User talk:Taffazull
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] WP:AGF, edit/reversion wars, and moves to article talk pages (in reference to Sheikh Abdullah)
Dear Taffazull: I wanted, first of all, to welcome you to wikipedia. Second, I wanted to point you to a policy that's important around here, called assume good faith. That policy is one of the cornerstones of our project, as a collaborative encyclopedia where many users may have different visions for an article. What it boils down to is this: Don't assume or accuse another editor of vandalism, making disruptive edits, or other bad-faith actions, unless it's absolutely clear that's what's going on. Your edit summary here rather abruptly accuses me of vandalism for moving a disputed block of text to the article's talk page, along with my placing comments on the matter and my justification for moving the text on the talk page. Moving disputed text, involved in a revert war, to the article's talk page is never vandalism. Furthermore, in doing this, I was acting as a neutral third party. A third opinion had been requested about the article, via WP:3O, and I chose to provide one. One thing I saw was that there had been multiple reversions where the quote was removed and readded several times. As reversion and/or edit wars rarely help to resolve a dispute, and serve to keep an article in limbo while they're going on, I decided to help smooth out the debate by placing the quote on the article's talk page. This is a common, and productive, response to editing disputes about a particular block of text. You said a reason for having the quote had been provided. It must have been in a edit summary, because there wasn't one on the talk page. Moving the text to talk page gives everyone a chance to discuss the text, rather than just keep reverting each other. You should have stated your reasons for having the text there, just as I stated my opinion on the dispute there. Reverting my move of the text simply served to risk continuing the edit war. Calling the removal vandalism, and reverting it as such, only makes it all the worse, because you didn't assume good faith. I'd just ask you to keep that in mind in the future. Luckily, rather than a continuation of the revert war, Alexis49, decided to make a compromise. In seeing the third opinions I and others offered, Alexis49 decided to integrate the quote into the article, something all sides could live with. So, at the end of the day, the dispute was resolved. It just never helps to accuse others of vandalism during an edit war, and especially not neutral third parties trying to help. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your point is very valid and I thank you for your concern.I am really sorry that there has been a misunderstanding scribe (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
