Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tatsuma
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Response to Addhoc
Addhoc said: "Are you guys kidding? If you aren't saying this is a WP:SOCK violation than launching an RfC against someone with a single figure number of edits seems just a little bit harsh. Couldn't you give a {{Welcomenpov}} message instead?" Addhoc 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I understand that, but many attempts were made to encourage him to discuss the changes in question before reverting without success, including 4 attempts on his talk page over a month's time. He's never actually provided any new content to an edit of Ars Technica, and has only reverted that one article. He has never contributed to any other article within Wikipedia. That is not typical new user behavior. Can that really be construed as an honest mistake? There is suspicion of sock puppetry based on the edit history of a few users during that time (El jefe04, Gallifr3y, possibly Maramba), but the edits were sporadic, span a great deal of time, and there's no one to really label the sock puppeteer. The only account still doing regular reverts is Tatsuma, hence the RfC, since there are limited ways to deal with a content dispute where one side absolutely refuses to discuss, ever. - Debuskjt 18:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- And yeah, on second thought, I wish I had tried Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts first, but an RfC was suggested to me via IRC by another editor. That is my mistake, and I apologize for it, but what's done is done. If the RfC here goes unendorsed, I'll pursue that instead. - Debuskjt 18:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, for your comment, I agree the manner of his/her editing is certainly unusual, very possibly unique. However, wikifying years, for example, in my view, doesn't really put him in the same catagory as vandalism only accounts. Overall, I consider putting a RfC when his non-user space edits is only 9 to be somewhat early in his or her editing career. Addhoc 18:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- He's not wikifying years. If you look at the entire revert, he's purposefully reverting out new changes to the article to add back disputed criticism in the Criticism section of the page. See this diff. Beginning on Line 33 he is removing an HTML comment to ask people to please discuss any additions to Criticism before adding them. On Line 39 he then adds back four lines of contested content to the article. And he's doing it over and over again without discussion - Debuskjt 19:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining. Addhoc 20:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- He's not wikifying years. If you look at the entire revert, he's purposefully reverting out new changes to the article to add back disputed criticism in the Criticism section of the page. See this diff. Beginning on Line 33 he is removing an HTML comment to ask people to please discuss any additions to Criticism before adding them. On Line 39 he then adds back four lines of contested content to the article. And he's doing it over and over again without discussion - Debuskjt 19:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, for your comment, I agree the manner of his/her editing is certainly unusual, very possibly unique. However, wikifying years, for example, in my view, doesn't really put him in the same catagory as vandalism only accounts. Overall, I consider putting a RfC when his non-user space edits is only 9 to be somewhat early in his or her editing career. Addhoc 18:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- And yeah, on second thought, I wish I had tried Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts first, but an RfC was suggested to me via IRC by another editor. That is my mistake, and I apologize for it, but what's done is done. If the RfC here goes unendorsed, I'll pursue that instead. - Debuskjt 18:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
