The changes I made were to show the connective logic by which my statement was not original research, which was your extremely brief and unclear objection. Sometimes small changes can be significant, for instance if you ever read the added wikilink to "altruism" you would see there is a substantial evolution section. Changes do not have to be contiguous to be responsive to objections. My change elsewhere was related to my insert, and a further answer to the objection, making the connection clear. Although it would be flattering, I doubt that I am the first person to realize that "to each according to his ability" is "altruism", or that altruistic memes ride on phenotypes that evolved in smaller social groups where kinship was more likely.
My changes were not reverts, the substantive and responsive, to wholesale reversions to earlier versions with the rather cryptic "original research" complement as an explanation.
-- Silverback
-------------- Original message --------------
> >Comparing Silverback's edit at Jan 1, 20:30 to the one at Dec 31,
> >07:22 it seems to not have been a revert,
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&diff=9017540&oldid=8975…
> >since he changed the disputed paragraph quite a bit.
>
> He hasn't changed the paragraph as much as add to it. The problematic,
> undocumented original research is still there:
>
> >[Altruism]] [[evolution|evolves]] when those being helped have a strong
> >likelyhood of sharing those same altruistic [[gene|genes]]. Altruistic,
> >non-individualistic, [[memes]] such as communism may gain their persuasive,
> >replicative power by riding on these genes, in much the same way that humans
> >have been convinced to sacrifice for nationalism even though large nation
> >states did not exist during most of their evolution. More selfish genes, which
> >tend to reinforce or reward altruistic or cooperative behavior in others may
> >also be of assistance to the communism meme.
>
> Is the Libertas version that caused the original problem of which Silverback
> reinstated the following (that is all but the first sentence from above):
>
> >Altruistic, non-individualistic, [[memes]] such as communism may gain their
> >persuasive, replicative power by "riding" on these genes, in much the same way
> >that humans have been convinced to sacrifice for nationalism even though large
> >nation states did not exist during most of their evolution. More selfish genes,
> >which tend to reinforce or reward altruistic or cooperative behavior in others
> >may also be of assistance to the communism meme.
>
> And added:
> >The explanation for the development of [[Altruism|altruistic genes]] by
> >[[evolution|natural selection]] is that those being helped have must a strong
> >likelyhood of sharing those same altruistic [[gene|genes]].
>
> to the beginning and:
> >Without the presence of altrustic behavior in humans and the appeal of
> >altruistic behavior in others to humans, communism and other altruistic or
> >collectivist memes, such as nationalism, religion, charity, etc. would have no
> >appeal to humans
>
> To the end. Given what he reinstated, unaltered, from Libertas' version I
> don't see how the edit in question can be described as anything but a
> reversion. A reversion with other changes made but a reversion nevertheless.
>
> AndyL
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think there's a difference between protecting a page in which one is
involved in an edit war and implementing a tempban when there is a clear
violation of something as basic as the 3RR rule. The former is subjective,
the latter is not and the effectiveness of the latter is diminished if there
is a long lag time between the violation and the implementation of the
tempban.
However, for purposes of transparency and accountability I think it would be
a good idea to create a version of Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection
for 3RR tempbans eg Wikipedia:Reqeusts_for_tempbans
Andy
1) Silverback, you were clearly warned that a fourth revert would result in
a tempban
2) the question was about your inclusion of a paragraph of original
research. Readding that paragraph after it has been removed is a reversion.
It doesn't matter if that's the only thing you do in your edit or if you do
other things as well, it's still a reversion. If it wasn't then that would
create a huge loopholw in revert wars, one could get around the 3R rule
simply by reverting whatever text is in question and editing something else
in the article at the same time. Indeed the paragraph was readded 4x within
a 24 hour period without any alterations, additions, or subtractions to it.
The fact that you simultaneously changed *other* parts of the article
doesn't mitigate the fact that you reverted on four occasions.
3) In retrospect I should have either asked another admin to implement the
tempban or, failing that, put in a request on the admin discussion page. I
don't implement bans very often so I'm not as familiar with protocol as I am
with the protect page protocol and only recently learned that there was such
a thing as an admin discussion page. The only time I've used it to request a
tempban was in the case of an editor against whom I have an ArbComm
complaint so I thought it would be better to ask someone else to administer
the ban.
4) in any case, regardless of who administered the tempban, the fact is you
broke the 3RR after you were warned not to.
Regards,
AndyL
Dear Wikipedia Folks,
I have been blocked for editing my article, and continuing to add
information. The article is currently a VfD candidate and the
democratic process has been occuring until today. The apparent reason
for my block was that Neutrality assumes I am using multiple accounts?
Or is it that he thinks my article is a hoax? He also mentions the
use of self-made images. These images are related to the article and
it shouldn't matter that I created them. The information being
presented is brand new research and though it may be deemed that it
does not deserve a place on Wikipedia, I feel its unfair to block me,
remove all images, and attempt to discredit me before the democratic
process has completed.
Furthermore, the block policy states, "Use of blocks to gain advantage
in a content dispute...", and since this is the only article that I
have been editing, it would seem that this clearly is the case. If
you don't like the research, vote the delete it. If you like it, vote
to keep it. Don't censor me from attempting to bring in other sources
that help the article.
I have e-mailed Neutrality about this situation, and have yet to see a
reply. I would appreciate a valid reason with proof instead of
assuming that all keep votes were done by me.
Thank you,
Stewart Pederson
AndyL has just blocked me (Silverback), alleging that I violated the 3 revert rule on the page "communism". He abused the administrator priviledges for two reasons:
1) I was making substantantive changes in response to his fabricated objections, not merely reverting, he was being obtuse and failing to see obvious points.
2) If these were somehow, technically reverts on my part, he was the one instigating them, it is abusive for him to be the one to block me in such a situation, he should have to call in another administrator, rather than judge an "edit war" he was a participant in.
-- thanx for your attention,
Silverback
Nicholas Knight wrote:
"Perhaps you didn't get the point from my previous email. I can create a
new email address in the time it takes me to type it out. I can also
easily whip up a script that would let me automatically catch
confirmation emails and respond appropriately without me ever seeing
them. The entire process of creating an account on Wikipedia can be
automated so that a new user could be created in a few seconds, email
confirmation or not."
Thank you for the explanation. My field's history, definitely not computers.
I've only been using the internet for a few years. Writing scripts is way
above my pay grade. So I'll take your word for it; but I wonder if the
typical trouble-maker we encounter is sophisticated enough to realize what
you are bringing up above.
-172
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Sean Barrett wrote: "I can't speak for my fellow Cabal members, but I'll be
glad to compare my new-article count against yours."
Well, you'll probably beat me. I have not been as active over the past few
months as in the past. Plus, my articles tend to be relatively long, such as
the two that were mentioned in this article http://p2pnet.net/story/3202
(Origins of the American Civil War and Russian constitutional crisis of
1993).
Nevetheless, I am among the 100 most active users in this site's history;
and although I am not a member of your cabal, I have just as much right to
post something on this site giving you the perspective of the general
editors as you people do. And if you don't like it, I'll just do it more
frequently.
-User:172
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
David,
That was cute of you to remove the involved admin objection, but you still can't make the case that I broke the three revert rule. Based on discussions on the administrations notice board, I am even more convinced that AndyL abused his adminstrator power, and that you did not review the changes in good faith and make an independent judgement. My changes were not minor spelling or capitalization changes, but were significant attempts to address objections. AndyL reverts were made without comment on the Talk page or even suggestions to go there, with the specifics of his objections. Even AndyL, when he is a disinterested observer, takes a more generous position. Consider his comment here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic…
You or a more objective administrator should review and reverse this abusive ban.
-- Silverback
-------------- Original message --------------
> actionforum(a)comcast.net (actionforum(a)comcast.net) [050102 13:31]:
>
> > I also tried the archive pages. Can you be more specific? Also,
> > can you reverse this abusive block?
>
>
> I looked at the history, removed AndyL's block, then put one on myself
> expiring at the same time. The new block is not from an involved admin.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Apologies,
Upon review, his previous revert was more than 24 hours earlier. I don't know what the time frame of his pledge was, but perhaps this was outside it.
-- Silverback
-------------- Original message --------------
> In researching the criteria for blocking and its abuse, I noticed that 172 has
> an issue before arbitrarion. A point that seemed to count in his favor was his
> taking of the one revert pledge. Note that he was one of the reverters making
> alleging that my post was original research, evidently common sense application
> of the meaning of words is not allowed. He just reverted my contribution again,
> his second in a few hours.
>
> Integrity should require the votes on that issue to be reversed, since his
> pledge was meaningless.
>
> Hopefully, we can work together to make wikipedia open and accountable.
>
> -- thanx,
> Silverback
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In researching the criteria for blocking and its abuse, I noticed that 172 has an issue before arbitrarion. A point that seemed to count in his favor was his taking of the one revert pledge. Note that he was one of the reverters making alleging that my post was original research, evidently common sense application of the meaning of words is not allowed. He just reverted my contribution again, his second in a few hours.
Integrity should require the votes on that issue to be reversed, since his pledge was meaningless.
Hopefully, we can work together to make wikipedia open and accountable.
-- thanx,
Silverback