User talk:Susan belt74

November 2014[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Middle East Eye. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Susan belt74 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think any reasonable reading of the article history will show that I tried to do everything in my power to deal with the situation in the face of a likely employee of the subject who is unwilling to repeatedly document his repeated reversions. I have been insulted, threatened, and otherwise subjected to abuse by this same editor who was warned before. All I have been trying to do, and will keep trying to do, is preserve the non-controversial and factual content of the article.The latest dispute was set off when this same editor changed direct quotations from a source to a version which was demonstrably not what was printed in the article and removing other content with no explanation because he stated that he and his attorney considered it "unfair." I tried to explain everything that I was doing and asked repeatedly for an explanation of why this content was being altered with no success. I also followed the above guidelines which suggest "first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus" and then to see page protection which I also did. It seems rather odd that I have been treated on the same level and blocked only because I was undoing vandalism in the form of repeated, unexplained reversions.

Decline reason:

Content disputes are not vandalism. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 understand that certainly but the issue went far beyond a content dispute. Sometimes, I wasn't even done explaining my edits before the article was reverted and I never changed anything without explanation. I only start reverting when this editor was repeatedly undoing my edits without explanation and again with seconds of my changes. If you look at the history, another administrator had been undoing his reverts yesterday on the grounds of vandalism and as I understand WP policy, it is not "edit warring" to restore content which is being repeated deleted without explanation.

Honestly, I really need to know how to handle a situation where an editor changes an direct quotation from a newspaper article to language of their choosing?

Susan belt74 (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

What you shouldn't do (and what you should) is made clear in Wikipedia:Edit warring. There is not an exception which states that because someone else is edit-warring, you can do the same... AndyTheGrump (talk)

Again, I understand this but the policy states "Reverting vandalism is not edit warring." If you will check the page history, the editor's exact same revert behavior had been undone at least twice by an Administrator on the basis it was vandalism:

(cur | prev) 15:48, 20 November 2014‎ AsceticRose (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (3,103 bytes) (+203)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by George john6868989 identified as test/vandalism using STiki) (undo)

So, I was honestly confused as I considered what I was doing to be on the same basis.Susan belt74 (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AsceticRose isn't an administrator, and had only reverted the edit once (with what I consider an inappropriate edit summary in the circumstances). And you need to read Wikipedia:Vandalism - "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". I think you would be hard pressed to prove that George john6868989 was intending to "compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Instead, he seems to think his version of the article is correct. He may possibly be wrong, but that doesn't in itself make his edits vandalism, which requires intent. This is a content dispute, and content disputes aren't solved by edit warring. Come to that, neither is vandalism. If you hadn't been stopped, would you have gone on indefinitely? We have ways of dealing with actual vandalism - and ways to decide whether vandalism is occurring. These involve, like most other problem-solving methods on Wikipedia, getting outside assistance. Next time, ask for help. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Susan belt74. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
Message added 12:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ged UK 12:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again[edit]

Not even an hour after your previous edit-warring block expired, you resumed your edit war with Special:Diff/635668012. As such, I've blocked you again, this time for a week. Once this block expires, don't immediately go edit that article again. Discuss your proposed changes on the talk page first and wait for them to get consensus. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of House of Wisdom for Conflict Resolution & Governance for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article House of Wisdom for Conflict Resolution & Governance is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Wisdom for Conflict Resolution & Governance until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Longhornsg (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]