User talk:Mystichumwipe/Archive 3

== Rachel Corrie ==

Mystichumwipe, your revisions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=509601550&oldid=509601510 replacing "said" with "alleged" seem to be a clear violation of WP:SAID. Can you explain why they are not? Please reply on Talk:Rachel Corrie. --Nbauman (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't reply there as I have been blocked for 24 hours (in a way that I consider unfair and possibly under a false charge) . Therefore forgive me if I answer here instead.

To answer your question. I now see that I made a mistake. I thought YOU wanted the word "asserted". I intended and thought I was undoing the replacing of the word "said" (which is neutral), with the unecessary and legal-sounding "asserted". That is why I gave this as a summary of my undo: replaced the one occassion of "alleged" with "asserted". I was agreeing that "alleged" should be rpelaced with a more neutral wording. But I didn't think that the wording "asserted" was better than the wording "said".

But I now see - to my great surprise - that I did the exact opposite of what I intended. For which you have my apologies.

(In other words I also prefer said instead of asserted. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Please undo your recent revert as the article is subject to 1rr and your edit disregards WP:SAID as pointed out. Ankh.Morpork 18:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. In addition, this edit is a copy-paste of a guardian article and is a copyright violation so must be rectified.

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit-warring and violating the 1-revert restriction on Rachel Corrie. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Mystichumwipe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I request that my blocking be lifted as the charge of 3 reverts is NOT accurate or fair. I made a series of separate changes to the article. So do not understand how these can be called "engaging in edit warring". It IS correct that I did TWO separate reverts/undos. But they were unconnected and unrelated so do NOT amount to 3 reverts of one contested point. 1. I undid one undo of mine where I had deleted uncited information, with the invitation that the editor who undid my edit could and should re-insert anything for which a verifiable source could be found. 2. The other undo was of someone who (I mistakenly thought?) had replaced all occurences of the neutral word "said" with the unnessarily legal sounding "asserted". These were my two reverts. That's it. This blocking therefore I argue has been based on a false charge. AND I was given no oppurtunity to reply to any questions on the discussion page nor revert before I was speedily blocked. And, as noticed by Adjwilley I was only warned about the 1RR restriction four hours after my last edit, and a half hour before I was blocked, making it implausible that I would be able to self-revert. Finally, the nature of this speedy blocking raises other serious issues. This blocking is over an article clearly of a controversial and sensitive topical subject matter. In my opinion it had clear misinformation with false citations, that appear to have been inserted deliberately (e.g. false quote allegedly from Hamas and cited falsely as being from an Observer article). That the editor (me) attempting to address that and 'clean' the article should be blocked within a few hours of doing that does appear to be a form of censorship. Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I accept your assurance that you will not make the same mistake again, but will abide by the 1RR, and I also agree with your comments about being blocked without much warning for a rule you did not know about. (However, I think your persistent accusations of "censorship" are perhaps a little paranoid: I see no reason to doubt that the block was purely for breach of the 1RR. As for 3RR, as far as I am aware nobody suggested you had broken it, so I don't see any relevance of it.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm OK with unblocking you as long as you understand that all articles related to Israeli/Palestinian relations are subject to 1RR and other discretionary sanctions, and as long as you agree to respect that restriction going forward. Frankly, your last paragraph almost convinced me that you should stay blocked, though. There's no "censorship" at work - this is a publicly edited encyclopedia; we have rules; you broke them; you got blocked. Anyhow, I don't object if another admin wants to unblock you on the understanding that you'll respect the 1RR. MastCell ^Talk 09:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Then please go ahead and unblock me. I of course know there are rules. And of course I accept and expect to have to abide by the rules. That should go without saying. If there is a 1RR rule in force here, then of course I will follow that.

But, I was (and still am) not aware of a 1RR ruling on any page that has "Israeli/Palestinian relations"? If that is so (and that is news to me) then my next question is, can you explain to me how I should have known that? I mean for the future, 'how does one know which articles they are?'. There is nothing that I can see even now on the Rachel Corrie page stipulating that. Is there something there on the page? Related to that, as that is/was not clear, I still don't understand how I broke any rule. And finally the speed with which I was reported without any practical attempt at discussion, seeems unfair. Plus getting blocked within half an hour of being 'warned', doesn't that seem rather impractical to you? How could I revert? Maybe it's just me getting paranoid, but the name of the user AnkhMorpork who reported me flashed warning lights in my head as I have suspected that the user AnkhMorpork has followed me around before undoing my edits on other articles. So that together with the speed of the blocking and that it was done without allowing adequate or reasonable time to discuss nor even revert, plus my understanding that I had not broken the 3RR rule still causes me to harbour some suspicions. So, if you could explain that and put my mind at rest on the 'censorship' issue I will be grateful.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Near the top of Talk:Rachel Corrie, there's a huge template with a bold-face all-caps heading entitled "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES". This template describes the 1RR restriction, and was present when you made the edits.
• I've added an editnotice so that whenever anyone visits Rachel Corrie and clicks on "Edit", they will be informed of the 1RR. However, this wasn't present when you made the edits, of course.

I accept your explanation that you weren't aware of the 1RR restriction - that's why I was fine with unblocking you. There isn't a "conspiracy" at work - just a lot of people who have seen more than enough agenda-driven edit-warring on these pages and don't have a lot of patience for it. MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Some causes of concern still remain. So please, if you could humour me further... The fact that the day of my blocking for 24 hours was on the day that the Rachel Corrie page had more topical interest than any other day in the last nine years is what is causing me to doubt that this was just a straight-forward blocking. That together with the fact that I was removing false information that had false citations. So, forgive me but may I ask what was the specififc reason for YOU blocking me 1.) within half an hour of a warning which you must have known left me no time to comply, and 2.) in a situation where you must have known NO discussion had been initiated on the talk page as is required, and 3.) where the 1RR restriction was not clear? That still doesn't make sense to me. I still don't see what reason you had to do that. (I would gladly have reverted my second undo as it was a mistake). Its the fact that I was blocked by apparently circumnavigating normal wiki policy, in a reporting by a pro_israeli user AnkhMorpork, on the day that the article had most topical interest in the last nine years, that is bugging me. That's why I STILL have lingering suspicions that this was politically motivated censorship. So in the interests of good faith for the future, please can you put my mind to rest and answer these specific questions. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You were reported to the edit-warring noticeboard, which is where I became aware of your situation (I don't follow the Rachel Corrie article, or for that matter any other article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to my knowledge). I was reviewing reports at WP:AN3, which is a common administrative function. I've handled many such reports, including a number of others on the day I blocked you.

Revert restrictions (1RR, 3RR, etc.) are bright-line rules. If you violate them, you're liable to be blocked from editing, with or without further discussion. There's no presumption that someone who's violated the bright-line rule must be given a chance to talk their way out of it, although in some cases people have done so successfully.

As far as politically motivated censorship, I'm sure if you dig far enough back you'll find me being accused of being both pro- and anti-Israeli and pro- and anti-Palestinian, depending on which particular ideologically driven editor I've sanctioned most recently. In my experience, when people who approach Wikipedia as an ideological battleground get sanctioned, they always view it as politically motivated, because they're incapable of imagining any other sort of motivation besides their own. Right now, you're pretty clearly falling into that pattern, which is a very common one on Israeli-Palestinian articles. I think your concern is more motivated by your own view of Wikipedia as an ideological battleground rather than by any rational basis, so I'm not sure what I can tell you that will set your mind at ease. MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I also have very little experience with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but judging by what I saw the block was not motivated by censorship. The other editors seemed to be concerned mainly that you were inserting a synonym for said which goes against Wikipedia's manual of style. When MastCell blocked you he was doing so under the (incorrect) assumption that you knew about the 1RR restriction. The user who reported you didn't notify you of the editing restriction in a timely manner, likely because they didn't know very much about that particular kind of restriction (most users don't) and what procedures should be followed (warn first; if the warning continues, then report/block); or because they too assumed that you already knew about it. In summary, we can safely assume that everybody was acting in good faith; even then, the system isn't perfect, and accidents happen. I'm very sorry about the block, but the best thing to do at this point is to shrug it off and move forward. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks to both of you for the replies and clarifications. I am reassured that you MastCell were not acting in a partisan fashion. So thanks for putting my mind at rest. :-) Perhaps one issue remaining is that of getting a 'warning' AND a blocking. On the one hand, if the 1RR rule is so tight and rigid, why not just issue a blocking giving the reason. The supposed 'warning' wasn't really a warning at all, which in this case unecessarily raised my suspicions. Another administrator wrote to me "Personally I would be very unlikely to block an editor for this without warning, unless it was perfectly clear that they were being highly disruptive." In this case I don't think there was any question of me being that. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions says "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions..." That administrator wrote "so it does not seem to me that you had in any meaningful sense been warned." Finally, that I was reported by someone with a clear pro-Israeli bias in an article with clearly false and misleading info serving that bias, on that special day , makes me conclude that an editor used the system to influence the slant of the page on that specific day. But that is an assumption/guess. So I will leave it here. Thanks again for the replies.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

CopyVio

Hello, You not allowed to added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder.Please revert all your edits that you copy-pasted from the sources.Please see WP:COPYVIO--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Can you be more precise on which you are referring to. I try not to do that, so would welcome you pointing to what or where exactly you think I have done that. Thanks.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

For example this edit [1] copied the source almost exactly also see WP:PARAPHRASE--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I fix that and paraphrase that now today, or if I do that will that count in your eyes as a 1rr infringement?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It may though I not sure I will not report you but someone else may.Why not wait another day.There is no deadline--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

But if the text already there and you correcting you own mistake is not revert.If there are still some copyvios left is the article you should correct them--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet another 1RR violation at Rachel Corrie

Mystichumwipe, please see WP:AN3#User:Mystichumwipe reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: ). You have made three reverts in 24 hours on an article which is under a WP:1RR restriction. If you agree to stop editing this article for a period of ten days you may be able to avoid sanctions. I take note that you have disputed your last edit warring block on this article, but you have no defence here. You are expected to understand the definition of a 'revert' which is given in WP:Edit warring. The 1RR rule is extremely clear cut and you are expected to follow it. If an admin blocks you again, it may be a longer one because you did not learn from the previous experience. EdJohnston (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Then I clearly do not understand yet the 1RR rule. (Though I have read the ruling twice now). Maybe you can explain the difference between editing the page and reverting something. I am understanding that I have reverted someone elses revert today, yes. But isn't that just one revert (1RRI) in a 24 hour period? And with my revert I have attempted to initiate discussion on to arrive at consensus. So I don't understadn how you say I have made 3 reverts?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't understand the 1RR rule, you should stay away from contentious articles. The report at the noticeboard lists three reverts by you in 24 hours, and they were all reverts. 'Attempting to initiate discussion' does not change the fact that something was a revert. This is your last chance to accept the above offer. You would have to agree to stay off the article for ten days. EdJohnston (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Ed, here's the thing: I think I do understand it. And I don't think I have broken that ruling. I will accept the ten day restriction if an administrator can show me that I have broken it. Are you an administrator? If so can you answer this: how have I reverted three times in a 24 hour period? "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." I haven't done ANY undos today! I have made one removal of info, but not within the same 24 hr. period as previously. I have explained my reasons and my edits at the arbitration page and at the talk page. Discussion could resolve this. I think AnkhMorpork is being disruptive. Plus is engaged in surrogate editing (getting others to undo my editing). Please see the diffs at the arbitration page. I have already had advice from an editor (see above) on the previous blocking that was apealed against and lifted.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The only edit to an article which is guaranteed *not* to be a revert is the addition of brand-new text which has never been in the article before, in any form. Removal of any existing text is generally speaking a revert. Occasionally, an admin will not consider it a revert if very old text is removed. Text which says that the bulldozer was 'clearing vegetation' is obviously very contentious. This was one of your reverts. It is conceivable that your change made the article better, but that is not for admins to decide. We are expected to count the reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I note you used the wording "...which is guaranteed not to be...". I.e. its not clear cut, is it. And you haven't answered the 24 hr period point. Nor have you answered whether you are an administrator or not.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Ed is an administrator. No, it is not always clear-cut. I once saw an editor (who was on a 0RR restriction) get indefinitely blocked for removing a phrase that had been added a few weeks previously and left untouched for that long. Other times the "first" edit is just counted as a "Bold" edit and not a revert. The history matters. In my example the editor in question had warred over the sentence a couple months before (earning him the 0RR restriction), after which he took some time off, and then tried to come back and game the system. The point is, you need to be very careful around articles with a 1RR restriction. If you're editing and somebody undoes one of your edits, stop editing immediately and take it to the article talk page. If somebody warns you that you've broken 1RR, self-revert immediately, apologize on your talk page, and then discuss the issue on the article talk page. If you're having trouble understanding what is a revert and what isn't, stay away from the edge of the cliff, and don't try to push any boundaries or find excuses for why you should be able to make multiple reverts. You might consider temporarily giving yourself a voluntary 0RR rule, and spending some time only editing the talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for continuing to breach the one revert rule on Rachel Corrie, despite being unblocked on the basis of an assurance that you would not do so. Contrary to what you seem to think, if you make an edit which reverses a change that another editor has made then it is a revert. It is as simple as that. Contrary to what you evidently think, on the basis of what you wrote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, it makes no difference whether the change you make changes a word to coincide with usage elsewhere; it makes no difference whether you believe that you are removing unfounded claims; it makes no difference whether the edit can be considered to be "cleaning the article": any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of any editors is a revert, and that is all there is to it. You seem to have to missed the point "do not edit war even if you believe you are right". No amount of arguing "the edits I made were right" is relevant. In fact, it would be completely pointless to have a policy which said "do not edit war unless you believe you are right", because in an edit war usually everyone involved believes they are right. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this really just a question of arithmetic, then? I'm not trying to be funny, I'm genuinely trying to understand how this works. So... If for example, I had combined all the seperate changes which I am now being blocked for, but combined them all into one single edit of the whole article (i.e. made them all at the same time), would that have counted as just one 1RR? Or - if I had done that (which I considered but thought to be unnecessary) - could someone have counted up each word of each seperate subsection or each sentence removed or changed and declared that each one was a seperate1RR infringement? Basically, I'm wondering is it decided upon 1. amount of each individual separate reverts or 2. amount of changes within a revert? Do you understand?? Because if its 1, then it would seem easy to have avoided this (got around this infringement). :-? Just for the record, I wasn't really arguing that my corrections were 'right' (although lack of a cited source is clearly a wiki infringement, which also is not something that can be argued about) I was arguing about what exactly constitutes a 'revert'. As I now understand it from you, editors making ANY change (not only just removing, but even subtly tweaking a sentence by just one word) is 'reverting' and anything other than adding material is a 'revert'. Summary: 'If its not adding then its reverting' Is that it? And even if I am blocked, will anybody now look at the possible infringements of Ankhmorpork that I detailed? Surrogate editing and editwarring. They did after all revert back the info that has got me blocked and without discussing it or initiating discussion.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: One big edit of the whole article=1RR. One small edit=1RR. Two small edits back to back (with nobody else's edits inbetween)=1RR. Two small edits separated by somebody else's unrelated edit=a bit fuzzy, but bordering on 2RR. Two small edits separated by someone's revert=2RR. Five uninterrupted small edits back to back that equal the one big edit=1RR. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the clear explanation. Much appreciated.:-) --Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mystichumwipe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I request an unblocking for the following reasons.

• I now understand (especially after Adjwilley's explanation) what exactly is considered a 'revert'. I didn't understand so clearly before. So the block is no longer necessary as I will not infringe the 1RR rule again, and I do wish to make productive contributions.
• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (my infringement was due to a genuine misunderstanding and was not wilfully disregarding the rules).
• I made four series of edits back-to-back that were mostly additions to the article which Is why I did NOT consider them a revert. I deleted other sentences which was clearly a revert. I accept that. After my first blocking I originally understood that only clicking 'undo' on a diff was a revert. I thought you lifting the block supported that view. I now understand better. And, contrary to what you wrote when you blocked me, I do not think reverting does not apply if I think my revert is 'right'.
• I did remove a sentence of infomation as it had no verifiable source and for which a reliable one does not exist (I did a search). As verifiability is a core pillar of Wikipolicy and a minimum requirement for the inclusion of material (WP:VER), I therefore thought that removing it falls within this exemption allowance, from the article on 'Edit_warring: The_three-revert_rule', where it says "Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article. So can this not be regarded as acceptable editing that was not editwarring/reverting, if considerable leeway is allowed in this case?
• I ask for clemency (the 'misunderstanding' appeal with which i started this request for an unblocking)..

Decline reason:

Block has expired. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm sure several administrators have read this and moved on. I'll be frank with you; the primary consideration in removing a block is "will the disruptive behavior continue?" In this case, you start off with some recognition of the problems, then immediate try to dissect why you feel exempt, using the same spurious logic we've heard a million times before. Do you really feel that the extremely limited exception for featured articles currently on the main page somehow relates to your situation? I'm sorry, but the continued confusion and blaming other editors for your situation makes it highly likely that you will simply return to the same article and repeat the same problems. Please read Ed's offer to you before the block, and re-factor your request to indicate that you clearly understand the real issue here. You need to propose something that will rectify the situation. Kuru (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. And for the frankness. I appreciate that. I don't know what "featured articles currently on the main page really means. But... Anyway I have deleted some of the reasons for my my request, as I understand it if it came across as uncessarry quibbling, when what I wanted to for was explain my initial confusion. Now just the guts of my initial request remains. Can you take a look?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)