User talk:Toddst1

What can I do?

It does not seem to matter what I do? I have tried to respond in a calm and concie matter. I am not the one who has come back with dismissive responses. I am really trying to work out a peaceful solution. Still, it feels like a sword of death is holding over me and no matter what I do I am accused of being disruptive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Avoid that editor. Stop hounding and harassing him and stop canvassing others about him. See the note on his talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will try this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Canadian style?

I have to ask. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Feeling a bit cheeky - I've handed out a few dozen schoolblocks today. Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I figured you were being clever; I just mean, I don't get the reference, probably because I'm old and out of touch. I will accept, with the appropriate degree of shame, if it is so obvious that you choose to mock me instead. :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty out of touch myself. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

High-profile

I asked you this on my talk page, but I figured you weren't coming back since we pretty much finished what was going on. Anyway, why is Newtown High School (Connecticut) considered high-profile? You mentioned that on my talk page. The shooting didn't happen there and there's been relatively little activity in the article. A lot of what's been edited were the new accounts who don't understand how a "bad" person can be notable on Wikipedia. So why's that article high-profile? Sorry for the confusion but almost all the focus and editing is of course for a different school. Also, why was one revert considered edit-warring? Is it because one revert can be edit-warring if an article's considered high-profile? If so, how does an editor know if an article is considered high-profile? Thanks for protecting that page, though. You can reply here (if you want); I'll follow this thread. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - that pesky sleep thing delayed my reply.

There isn't a Wikipedia definition of high-profile, but I would say that Newtown High School (Connecticut) would fit that category. Basically, it's an article where a bunch of folks who normally wouldn't edit an article suddenly do because of current events. In cases like that we tend to look very closely at what's going on to keep things cool. For example on Talk: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, there were at least four administrators working in tandem on that page.

Compare that to Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for example. While it is a huge organization and theoretically has millions of people that might have a connection and want to edit, it is a very slow moving article.

Hope that helps. Toddst1 (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I realized I didn't answer your question about 1 revert being an edit war - sorry coffee hadn't kicked in yet:

If there is an edit war underway - as you said there was on that page, a new editor coming in and reverting one of the edit war participants' edits in favor of the other is edit warring. It's not WP:3RR with just one edit, but "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." An additional editor overriding the contributions is not helpful. Lots more info at WP:EW. Toddst1 (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the 3RR exemptions is: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). (emphasis added). If you look at the edit history of the article, you'll see that every edtior who removed Lanza's name had just that one edit, or a few edits at most. Some gave no edit summary at all, which in itself would allow a revert (unexplained removal of content), particularly because it was sourced content. And for those who did provide an edit summary, they were absolutely biased/emotional reasons, making them completely contrary to clear guidelines and the five pillars. Examples of the biased edit comments: "Notable and known are two very different things. Notable and newsworthy are two different things. If you want to name somebody notable, I'd invite you to name the principal who saved lives. That is a notable act.", "Killing children does not make somebody notable", and "He should not be on a list of noteworthy people". So unexplained removal of sourced content and bias warranted the reinstatement of Lanza's name, not to mention very clear policy (WP:PERPETRATOR). So instead of blocking me, I feel the editors who made those clearly inappropriate reverts should have been officially warned and educated on notability, preferably by an administrator like yourself. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I also don't understand why the only editor that was blocked (me) was someone who made one revert (with a clear edit comment), even though there were other editors who reverted multiple times, including one who reverted seven times. None of the others even received a warning, let alone a block. And my one edit wasn't until after I posted my detailed explanation on the talk page about the relevant policy. And as far as having discussion... first, this was a policy-based revert vs. an emotional-based revert. Second, the other editors refused to participate in the talk page discussion; you can't force someone to talk it out. But I chose the right path... going to the talk page first and clearly outlining the policy, which supplemented the great information by the editor who started the thread. Overall, I think you should have praised me for my actions (perhaps with some education), not block me. And with no commnication at all beforehand - no comment on my talk page, no warning, nothing. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

By your edit summary, you acknowledged you were edit warring and that you knew what edit warring was. That precludes the need for any warning. It doesn't matter if your edit was right or wrong, it was edit warring. This wasn't a 3RR block it was an edit war block. I unblocked you so I'm not sure what the issue is at this point. Blocks aren't punative - they're preventative.

As far as going to the talk page, yes, that's the right way to do it, but just because you posted there, doesn't mean you can continue the edit war. As far as not warning everyone edit warring, I'm trying to address the issues as I see them. There's a reason that there are at least 3 admins working that talk page and article now. Toddst1 (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I never acknowledged I edit-warred. At least that was not my intent. I explained why I truly felt what I did was in fact not edit-warring. And if a block is preventative, why not just write me and say... hey, I know you've only reverted once but here's why you shouldn't revert any more? So you saw my revert, but didn't see the editor right below me who reverted seven times? Or all the one-edit editors who were battling the seven-revert editor? I think my clear edit summary and talk page explanation may have stopped the battling between the others, since no one else had done it. But even if it wouldn't have worked, I was going to try an get an admin to protect the article, or at least watch it, for awhile. What was going on with all those one-purpose editors was a perfect opportunity for administrators or other experienced editors to contact them and educate them on notability. Btw, I do get what you're saying about 3RR vs EW. You're right, I shouldn't mix the two. Thanks for getting back to me. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There are many ways I could have handled this. Given my previous experience with you (you were pretty combative when I first ran across you - I want to acknowledge that this has changed significantly and thank you for that) I chose the course of action that I saw as appropriate. Given my positive interaction with you after your block, I unblocked you and have endeavored to engage you and educate you about some of the finer points of editing.

My advice is learn from this and move on. You're already unblocked and my actions were completely reasonable. You seem like you could be a very solid editor and I encourage you to sign up for a username. Let me know if I can be of help in the future. Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice comments and discussing this matter with me. I really appreciate it. Btw, I asked a policy question on the help desk a few hours ago about whether an editor actively involved in a talk page discussion is allowed to archive it. So far, no one wants to answer it. Haha. Hopefully, someone will. I just want to know for future reference. Anyway, thanks for your feedback and EW explanation. :) --76.189.123.142 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Be careful, 76.189.123.142. You might run out of butter. --213.196.212.146 (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Accepting outcomes

There has been no "outcome" as you put it, to the Sandy Hook debate, since you keep on shutting it down.

You sir, are abusing your position to enforce your opinion. I see from comments above that you have had this problem on other articles.--MacRùsgail (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your statements are inaccurate and inappropriate in many dimensions. Toddst1 (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)