User talk:2601:184:497F:6B60:30D3:69CC:C019:DA41

Your recent editing history at Ross Perot shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Which part of it is harassment? He followed my edit history to revert my edits after noticing one edit that he disagreed with (because he didn't bother to read the referenced source before reverting it). So, upon noticing that he had followed my edit history, I did the same and reverted his edits that I felt were an abuse of Twinkle. He placed a warning on my page. I placed a warning on his page. If either action constitutes "harassment", then he's as equally responsible as I am. 2601:184:497F:6B60:30D3:69CC:C019:DA41 (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have multiple venues to resolve this. Instead, you decided to follow them around reverting edits and started edit-warring.

(CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

No, you did not read that correctly. He followed my edit history and started edit-warring. Then I followed his edit history and started edit-warring. So the question is, why aren't you taking this out on him? 2601:184:497F:6B60:30D3:69CC:C019:DA41 (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I have very little time for people who mass revert 200 edits over an hour without reading the context to see if they are legitimate constructive edits. Not all unsourced edits are to be removed; the vast majority of edits do not include the addition of a new source, because many of these changes may be corroborated by existing sources in the paragraph. This was the case of my two edits. The onus is on him to show that they might be controversial. In most of the cases of edits he reverted that I also reverted, those changes are not remotely controversial. This is an abuse of Twinkle, and he's done it apparently over months over thousands of pages.2601:184:497F:6B60:30D3:69CC:C019:DA41 (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are reverting edits that are incorrect. This is disruptive and your answers cleary don't justify it.

(CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I have no idea if that particular description is correct or incorrect. Here's the fun part: neither does that other user. Yet he's reverting thousands of edits on different topics per day, most of which don't have any obvious violations of Wikipedia policies beyond that they're unsourced, and there's nothing in Wikipedia policy that says every single edit must include a new source. Tell me that's not massively disruptive behavior from someone who's obsessed with his edit count. 2601:184:497F:6B60:30D3:69CC:C019:DA41 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From

(CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

All *material* must be verifiable. Not all edits. The vast majority of constructive edits are rephrasing or rewording, and many of them are contained within a paragraph that are *already sourced* comprehensively by books and articles. This was the case of the Ross Perot edit. This was also the case of many other edits that he reverted.

Take for instance, here's a combined 3 edits that were reverted by Sunday, before I reverted any of his other edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Stockdale&diff=985233493&oldid=985221364

This was a rewrite, mostly to remove a few awkward phrases. Explain to me which part of that is not verifiable. The only unverifiable word in the entire paragraph was in fact *removed* by my edit (the claim that he was "slow-witted"). The two lines added by me as part of the rewrite was included in the source, which describes the "large glasses" moment.

So he disagreed with my edit on Ross Perot, decided to follow my edit history, assumed my other edits were also disagreeable, and quickly reverted 3 constructive edits. Then I followed his edit history, assumed most of his other reverts were also incorrect, and I quickly reverted a number of reverts. Why is one approach disruptive but not the other? In fact, why is his approach not immensely more disruptive than mine, considering he's undoing good-faith edits from thousands of different users who are likely more knowledgeable about a specific topic than he is, and in many cases have read the sources while he clearly doesn't have time to? 2601:184:497F:6B60:30D3:69CC:C019:DA41 (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: Since User:JJMC89 blocked me, also pinging him here to explain why I'm incorrect. Specifically, why can a user follow another user's edit history to mass revert good-faith edits, yet another user can't follow his edit history to mass revert his reverts? 2601:184:497F:6B60:30D3:69CC:C019:DA41 (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example. User:Kleo3 makes a number of good faith edits to Prelingual deafness, a topic which he appears to very familiar with. None of his changes seem contentious, and judging by my quick glance at the sources cited in the article, all of the changes he makes seem corroborated by the sources. He also corrects a few grammatical errors and takes care to capitalize "deaf" when used to refer to Deaf people as a community, which has become a widely accepted and applauded change. User:Sundayclose reverts these edits after noticing another edit on hearing loss that he made (which I agree was unsourced and should be reverted). In essence, User:Sundayclose noticed one incorrect edit, decides to follow another person's edit history, and mass reverts other good faith changes within minutes; and some those edits were completely legitimate. Why is this not disruptive behavior?2601:184:497F:6B60:30D3:69CC:C019:DA41 (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]