User talk:71.212.31.95

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guarantee you that for each and every Wikipedia article, there is someone on this planet who would think it's POV. We do not allow drive-by NPOV tags.

A very old, and very tiresome, game is for some partisan to tag an article whose facts he finds inconvenient. He refuses to explain exactly what is disagreeable, merely maintaining there is a disagreement. He does this to cast discredit upon uncomfortable facts. If he actually had an issue with the presentation, rather than the facts, he would explain in some detail where the bias lay. Our partisan does not do that, because it is the facts themselves he dislikes. Such a partisan can never be satisfied, because his objections cannot be answered, because he has not specified them, because they are with the facts. Longtime editors here are quite familiar with this partisan and with his games. If you are not this partisan, then you should change your approach. We are all highly wary of your position, out of long experience, and with good reason.

The bottom line is that you can add that tag as many times as you please. And every time you do, it will come right back off. That is, until you explain your specific objections. About 10 editors have told you this now. Derex 00:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Derex, in this case not only is the NPOV disputed, the article is obviously not NPOV. The NPOV tag is fully warranted. The NPOV tag should not be removed simply as a knee-jerk reaction (however traumatic some previous experience may have been). In this case, the NPOV tag was removed from a clearly biased article, damaging Wikipedia's integrity and reputation. In future, please don't remove the NPOV tag without making at least a minimal effort to determine whether the NPOV is genuinely disputed. 71.212.31.95 01:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
So, you don't consider about 100 people asking you what the problem is a "minimal effort"? That's delicious. Derex 01:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
What I mean by a "minimal effort" is just taking a quick look at the most recent part of the Talk page to see if the NPOV of the article has been disputed. If someone won't do that, I can't take their question seriously. 71.212.31.95 01:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
That talk page has 37 separate, lengthy, topics on it. Give me a fucking break. Instead of expecting everyone else to read your mind, you could have just given a one-sentence explanation or a link. Derex 18:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't expect anyone to read my mind. I just expected some minimal effort to ensure there were no NPOV concerns before removing the tag. Significant NPOV concerns were raised in just the third section back, and the two intervening sections were only a line or two. It didn't take any effort for me to find it. Also, the issue should have been obvious from reading the introduction of the article. So I was rather annoyed by my perception that there seemed to be a lot more interest in getting rid of the tag than in ensuring an NPOV article. If someone had said "I looked over article and the recent part of the Talk page and really can't see any problem", or otherwise persuaded me that they'd made a genuine effort to look, I probably would have responded to that. I'll concede that I could have been more tactful. But even after it was definitely established that there were legitimate NPOV concerns, there was still obstruction of my attempts to include the NPOV tag, as I knew there would be. 71.212.31.95 19:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
You may have a valid grip with the person who removed the tag. But, I didn't do that, and neither did most of the others. Sure, in a talk page with a couple sections I would have looked around myself. But, a quick glance at the topic listings made that seem quite unappealing.
I'll point out two things. First, I asked you what your gripe was, because I wanted to improve the article. Second, I agreed with you on the specific instance you pointed out. I now believe that you have an honest misunderstanding of accepted use of that tag. Hopefully, the discussion I've started on the NPOV dispute page will evolve into a consensus clarifying that issue.
You need to let the tag go now. Instead, focus on improving the article. Once you've made some serious editing contributions, people will become more trusting of your sincere alarm for Wikipedia's credibility. Derex 19:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
You didn't remove the tag, but you do seem to believe that your agreement is required for me to include it. I don't. So if you're going to insist that I get your approval before adding the tag, I can't agree to that. And if you're asking for specifics for you to review as a condition for putting in the tag, I can't accept that. And that's what you and the others seemed to be doing. If that's not your position, just let me put in the tag and then we can work to resolve the substantive issues. Once the tag is in, I'll be happy to do that. But the main value of the tag is to let readers know that the NPOV of the article is in question. That's true now, so the tag needs to go in. And it needs to stay in until my concerns are resolved. It may be that the concerns can be quickly addressed, and the tag can come out right away. Or it could take a long time. But until there's a resolution, the tag needs to stay in. 71.212.31.95 20:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --waffle iron talk 23:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anyone's edits. I've just inserted the NPOV tag. Please see the Talk page. 71.212.31.95 23:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I did not make any further attempts to insert the NPOV tag after receiving your warning. I was blocked anyway. Did you request this block? I do not believe the block was justified, for the reasons explained below. I would appreciate your response. 71.212.31.95 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule, which stipulates that no editor may revert a page more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Please do not continue. If you read the three revert rule, you'll notice that what you are doing is a revert, as you reverted to a previous version 4 times, the previous version being the version with the npov tag. The block will expire in 24 hours.--Heah? 23:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|Good Faith}}

I believe you have blocked me in error. As I explained above, I haven't reverted anyone's edits. I haven't changed the content of the article in any way. I've simply inserted the NPOV tag. I've inserted the NPOV tag to indicate that the NPOV of the article as currently written is disputed. That's what the NPOV tag is for. Attempts to revert the NPOV tag are inherently unreasonable, because the attempt itself demonstrates the existence of a dispute and therefore justifies insertion of the tag. One cannot logically deny the existence of a dispute and at the same time participate in one. In addition, an important purpose of the NPOV tag is to avoid edit wars: "By linking to this page from an article, a dissenter can register his or her concern without unduly upsetting the author(s) or maintainer(s) of the article, and without starting a flame war. Others would maintain, however, that linking to this page only postpones the dispute. This might be a good thing, though, if a "cooling off" period seems required." Permitting edit warriors to remove the NPOV tag by applying the 3R rule to attempts to insert the NPOV tag is inconsistent with this purpose. Also, since the NPOV tag may refer to disputes regarding different parts of the text, multiple inserts of the tag do not necessarily have equivalent meaning. Finally, in this case some of the removals of the NPOV tag appear to be vandalism. For these reasons, I do not believe it was correct for you to block me, and I ask that you remove the block. 71.212.31.95 00:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Shhhh. Dr. Evil 01:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
To clarify further, before I first attempted to insert the NPOV tag I made extensive efforts on the Talk page to try to avoid this situation, but I was unable to do so. My insertion of the NPOV tag at 22:56 on 18 April 2006 was my initial insertion. My reinsertion of the NPOV tag at 03:24 on 19 April 2006 was in response to a changed version of the article. My reinsertion of the NPOV tag at 21:23 was in response to a removal which appeared to be due to a misunderstanding. My reinsertions of the NPOV tag at 21:47 and at 22:55 were in response to the removal of the tag by an editor whose misbehavior on the Talk page indicated a lack of serious intent (see taunt by "Dr. Evil", aka Derex immediately above). All of this can be verified on the Talk and History pages, and I would be happy to provide any additional information regarding this matter that you may require. I do not believe my actions constitute the kind of conduct to which the 3R rule was intended to apply. I ask you again to reconsider your decision to block me. 71.212.31.95 01:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
It appears that the request for this block was made by sigmafactor at 23:21 on 19 April 2006. His comments justifying the block request were the following:
"This user continues to add the NPOV tag to the Plame article without detailing any POV issues, even though more than seven editors have requested them."
This statement is completely false. Although I initially resisted demands to detail POV issues when they were already on the Talk page, I made no attempt to insert the NPOV tag throughout the discussion, although I believed I was justified in doing so. When I finally did insert the tag, I gave a specific indication of the most serious of the NPOV problems that was the basis for my concern.
"A consensus was reached that while the article isn't perfect because it is a current event, that the majority of the issues were corrected."
It was plainly evident that the introduction to the article violated NPOV, regardless of the opinion of the supposed "consensus". In any case, a "consensus" by a group of like-minded editors can't invalidate an NVOP dispute by someone with an opposing viewpoint.
"Add to that that 71.212.31.95 (talk • contribs) has run the talk page in circles and only edits tags into the article and refuses to do any substantive edits him/herself."
I repeatedly made it clear that I would work with other users to try to correct the NPOV problems by editing the article content once the NPOV tag was in place. Yet some editors insisted on repeatedly removing the tag, rather than trying to work with me to correct the NPOV problems.
"This is more than just a 3RR violation, but it isn't a content dispute."
It isn't a content dispute. It's an NPOV dispute. That's why I was trying to insert the NPOV tag to begin with. As explained above, applying the 3R rule in this case doesn't make any sense.
In summary, I believe the complaint which was the basis for this block seriously misrepresented the facts of the matter. I ask you again to reconsider your decision to block me. 71.212.31.95 04:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I have another concern about this block. The blocking policy states that "Generally, caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith." Yet no consideration was given to my response to the 3RR warning indicating my good faith belief that 3RR did not apply to NPOV tag insertion, or the fact that I made no further "reverts" after the warning. The blocking notice says "If you read the three revert rule, you'll notice that what you are doing is a revert, as you reverted to a previous version 4 times, the previous version being the version with the npov tag." But I don't see anything in the 3RR policy that specifically indicates it applies to NPOV tag insertions. The question was asked on the policy discussion page, but was never answered. I've explained above why there are reasons to believe it should not apply. So at the least it would seem to be an open question. The NPOV dispute article doesn't specfically say when an NPOV tag can be removed, but I think it clearly indicates that that the tag should be removed only by general agreement. My reinsertions of the tag were consistent with this. I was not engaged in an edit war. I acted in good faith. For these reasons, I do not believe it was appropriate for you to block me, and I ask again that you remove the block.71.212.31.95 16:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You were blocked only because you violated 3RR, which you did. how can you expect 3RR to list every possible situation it could possibly apply to? unless it says "3RR does not apply here", which it says only in relation to reverting obvious vandalism, 3RR applies. The applicability of 3RR here is in no way an open question. Also, 3RR does not imply that you were not acting in good faith or anything else; rather, you have reverted the page too many times in a 24 hour period, and have been blocked to enforce a cooling off period. The policy doesn't make any judgments on which content is correct, who is editing in good faith, or anything like that; it deals, quite simply, with how many times a user has reverted a single page in a 24 hour period. That is the situation at hand; that is why you were blocked. It will be up soon; until then, please hang tight, and try to think about how to alter your editing patterns so these problems do not continue to occur. thanks --Heah? 18:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
With respect, the 3RR policy says that "the fact that users may be blocked for excessive reverting does not imply that they will be blocked. Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context." So blocking for 4 reverts in 24 hours or less is not automatic. It involves administrator discretion. The 3RR policy doesn't list every possible situation it could apply to, but it does say that "the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars". So the circumstances of the reverts, not simply the number, must be taken into account if the 3RR is to be applied as intended. If the reverts are not part of an edit war, the 3RR should not apply.
Beyond that, the blocking policy says "blocking is always preventative, not for punishment." That would explain why it says "caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith"; if the user acted in good faith, then educating the user as to good Wikipedia practice in the matter would be sufficient to prevent recurrence, and blocking would not be necessary.
That's the case here. This is not an edit war. It is not a content dispute. It's simply a question of whether the 3RR applies to NPOV tag insertion. If it does, I won't use the tag. Simple as that. There's no "cooling off" needed. I don't need to "try to think about how to alter [my] editing patterns so these problems do not continue to occur". I just need to know if the 3RR applies to NPOV tag insertion. So blocking in this case was entirely unnecessary.
I guess you can't answer definitively whether the 3RR should apply to NPOV tag insertion. You've said you think it does, but you didn't repond to the specific reasons I gave as to why I think otherwise. I'd appreciate it very much if you would do so, not because I want to debate your past action in blocking me (the block has expired anyway), but because I'd like to know what flaws you see in my arguments. Thanks. 71.212.31.95 00:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I have not said that "i think" it applies, i have said (definitively) that the only time 3RR does not apply is when reverting obvious vandalism. No, a block is not necessary, but when a block is requested on the basis of 3RR and the user in question has not listened to comments concerning his/her editing behaviors, it usually happens. You were not about to stop on your course of action, so the block was warranted to cool down the edit war. The three-revert policy clearly states, on the fifth line down, that:
For the purposes of counting reverts, these are excluded:
  • self-reverts
  • correction of simple vandalism
  • removing posts made by a banned or blocked user
Clearly, this does not say that one is allowed to insert a NPOV tag as many times as one would like. It is as simple as that. You seem to be reading things highly selectively, as with interpreting my comments as "i guess i think that this applies here", after i stated unequivocally that it does. The vast majority of 3RR blocks are due to good faith edits; trolling and vandalism are dealt with without 3RR.
Definitively, categorically, you violated 3RR. Again, please try and reflect on your editing patterns and how you might go about acheiving consensus with your edits rather than how to skirt policy. This block is due to your actions, not mine. The vast majority of editors here do not have problems like this.
--Heah? 01:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you read a word I said. But that's okay, I can understand why you might feel defensive. Never mind. I won't bother you again. 71.212.31.95 02:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR and NPOV tag insertion

Does the 3RR apply to NPOV tag insertion? That is the question.

There are several issues:

  • First, is re-inserting the NPOV tag necessarily a revert?
The 3RR is based on counting reverts. But is re-inserting the NPOV tag necessarily a revert? Consider these cases:
  1. User A inserts the NPOV tag because of a problem with paragraph 3. User B fixes the problem. Everyone agrees the article is now NPOV. User B removes the tag. Then user A sees there's also a problem with paragraph 4. He puts the tag back in. Is that a revert? The content is exactly the same as it was when B took the tag out. But the meaning is differrent. Before, the tag was in because of paragraph 3. Now it's in because of paragraph 4. Clearly when user A reinserted the tag, he wasn't intending to undo what B intended to do when he took the tag out. So, is it a revert?
  2. User A inserts the NPOV tag because of a problem with paragraph 3. User B says he sees no problem with paragraph 3 and removes the tag. User A still thinks there's a problem with paragraph 3, so he puts the tag back in. Is that a revert? The content is exactly the same, as it was in the previous case. But this time the meaning is also the same. Clearly when user A reinserted the tag, he intended to undo what B intended to do when he took the tag out. In terms of the actual text changes, this case is the same as the previous one. But the intentions are different. So, is it a revert?

Any thoughts? 71.212.31.95 01:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)