User talk:Butlerblog/Archives/2023/December

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

News and notes: Beeblebrox ejected from Arbitration Committee following posts on Wikipediocracy

In the media: Turmoil on Hebrew Wikipedia, grave dancing, Olga's impact and inspiring Bhutanese nuns

Disinformation report: "Wikipedia and the assault on history"

In focus: Tens of thousands of freely available sources flagged

Comix: Bold comics for a new age

Essay: I am going to die

Featured content: Real gangsters move in silence

Traffic report: And it's hard to watch some cricket, in the cold November Rain

Humour: Mandy Rice-Davies Applies

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

BRD

{{archive top}} Please refresh your memory by reading the following article. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Thank you. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Alaska4Me2: The outcome of this was unfortunate. However, you continue to push certain things that show you do not yet fully grasp certain key aspects of participation as an editor. Certainly, I don't doubt that your intentions are in good faith, but your approach is all wrong. I want to be clear, my primarly issue with this entire thing is primarily about editor behavior than it is about content.

First, when you make a change that is objected to, then the WP:ONUS is on you, not the objector, to make the case - and gain agreeance. It is not a free pass to put the article to your preferred edit while you make that case. Quite the contrary, you need to put it back to status quo ante bellum while waiting for discussion to ensue rather than continuous reverting. In most cases, such as this instance was, there is no rush. Only if it's contentious material, overt vandalism, or violations of policy is it time-critical. Otherwise, let time and discussion play out.

Also important is that consensus is often first established through the editing cycle. The original version of this text was in fact established as "apostles" long before you edited on this page. Following your change, it was reverted by not just me, but also another editor, indicating through editing that consensus is against you. Please see WP:EDITCONSENSUS and understand that while discussion is one way of establishing consensus, consensus is often established through editing first.

TBH, I don't have a problem considering this change. However, your belligerent approach to insisting that your edit stand even though it was contested is not the way to sway opinion in your direction. And, more importantly, your allusion that there was some level of collusion to avoid 3RR here was, frankly, what sealed it for me. The best course of action in such a situation is to keep your opinion on that to yourself and let things play out. Don't make accusations regarding editor behavior in edit summaries - even if you see others do it. Even if it were true (which it's not), making an accusation of that nature violates WP:CIVILITY. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't agree that I was being belligerent at all. Especially looking at your past issue with me editing the article and your edit summaries. As well as personally attacking me in your comments at the article talk page, here, and at the noticeboard. Based on all that, you seem to want to find fault in me in and that has become your focus, rather than bettering and improving the article and making sure it's correctly worded. I started the talk page discussion, you didn't. You commented on me far more than the merits of my "argument" and continue to do so. I'm sorry I don't meet your standards for how to edit, but I'm not here to make friends. I'm here to make improvements and correct blatant errors. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Alaska4Me2: I have not made any personal attacks - and if you believe I have, then you need to provide specific diffs to back up your accusations along with specific policy violations of WP:CIVILITY. Making unsupported accusations is a form of personal attack.

I'm sorry I don't meet your standards for how to edit, but I'm not here to make friends. I'm here to make improvements and correct blatant errors. The "standards" are not mine - they are Wikipedia's. You need to operate within the existing policies and guidelines, as well as the consensus within the television WikiProject. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't say that I have seen you follow the rules and guidelines. Your mileage seems to vary on that topic and everything you've been doing so far in relation to reverting without discussion, ignoring the facts, and so on is my fault, due to my error. Would you have changed the wording (from the incorrect apostle to the correct disciple) if I hadn't reverted at all? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What the???

{{archive top}} This [1] is your first edit to the Chris Tomlin article. And it happens to be a revert of something I added to the article. Are you following my edits now? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. FWIW, I waited to see if another editor would take care of it first. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

So you are following my edits. Good to know. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You can think that, but I follow a lot of things on WP. ButlerBlog (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd believe you if: You didn't have a grudge against me [2]; and, because of that grudge, did everything you could (including exaggeration of the scenario everywhere you talked about the matter) to see me blocked; then tried to get me excluded forever from editing an article you are trying to bring to GA status[3]; if you hadn't admitted you see yourself as gatekeeper of that article ("I'd accept either") [4]; if you had edited the Chris Tomlin article previously [5]. My best guess is you are trying to get me to edit war and blocked more generally and for longer because the article-based block imposed on me for The Chosen expired yesterday [6]. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You seem to take reversion personally, rather than trying to understand the reasons behind it. FTR, the questions I asked @Doug Weller was seeking advice for myself. To call that a "grudge" against you is quite a stretch. Instead of taking my evidence to WP:ANI, I asked an experienced admin whether there was something I could have done differently or better in the situation (I'm trying to figure out if it's the other editor (my opinion) or just me (humble enough to say that's a possibility), if I could have done something better (like drop it altogether), or maybe my approach as the other editor indicated really is "off-putting and rude"). Before you continue casting more aspersions, take some time to digest that I didn't take it to ANI, and I didn't ask Doug to block you. Instead, I asked him if I could have handled things better. I'd rather see you (and everyone else) contribute to Wikipedia productively. Whether you do is up to you. If you end up blocked, it won't be because I wanted you to be - it doesn't work that way - it will be something you did yourself. ButlerBlog (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not following you to articles and reverting you, but you are doing that to me. It's not the reversion I take personal, but I think you know that, which is probably why you are also now gaslighting me. I've done nothing wrong don't deserve your correction or condescension. Please stop following me to articles, looking for reasons to revert my contributions, and doing it to get me to react negatively. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

If you're taking it as condescension, that's purely your own inference. At this point, I seriously do not see how I could be any more clear on that point. No need to respond. It's a statement, not a question. ButlerBlog (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

More condescension, more gaslighting. No need to deny. It's obvious, no question about it. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

At this point, since I evidently was not clear enough before, you should drop it. If you have something constructive to contribute, that is fine; but anything else is unwelcome. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Logging out and using an IP-only identified non-account is a bad idea. You're still trying to needle me by showing up at an article I am now editing, another one you never have edited previously. Please resist the temptation to mess with me because you think you can and just stop. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

To comment on the actual revert, BB is correct. We don't start the lead with one's achievements. That typically goes in the second or third paragraph after describing who that person actually is and what they do. Gonnym (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Being right or wrong regarding the actual edit isn't the point. Attempting to stir the pot by reverting one of my edits at an article he never edited previously is. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.