User talk:Chicdat

This is Chicdat's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 14 days

@Chicdat

Hello

Apologies if this is redundant - I am unsure as to whether or not you received the message below, but as there has not been any reply, I try again here.

I recently noted that you the person tasked with reviewing and approving a set of 3 edits I made on the Knight article - it is semi-protected - that you may recall as I posted that the British GCMG knighthood is informally known in the UK diplomatic service as "God calls me God".

After your approval, curiosity took me to quickly check your webpage to see something of who you are. I was considerably impressed by your "Ten Commandments" and heartily approve of them. They align strongly with my ethos of developing and expanding articles and trying to identify links beyond the ones commonly considered. The great benefit of Wikipedia is seeing the essential interconnectedness of all matters, because well-written articles can lead a reader on a wonderful exploration of the world about us and on to entries that we do not know of or had not previously considered. It should expand the mind.

Did you write these commandments from scratch or compile them with contributions from others or find them pretty much "as is" from somewhere else? I wish that them were widely disseminated across all Wikipedia editors and administrators.

I write as I contacted you earlier today with regards to the List of culinary herbs and spices, asking you to arbitrate in a dispute and a case of disruptive editing / vandalism / edit warring as an administrator. I must apologise for presuming to impose this upon you without your approval.

I do not wish to curry favour with you on this matter - and I put trust in you to act impartially and independently - but I would like to clearly point out that Ttocserp has acted in a very negative fashion by just repeatedly deleted edits to expand and develop the article saying only "not an improvement" - simply on the grounds that the style, (not content), is either irksome or just disliked: invalid grounds for reversion - without actually contributing anything towards what would be considered an improvement. I suggested the simple conversion to a wikitable - a fair amount of work but relative straightforward to do. Ttocserp just came back with a knee-jerk reversions of even minor tweaks, such as redirecting woodruff to sweet woodruff.

I believe that Ttocserp has a "rollback" option available, that is used without any real thought and contrary to the Wikipedia reversion practices. I consider that "rollback" function is given out too often and too widely, whereupon the privilege is abused. It should only be used on deliberate vandalism or if an edit has caused a massive cascade failure, but not for genuine edits by users trying to improve an article. Its use should be highly restricted as reverts can easily be done manually, though it does take a little longer.

More should be done by Wikipedia to emphasise:

Before reverting
Before performing a revert, carefully consider the consequences of dismissing another editor's contributions, as well as any subsequent edits linked to the original change. Assess the specific elements of the edit that are problematic and contemplate the editor's intentions. Rather than reverting entirely, consider improving the edit to enhance the article's quality. If only a portion of the edit is objectionable, a partial reversion may be more appropriate; complete reversions should be used sparingly and are effectively executed using the undo tool.
In the edit summary or on the article's talk page, provide a succinct explanation detailing why the change is being reverted or why the reversion is beneficial. In instances of blatant vandalism, clearly disruptive edits, or unexplained content removal, a brief explanation may suffice. However, in situations involving content disputes, offering a well-reasoned and politely worded justification is important to avoid unnecessary disagreements and to promote constructive collaboration.

This is the crucial factor to be consider before anyone is permitted a reversion.

I work to the principal: "Do something — don't undo — always re-edit."

Also, having the semi-protected status on many, many more articles where edits need a independent approval before it is fully published would effective eliminate vandalism, disruptive editing, and edit warring, though it would place more work on administrators with managing the approval process but systems could be devised to streamline this process so cutting the workload. Delaying by 24 hours the full publishing of edits would be beneficial cutting down rapid cross-editing of entries.

Please can you pass this feedback for consideration and action around the administrators' noticeboards / talking spaces. 94.196.120.45 (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing this on my talk page. I am currently on vacation, which unfortunately limits my abilities to respond in a timely manner. First, I'd like to note that I am not an administrator, which is a role encompassing many things, such as imposing the semi-protection you mention above. My acceptance of your edits at Knight was exercising my right as a pending changes reviewer, which is easier to obtain than the trust-laden position of being an administrator. The protection of that article, as far as I know, is pending changes protection. As you most likely know, such protection entails free editing, but with the changes being invisible to readers until a reviewer (such as I) accepts it. Also, to your note about my Ten Commandments, I modeled the ten points after the userpage of administrator Hammersoft, but the wording and what I chose to include is mine alone. Now, I return to your content dispute with Ttocserp. I am unfamiliar with the matter, but it appears that the two of you have been engaged in an edit war. An administrator than imposed the most common measure when an edit war happens, and blocked both of you from the page for two weeks. This was an unfortunate measure, as Ttocserp appears to bear more of a blame for the edit war than you. The gold standard for situations like the one you encountered is the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Ttocserp failed, as far as I can tell, to satisfactorily discuss the changes on the talk page. Likely the main reason for the response was the general bias toward experienced editors and against IP editors. As to your proposals of increasing protection, many editors feel that it infringes on our principle of "anyone can edit", but feel free to take it up at the idea lab for proposals. (I feel I would be unable to really express the details of your proposal, so you had best do it yourself.) I apologize if you were hoping for an administrative solution, however as I am not an administrator, I feel that would be out of place. Feel free to make a report at the administrators' noticeboard, the usual venue for such reports. I hope this helps. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Capitalization Disputes and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your statement at ArbCom: ... one retaliatory filing by Cinderella157 against Sammy D III.[1] Do you really wish to allege that the filing was retalitary v one made in good faith because it was battlegroundy incivility that I find unacceptable? As you should be aware, one is never free to cast WP:ASPERSIONS with impunity regardless of venue. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I am tired of having my comments blown out of proportion and called personal attacks." The fact that the discussion was snow closed implies the so-called aspersions was quite substantiated. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 15:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was closed Given larger discussions occuring (above)[2] I was asking if you really wanted to go down this particular rabbit hole but given your post at ArbCom, it is apparent that you do. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]