User:Butwhatdoiknow/sandbox2


 * Because FS' explanation of FS' actions seems to amount to "Butwhat made me do it," I'll respond to FS' comments regarding my behavior first. Then, at the end, I'll propose an alternative approach FS might consider going forward.
 * FS' judgment that none of my policy/guidance/essay edits have any value.
 * With regard to my bona fides, I offer my reorganization of wp:Layout from June 2008 through December 2008. The basic structure I set up remains in place to this day. More recently, and using FS as the judge, I point out that FS did no further reverts once I swapped out the offending phrase from wp:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". This suggests that FS found the content of the three months of edits FS had reverted the week before had value. Finally, I note that FS is the only editor who has employed wholesale reverts to my edits. I have been editing well watched pages. Why does FS stand alone in finding all of my edits valueless?
 * FS' statement that I did not articulate an objective for the wp:CREEP changes FS reverted.
 * As a preliminary matter, I note that each of my edits that FS mass reverted was accompanied by an edit summary explaining the rationale.
 * My conversation with FS regarding CREEP began with me asking "Did you find nothing worth keeping in all the edits made in the past month and a half?" FS did not answer this question and, instead, replied with a new question: "Please explain first *why*?" Feeling that a generic "to improve the article" would not be meaningful, I suggested we look at each of my edits individually and, starting the first one, I explained my rationale for that edit. FS gave a two part response. I followed up regarding one of the parts.
 * FS replied with silence. I pinged him and he responded by repeating "Please explain first *why*?" I replied:
 * You reversed a month and half of edits. There is not a single "why." Instead, there are separate whys for each edit. Hence, I responded to your "Please explain first *why*?" post with "Okay, let's start with my first edit. The answer to your question as to that edit is ..." In short, my November 17 post was a continuation of our first *why* discussion. I look forward to your substantive response.
 * FS responded: "If you want to discuss one by one that's OK for me. I replied to that one. But the rationale for a single edit doesn't answer my over-all "why" question ..." I replied:
 * Why did I make all of those edits over a month and a half period? Because I thought they improved the article. You disagree. I don't see how we can resolve our differences if we don't look at whether each edit did or did not improve the article.
 * FS was evidently satisfied that I had articulated an objective at that time as we then resumed our discussion of his two part response to my explanation for the first edit. I don't know why FS now thinks I failed to honor his request that I explain why I was editing wp:CREEP.
 * FS' summary of the wt:Avoid_instruction_creep discussion.
 * FS's mass revert took place before any discussion on the talk page. The discussion that followed ended as far as FS was concerned when FS went into silent mode. You can pick up the rest of the history here. (And yes, I now understand that I should not have reverted on December 16. And, for what it is worth, I did not revert again when FS promptly reverted my revert.)
 * Bottom line: There was no discussion of "changes." Only the first one. And that discussion ended when FS began ghosting the discussion.
 * FS' complaint regarding "similar actions on other guidance pages."
 * I'm not sure what FS means by "similar actions." Editing is what editors do. I try to make small edits to give other editors a chance to revert. That is what I did on wp:CREEP for a month and half before FS arrived on the scene and what I did on wp:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" for three months before FS arrived on that scene. Each of those edits is supported with an explanatory edit summary.
 * FS' complaint regarding time consuming discussions.
 * I think FS has hit on something upon which all three of us can agree: trying to reach consensus through discussion is a royal pain in the posterior. We all wish that every one of our edits would pass without objection. Or, if they raise an objection, that the objecting editor will quickly see the wisdom of our approach. But that is not reality. If you sign up to be a Wikipedia editor you sign up for time consuming and sometimes frustrating discussions in search of consensus.
 * FS' characterization of me having a "counter-productive attitude."
 * I'm not sure what this refers to. I'm human and not perfect, but when I am in discussion with another editor I try to see their point and respond to it. In fact, I have done just that with respect to an FS issue.
 * How to proceed?
 * FS believes I have nothing remotely useful to contribute to policy/guidance/essay pages and I'm wasting everyone's time. In that circumstance I suggest that - instead of being a one-person judge, jury, and executioner - the proper course would be to take the matter to an administrator (Hammersoft, for example) to get a second opinion and to take whatever remedial action toward me that the administrator determines is appropriate. Of course, the administrator may conclude that my contributions are not counter-productive. In that case I would hope that FS would re-evaluate their approach to determining the merits of other editors' contributions - and their approach to dealing with edits that they find valueless.