User:DieSwartzPunkt/sandbox

Useful ANI on deletion of uncited material: ANI discussion

Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors.
is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering based artcles that he routinely watches. This is behaviour that was previously addressed by a Request for comment in 2012.

Since that time, Wtshymanski has continued to systematically revert any and all edits made by IP address editors. Many are vandalism (no problem), but many are good faith edits. There are far too many examples to document here, so I have restricted examples to just those from the past three weeks.

17th Feb

IP edit:

Wtshymanski revert:
 * This was a good faith and basically correct edit. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds of being 'ungrammatical and out of place'.  It could easily have been made gramatical and was exactly where it needed to be.

18th Feb

IP edit:

Wtshymanski revert:
 * This was a good faith edit and technically correct. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds that the output is not light despite infra-red often being described as "infra-red light" as indeed it is throughout the rest of the article.   Further: infra-red light emitting diodes are described as precisely that - "light emitting diodes".   The revert actually made the article worse because it no longer told the reader what the 900 nm output is (could be an electrical signal for example).

25th Feb

IP edit:

Wtshymanski revert:
 * The article was PRODed by Wtshymnski. The IP editor challenged the PROD by deleting it as he is perfectly entitled to do.  WTS simply reverted the deletion doubtless because he believes that IP address editors should not be allowed to challenge PRODs even though they are.  (The WP:PROD procedure clearly states that a PROD is aborted if the tag is deleted and it must not be rePRODed.)

25th Feb

IP edit:

Wtshymanski revert:
 * The IP editor's edit must be assumed by the WP:AGF policy to be a good faith edit, there being no evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless,  WTS has, characteristically not assumed the required good faith by reverting the edit as 'vandalism', and has done so by copy-pasting back an old version of the article (intermediate edits preventing a stright 'undo').  In his haste to revert yet another IP address editor, WTS also pasted back a spelling mistake and a 'coauthors' parameter to a CS1 template which is deprecated.  Thus WTS corrected one error but reintroduced two.

2nd Mar

IP edit:

Wtshymanski revert:
 * Again a potentially good faith edit from an IP address editor . Once again, WTS makes no pretence at assuming that the edit is good faith and it is dismissed as vandalism.   Another editor,  independently made the same point on Wtshymanski's talk page.  Nothing can be inferred from the editing history as the IP address resolves to a college in India so it is anybody's guess how many real users are behind it.

It is known that Wikipedia is always wanting to recruit productive editors for the project. Inevitably, many potential editors will start as IP address editors before creating an account - provided they find the environment welcoming. Wtshymanski has long held the view that IP address editors should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia and has said so (see RfC referenced above for more). This may be Wtshymanski's view but it is known that it is not the view of the project and Wtshymanski has no right to impose his view in the face of the project's

IP address editors can be productive and offer quality editing to the project. Deliberate wholesale reverting such edits does not provide the welcoming environment, that such editors need if they are to be encouraged to staty.

As evidence: a quick scan produces this IP address's contributions. This editor has made good quality contributions on UK parliamentary procedure; seems to understand the subject and the contributions have been well referenced. I suspect this may be an experienced editor, but if it is, I have not been able to link the address with any other or an account.