User:VonBlinkendenzwoelf/Samples of stubbornness

Talk about collaboration... Below, a collection of discussions that did not end up in a satisfactory way for anybody nor anything involved. So if you are reading this because I posted a new section on your talk page after you did something I do not agree with, and you feel that things are going to end up the same way, may I suggest that you save both of us the time and frustration: simply delete the section I just added on your talk page, mentioning "Rule#1" as summary. I will understand and leave you alone.

The name of the other party and IP addresses were redacted in the samples below. My own post-discussion comments appear in green.

Your revert on Greaves Cotton (July 2016)

Context: I clicked some "next random page that needs fixing" link until finding a company page that looked easy and non-controversial enough. Visited the referenced websites, removed most corporatebuzznoise, cleaned up typo and structure, added a few details I found on the sources already mentioned and, what a mistake, removed all the issue templates. Some Patroller noticed and hastily reverted (rather than fixing, see, fixing is not productive when productivity is measured in raw number of edits), stating in her summary "the items you added where not sourced not were they neutral in tone - you addressed none of the issues raised by the tag so restore those as well". That pissed me off a bit, but still, bad justification is better than no justification. So I wrote on her talk page:

Hi Patroller,

I recently spent some time attempting to clean up some random page: Greaves Cotton. The result was certainly perfectible, but then I still believe that it was at least a bit better after my edits than before I started.

Then, in certainly no time and with probably no fact checking other than "oh I don't see references spread all over the changes, REVERT!!!!" you reverted all that work with that comment: "the items you added where not sourced not were they neutral in tone - you addressed none of the issues raised by the tag so restore those as well".

Your revert reintroduced a whole paragraph of advertising, dismissing cleanups that were probably worth keeping. I think it is a regression. That is, I think the page is in a worse state after your revert than before. That is, I think your job today on this article is even worse than mine.

I also fail to see what was "not neutral in tone" in my changes. I also don't think that I adressed "none of the issues".

It would not have bothered me if you actually took the time to fix what was wrong yourself, check facts and add Holy Sources where you think they are needed. Remember: assume good faith.

But no. Revert, walk away, move on.

This makes me sad, as it shows a total lack of respect for the work of others, for newcomers, and I think, for the project. And from my limited experience here it seems that this pattern of behaviour is shared by a significant number of experienced editors. Which makes me even more sad.

So. What happens now, if anything?

Cheers, VonBlinkendenzwoelf (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You have to ask yourself "if experienced editors are doing one thing and I am doing another" where might the problem lie. WP:BURDEN notes that refs must come with the addition of new info - not at some later date down the road. You might try creating a WP:SANDBOX to work on the changes you want to make in the article first. Patroller (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you totally missed the pointS and besides that resorted to a well-known fallacy named Argument from authority. I think I had valid concerns noted above, you adressed exactly none of them. It was supposed for anybody to be able to make incremental changes on articles on this project, but thanks to the army of trigger-happy reverters patrolling around this is now about easy, pleasant and likely to be successful on the first week than preparing letters of credit for emergent countries.

But moving on. I guess now that nothing more will happen and that the page in question will stay in its current sorry state for an undeterminate amount of time until someone else than you and me decide to work it? Or you show - not tell - me how it should have been done? Cheers, VonBlinkendenzwoelf (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion deleted 5 min later, 03:27, 15 July 2016, with the summary: that attitude means that this conversation can serve no further purpose - so into the dustbin of history it goes. Whose attitude again? Anyway I thanked our Patroller over that (abusive) deletion, with this move she convinced me to keep the log you are currently reading.

About your way to handle reverts, warnings and protection requests (July 2016)

Context: attempted to mention a company worth mentioning on two pages. The sequence of events is a bit complicated, as there is another Patroller involved. This Patroller reverted my edits with no summary on both pages, I reverted Patroller's revert on both pages stating that the reverts were unexplained, Patroller re-reverted both pages with still no summary THEN posted a warning on my user page for IP1, an explanation on other Patroller's talk page and a vandalism blocking warning the user page for my IP2 (the connection I was on at the time switched randomly between 2 IPs) in a period of 5 minutes, then requested 20 minutes later requested protection for both pages. In the meantime, discovering the abuse I posted my own warning on his user page.

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to 0.0.0.0. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.

Patroller, it's your own behaviour that is wrong and unconstructive. I have justified my edits and they certainly do not constitute vandalism. On the other hand, your reverts without any explanations (they only came when I started arguing) are questionable. As such, I have added a warning to your own user page, hoping it will draw the attention of some "authorities" to explain you again what's wrong with what you did and how you did dit. Cheers, 0.0.0.0 (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Patroller promptly removed my warning on his page, leaving his warnings on my pages, and replied.

I have provided feedback for you on 3 different venues. Please do not pull my leg and learn to listen to advice given to you on Wikipedia. There's no use in going against people who are trying to make you see how things are done over here. You very well know that your behaviour wasn't constructive, in fact you even resorted to sneering at 2 editors who were trying to help you. Leaving ironic and disrespectful edit summaries does not constitute proper discussion. I am glad to see you've learnt your lesson and are now willing to familiarise yourself with the encyclopaedia's policies and guidelines. Cheers, Patroller (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Where "provided feedback" means "posted warnings" on my 2 user pages, and writing this on the other Patroller's talk page:

Lists on Wikipedia contain existing articles. For it to be included it fist needs to have one. GMC Software might pass WP:CORP and WP:GNG. You might be interested in creating the article yourself. See WP:YFA for a tutorial on how to do so. It is also good to listen to more experienced editors than you, and not engage in snark talkback; remember we are a collaborative project. Also familiarise yourself with WP:COI and let us know if you need further guidance. Best, Patroller (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Back to our Patroller's talk page, my answer:

The feedback came a wee bit late after some insistance, you still won't admit your own wrongs ... it seems that some lesson wasn't learnt somewhere (but don't worry: in my experience it can take some significant time for that kind of lesson to get through). Still, I would appreciate apologies and the removal of the warning. Sans rancune. Cheers, 0.0.0.0 (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The onus is on you to read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'm not your boss. It's likely Wikipedia's just not for you. Patroller (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not a question of policies and guidelines, but rather of psychology and education. Fortunately for you (and me) I'm not your boss either. You're clearly way better than me at enforcing Rule #1. Cheers, 0.0.0.0 (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what the hell you're on about. The rules are pretty simple: lists on Wikipedia are about articles that exist. You didn't follow it, hence the reversals by several editors. Stop your whinging and either move on or leave. Patroller (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

My point is (again...): when you do such a reversal, please mention the reason in the summary. Without a reason stated the author of the change will have a hard time guessing the exact reason of the revert. Isn't that clear? Wasn't that clear? And, more importantly, will you do that from now on, that is, edit the summary and add a comment such as "revert: link to a non-existant page Wikipedia:Red_link"? By the way, did you read and understand the red link policy in question that does absolutely not give you a valid reason to remove my edits (in other words: you acted against what is actually written in the policy)? Cheers, 0.0.0.0 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Conversation ended here. Then the request for protection stayed pending for a while until an admin less careful than others granted it, while it took some time for another more careful admin to dig into WP policies until he finally found the only place where the rule that was used to justify rejecting my changes was documented -- in a warning template, unfortunately none of those what were used in my case). Later our not-too-careful admin declined to cancel the unnecessary protection, and to tell our Patroller that his behaviour was abusive.

Further reads

• Don't be dense
• Criticism of Wikipedia: Editorial process, Notability of article topics
• Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014-06-22). "The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia". Slate.com.
• Auerbach, David (2014-12-11). "Encyclopedia Frown: Wikipedia is amazing. But it's become a rancorous, sexist, elitist, stupidly bureaucratic mess". Slate. Retrieved 2014-12-17.
• Sjöberg, Lore (19 April 2006). "The Wikipedia FAQK". Wired. Retrieved 11 April 2014.