About Good Faith edit
I am going to take a breather and try to assume good faith. Let me summarize how this all looks to the rest of us.
- An anonymous editor appears and makes huge edits with a strong POV and no sources without discussion to an article that hasn't seen significant changes since early december.
- This is reverted with an appeal for sources and discussion
- Despite repeated entreaties for discussion, anonymous editor engages in an edit war and no discussion with 3 editors and an admin, severely violating the 3 Reverts per day rule by making 5 reverts [1][2][3][4][5]between 19:26, 20 January 2006 and 02:09, 21 January 2006 a period of less than 7 hours.
- Anonymous editor starts adding sources, still with no discussion, and reverts an admin's edit engaging in a 6th revert in 24 hours.[6]
- Anonymous editor is thanked for providing sources. Anon's edits are kept for over 36 hours, the only edits were to assist the anon in formatting his sources [7][8],
- Anonymous editor is asked to discuss things again [9]
- Editors work to provide links for anon's sources, work that traditionally should have been done by anon.[10][11][12][13][14]
- The article is reverted at 22:03, 22 January 2006 to a more NPOV version which also incorporates portions of the anonymous editor's content. The edit summary is rv to more NPOV version while adding the supported statements. see Talk. A Cleanup tag is in this edit because it is felt the rest of the article should be better sourced. A message is left [15]saying Anon has a good point regarding one thing. The original article was poorly cited, rife with name/date citations.
- Despite messages to discuss before reverting and edit summaries asking for the same consideration, anon again unilaterally reverts to his edit [16] leaving a long message in the article saying he can't get to the talk page but commenting on messages on the talk page.
- His first post did not explain the 7 unexplained reversions but made a blanket accusation of "double standard" against other editors.
- Meanwhile IP used by anon engages in a variety of WP:Vandalism 85.195.123.29 (talk · contribs)[17][18][19][20][21][22].
- Discussions ensue as above.
TO THE ANONYMOUS EDITOR "DOOG" This is recapped here for a reason. Our discussions have become increasingly acrimonious. In the light of the above please put yourself in our shoes and see if you might react in a similar way. We are desperately trying to see things from your perspective. Obviously you feel strongly about this issue, ECT. And we applaud that. But just because people disagree with you does not mean that we are "not rational" or have "logical fallacies in our reasoning" or that we "have already made up our minds as to what we believe on ECT, and anything else threatens us"
Please keep in mind that since we have refrained from editing the article in over 2 days, leaving your version despite the fact that we feel it is entirely too biased. And all our prior changes were accompanied with an invitation to talk. We are discussing it with you. You felt the same way about the old version but you reverted 7 times without a single word of discussion with us.
Please read Wikipedia:Five pillars and the links therein, especially the parts about Verifiability in science and medicine articles and Neutral point of view. Reading this essay should also help explain why it may not be good to start out editing things that you care deeply about.
I extend an invitation. Welcome to Wikipedia. Get an account, especially if you share an IP with a vandal. Log in. Contribute. Start out small and be prepared to defend your changes. Try not to take things personally. And don't make personal attacks. Help us improve this article. It may not end up saying what you want it to say. But we should be able to make it say something true and something in a neutral point of view.--JohnDO|Speak your mind 10:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)