User:Butwhatdoiknow/reminder

"Occasionally, even experienced Wikipedians lose their minds and devote every waking moment to edit warring over the most trivial thing."
A reminder that I am human and - unlike you - every once in a while I do stupid things.

Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains aconsensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ben(talk) 00:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You've previously recommended WP:BRD, which leads me to WP:DRbut you won't talk. So what is your next recommendation? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Block
You have beenblocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seekdispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

I suggest you use any other form of dispute resolution than edit warring.Kevin (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted the following unblock request:
 * I am guilty as charged. I knowingly violated the three revert rule and I am willing to pay the price. Now that I think of it, I am not guilty as charged.This edit was not a reversion but a modification, made in the spirit of compromise. Nevertheless, if the suspsension is lifted I will abide by my original request: I request that the suspension be lifted in return for my promise to make only 1 edit during the 24 hour suspension period, to wit: adding text to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring to respond to my accuser's charge that he, "and others, discussed changing the notice [with me] at length." This is a misleading half-truth. The earlier discussions with others related to the content - not the format - of the box. When my accuser - and only my accuser - later reverted my changes to the format I tried to talk to himhere. I made changes only after a week of his silence. See Silence and consensus. All I ask for is a fair chance to give a timely response to the accusation that has been made against me.

 [ There was no ruling issued on this request and the block expired at the end of the twenty-four hour period. - Butwhatdoiknow ]

Comments
I'd just like to point out that the accuser did three reverts and asked bwdik to talk in summaries, (123) but did not answer on his talk page. His strategy seemed to be to allow for three reverts each, forcing bwdik to either do a fourth revert or conceed. Jomasecu talk contribs 03:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I asked the editor to use the talk page, not talk in summaries, and I gave a link toWP:BRD. Furthermore, I warned the editor before they violated 3RR. Yet they continued to argue via edit summaries which lead to a violation of 3RR. Nobody's actions ever force an editor to edit war, and the options available to them are never just 'edit war' or 'concede' as you suggest. Finally, check the date stamps on my talk page before accusing me of such a ridiculous 'strategy'.Ben (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ben, good to hear from you at long last. Two questions: First, what prevented YOU from using the talk page? Second, what prevented you from using your own user page? (Or, at least, telling me on your user page that you would be happy to respond to my questions if I posted them on the talk page?) All that aside, I remain committed to finding out what your problem is with the info box re-formatting (something that no one else has objected to). Will you PLEASE educate me?Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The timestamps don't change things much. Even though they were old messages, Bwdik linked directly to them in summaries. Obviously, he still violated 3RR, but the both of you could have made a greater effort to talk. Jomasecu talk contribs 05:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that so? I went to great lengths to explain that I think our notices need to be as non-combative as possible on the evolution talk page. I also gave my thoughts on this new set of changes here, that was then acknowledgedhere. Is there some minimum number of times I need to repeat myself before I've made a good enough effort to talk? I always thought that minimum number would be 1, but hey, feel free to clear that up for me. The problem here isn't a lack of communication, it's edit warring. Ben (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your links seem to support Jomasecu's point that you were carrying on a conversation via edit summaries. (And the first edit summary response came more than a week after my post to your talk page seeking guidance regarding your concerns regarding formatting.)Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Though you claim that one of your edits was a compromise rather than a revert, it's a very minor difference from the others: it's a revert on an issue, if not a totally exact revert. In my opinion this certainly meets the technical definition of the WP:3RR... but even if it didn't you were clearly edit warring over this point.  There has been little input on this specific issue, but you have been told before that several other editors think the "Important notice" box is fine as it is, and apparently have gotten into edit wars over the FAQ.  Please desist from this kind of behavior: the FAQ is meant to keep drama away from the talk page, not to be a source of drama in itself.  Personally, if I had been handling the 3RR report I would have blocked both of you.  Ben may have not reverted a fourth time, but he was clearly gaming the system in order to push you over the 3-revert limit, and as you and Jomasecu point out he was not at all responsive about this issue.  Still, this is one of the WP:LAMEst edit wars I have ever seen.  I was going to decline your unblock request but I'll leave that to any other reviewing admins if they agree. Mango juice talk 18:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review this and comment. Butwhatdoiknow(talk) 19:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mangojuice, even if that was the case (and I think I sufficiently defended against that accusation above), that would have to be one of the lamest reasons for blocking someone I have ever seen.Ben (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ben, you posted links to diffs in which you simply reverted BWDIK's edits, with minimal if any edit summaries. That is not discussion and in any case discussion can't really take place while people are in the midst of reverting one another.  And contrary to your belief, edit warring, even when you think you are right, is indeed a perfectly valid reason to issue blocks, so consider yourself warned.  Mango juice talk 01:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dialogue
Ben, turning to the heart of the matter, why do you prefer prose to bullet points. Do you find bullet points to be "combative"? If so, how so? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You really should be asking this on the evolution talk page since I don't own the talk page and others may want to offer some input. Anyway, I have two problems with bullet points over prose. I was always taught that you should use prose over point form unless the context obviously calls for point form, for example, a shopping list. In most cases if you have a two point list (as you're suggesting) then it's likely you can substitute the word 'and' in place of point form. For example,
 * The following are animals:
 * Dogs
 * Cats
 * can be rewritten
 * Dogs and cats are animals.
 * Apart from what I've been taught, I find prose much easier to read and much less blunt. I think that overlaps with my earlier notes on being non-combative, but I don't think it's so much of an issue as your substitution of prose for bullet points.
 * One more thing I noticed as I was going back over the evolution talk page from the point where you made 'an attempt to head em off at the pass'. It seems to me that your own edits have caused far more controversy than the editors you're trying to head off. Of course that is just my opinion, but I think we should consider the case that you made no edits to the evolution talk page and corresponding FAQ. Would things be worse off there than they are now? I really think not, and it seems like a net loss of harmony if you ask me. I could maybe understand if these edits were in article space, but in meta space like FAQ's and talk pages? I can't believe you're pushing so hard.Ben (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for giving me some insight to your thinking. With regard to this particular issue I am going to take the advice of Mangojuice and let it be. If it means so much to you then change the info box back to the format you prefer and enjoy it.
 * Second, I understand that it is your opinion that the edits I have made have not improved the articles in which they appear. I hope you will you allow me to hold the opposite opinion.
 * Third, if harmony is your primary goal then I respectfully suggest that you may want to consider occasionally compromising a bit to achieve it. While I do not want to imply that I am anything less than 50% at fault for the recent ugly turn of events, I do want to suggest that at least some of those events could have been avoided if you had said to yourself: "I think Butwhat is wrong but, you know, he is acting in good faith, has backtracked quite a bit since his first proposal, and is now asking for a relatively minor reformatting. What the heck, I'll give that little tidbit to him in the interests of harmony." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're still welcome to bring it up on the evolution talk page, after all, maybe I'm the only one for prose over a list. It's not precious to me, I just have a preference. You're also still welcome to bring up any number of other suggestions on the talk page, but as I said a few days ago on that same page, maybe that should come before you decide to make changes and then potentially edit war over them.
 * I hope there are no hard feelings, I just didn't feel like reverting every time I checked Wikipedia over this. In all honesty I expected the admin that reviewed your block to check you were keen to restrict this dispute to a discussion on the talk page, which is what should have happened from the start, and then unblock you to allow that to happen. Unfortunately we ended up with a block happy admin that seemed more interested in taking punitive measures. Sorry. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)