: 4531: 4496: 3726:

user who started the RM was later CU blocked as they turned out a logged out user who was topic-banned from all topics related to Ukraine

3662: 3220: 3088: 3027: 2796: 1406: 1383: 1362: 1337: 1322: 783: 599: 3736: 3628: 3573: 3558: 3491: 2977: 2951: 2934: 4554: 4357: 2314: 2289: 2274: 2252: 2237: 2216: 2202: 2094: 1936: 1009: 2827: 2384: 2173: 1757: 4603: 4361: 4333: 3797: 3408: 2732: 2121: 845: 529: 4067: 4052: 4035: 3336: 3115:

editors have added the disputed content to the article. This appears to violate NOCON but as there are a few more of them than the

2576: 2545: 2524: 2506: 2445: 2423: 2336: 2077: 2023: 1493: 4203: 3816: 2485: 2464: 2405: 2357: 2183: 1265: 544: 4337: 2628: 2619: 1102: 1058: 552: 169: 4810: 4237: 4223: 3720:

Hi, you might want to change your opinion of tje Sep 2020 Kiev/Kyiv RM based on this new evidence. An admin Ymblanter recently

1093:

This is ridiculous! I didn’t edit the page even once after you gave me the warning. Please give me back editing privileges now.

4160: 1449: 1293: 1276: 415: 4768: 4670: 2186:, Mr Ernie's latest series of edits, which constitute one revert, would be disallowed by the revert less than 24 hours ago. – 1867: 508: 4304: 816: 4915: 2908: 4760: 4713: 4662: 4578: 3740: 3129: 2147:

an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

1420: 1033: 3532: 3202: 3079:

discuss on the talk page. I will say in just about every dispute both sides probably consider their arguments legitimate.

2178:

That is how I choose to enforce it, but I am fully aware that is more lenient than policy actually says. By the letter of

2058: 2049: 2041: 1630: 4907: 4152: 4138: 3351: 2135:

reverts of different material don't actually stack, but are counted as separate actions and not considered 1RR violations

802: 654: 3807:

we remove the account creation block on the /30 right away, as it will be preventing wikied from creating new accounts.

3597:. I simply don't see a consensus here, and no amount of insults or assumptions of bad faith are going to change that. – 2706:

content ends up in the article. The difference is in how long it took to get there and how much discussion was required.

1998: 3721: 3471:, I've semi-protected the article for a month. For future reference, the usual place to request page protections is at 2153: 859: 624: 371: 3111:

since the talk page has not been able to agree that a consensus has been reached for inclusion. In the mean time the

1171: 3642: 1594: 1590: 1585: 1544: 1532: 1520: 1301:

I was recently observing RecentChanges and noticed a large number of edits going by within a few minutes on the page

3462: 3340:

Would it be different if the subject had published the words on a social media account or official website? Cheers,

3033: 2037: 1468: 1700:

It's tough to see why my marketing rotation at my job didn't go so well! Nosebagbear for Bradv's campaign manager!

660: 636: 340: 4090: 3519: 2389:

If they're reverting back to the same revision, yes it is also a 1RR violation. This is how ANEW usually works. –

4574: 3404: 3387: 1029: 939: 797: 756: 630: 3771: 3521: 4527: 2678: 2673: 2668: 2663: 2658: 2653: 2648: 1138:

that I’ve made so many good edits that a block is just ridiculous! You should overturn this block immediately.

706:

is now at version 2.6.0, which updates including OOUI tweaks and the inclusion of banners for inactive projects

3071:

Based on Awilley's comment above and everyone involved here I believe it is related to the little edit war at

1313:, was in favor of keeping language describing him as "confronting a Native American activist," and the other, 499:

I knew there was something suspicious there - but couldn't put my finger on enough to do anything. Nice work.

3518:). On the other side, one of the editors who accused the "Kosovo side" got warned for aspersions by an admin 3176: 3170: 3164: 3158: 3152: 3146: 1743: 698: 536: 504: 382: 367: 4588: 4111: 3239: 694: 612: 1423:

on September 1. There seem to be atleast 3 different IPs continuing World War II editing from this range:

4776: 4199: 690: 459: 336: 277: 4127: 4621: 4599: 4287: 4233: 4219: 2997:

Sure, if it's a legitimate dispute and not just one or two editors who don't like a new development. –

1979: 1961: 1897: 1879: 1842: 1796: 1753: 1284: 1253: 1202: 1184: 1143: 1098: 1054: 722: 666: 663:

a script to help CheckUsers, SPI clerks, and patrolling admins with sockpuppet investigation case pages

648: 583: 411: 403: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 38: 4095: 3658: 3643: 3041: 2988: 591: 4115: 2429:

required" sanction would force the discussion to conclude before it could be restored, by anyone. –

4537: 3744: 3497: 3400: 2889:

about a general policy that we elevate pre-existing content. That issue is discussed in the essay

1043: 500: 378: 363: 4634: