User talk:Jo Jc Jo/Archives/2023/November

1RR violation

Your recent edits on From the river to the sea violate 1RR. Recommend you self-revert to your first revert made for the day immediately.

Also, not sure why this comment I was tagged in was deleted:

Thanks, I will try to keep my response concise @Mistamystery:

• A direct criticism, proposed deletion, or addition would be useful in this case. We can academically and principledly discuss the topic but a suggested improvement to the edit could move us to some consensus and also to focus the discussion on specifics.

• I cannot see how my proposal does anything to negate the criticism that the phrase is antisemitic. It is quite directly and explicitly stated. The criticism is that the phrase is antisemitic, the edit says the criticism is the phrase is antisemitic. I'm unsure of your concrete criticism? Please excuse me for maybe not getting it.

Mistamystery (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mistamystery:. It's best to link directly to the edit your refer to if you're making an accusation of a edit war. I'm sure this was unintentional if it were the case so I'm happy to take a look if you can send a link through.

As for a comment begin deleted, I'm unsure what you are referring to but the comment you list is still very much present and appears as the last reply in the comment thread. I am looking at it now and can very much confirm it is live.

Thanks! Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 14:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not making an accusation of an edit war. 1RR rules are strictly enforced under ARB-PIA, and as you’ll note, Nableezy just self-reverted[[1]] out of caution.

1RR rules on contentious topics are abundantly clear: one revert of existing edits per day, period (minus addressing vandalism). And that means rollbacks, undos, and in-line edits.

Even if this[[2]] revert is considered vandalism (which I would dispute - I think the editor was being perhaps a bit too bold and a bit too hasty, but vandalism requires a higher threshold of disruption), the following are reverts: [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], and [[8]].

Again, it’s not for me to decide. Common expected courtesy is for editors to inform each other of potential 1RR violations before it is kicked up to AE, and there’s no need for that. The purpose of 1RR rules on contentious topics is to remind us there is always a tomorrow when it comes to big edits.

Recommend you revert today’s changes back to [[9]], or [[10]] if you wish to stand on the vandalism accusation against @Recobben2.

Mistamystery (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery:

Thanks. I believe the edits you have referred to have all been good faith and you're taking a very liberal definition of a revert. Edit 3 & 4 were removal of a unsubstantiated references— not reverts. Edit 5 was deletion, I'll give you that (Even though it was a deletion of patently obvious incorrect info). Edit 6 was a rewording, not a revert as per WP:RV, Edit 7 & 8 I'm happy for you to remove if you feel so impassioned but i find them both very un-controversial edit.

All the edits I've made have been in good faith, all edits you refer to are for a single section. Should I have wanted to act in bad faith I simply would've combined all in to a single edit as many others are doing on the page. I have done so in the way that should anyone disagree then each edit is easily identifiable and able to be discussed.

All the best and happy editing! Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 15:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

This same criteria has been subjected to me numerous times, and is - unfortunately - irrespective of either good faith or intent. It’s a technicality: if there is a pre-existing edit that is removed in its entirety, it’s a revert. And 1RR exists explicitly to prevent exactly what just happened today, which is a quick run of widespread, massive edits with no room to introduce discussion or consensus.

If you disagree with the contention, I will be happy to bring it to AE. Like I said, it’s up to them. Only reason I’m here is because they encourage us to handle it amongst ourselves before bringing to their attention.

Also - perhaps insight from the other editor who reverted just now may be helpful, as he is often involved in 1RR discussions.

Mistamystery (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: Of course! More than happy for you to take whatever action you deem necessary. Happy editing! Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 16:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry! You have to be the one undoing your edits. Not the other way around.

I will not contest the proposed vandalism claim against Recobben2 (I’ll leave it to him to do so if he desires), so I recommend manually undoing all of today edits after the “repair” reverts you made addressing said vandalism.

Going forward, just a reminder that on any contentious topic pages (under ARB-PIA) it’s strict 1RR. This means get all of your reverts for the day in one single edit, or you may be subject to action by Arbitration Enforcement.

Mistamystery (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: Ah, sorry, No! You misunderstand me, I won't be reverting but you're of course free to take it to AE!

(And combining all your edits into the one isn't a way to circumvent rules! Should still only be one change, on edit!)

Happy editing! Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 17:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks - Nableezy, any final comment/insight here re: 1RR?

Mistamystery (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I've commented here on (the lack of breaking) 1RR, as well as a significant mistake made by Jo Jc Jo. starship.paint (RUN) 01:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

False accusations of vandalism

Jo Jc Jo, can you explain which of Recobben2's edits were vandalism at From the river to the sea? I see you removed a large portion of text with this edit [11], however looking over Recobben2's edits I see no vandalism whatsoever. It appears you made a false accusation of vandalism. I also don't understand your comment about the article being "protected" and about extended confirmed edits. Recobben2 was able to make the changes so presumably they are extended confirmed. They do not need to get approval on the talk page before making uncontroversial changes. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 14:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Balph Eubank: - Jo Jc Jo did not remove a large portion of text, it was the opposite, Jo Jc Jo was restoring large portions of text, which actually were removed by HistoryDay01 [12] [13], not Recobben2, who was wronged here. starship.paint (RUN) 03:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  I see... thanks for pointing that out. And now I see this was mentioned in the thread up above as well. I hope Jo Jc Jo will be more careful in the future. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 21:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)