[WikiEN-l] (no subject)

[S]

Long time since I've posted

I made two edits to the Jesus article. The first dealt with the lede
paragraph, and the second dealt with the etymology section. Leadwind
reverted the edit and left a brief message: (reverted recent edits, lede
should be 4 paragraphs not 5, controversy issue is not cited, see talk). I
explained my edit on the talk. After I waited a while, Leadwind had not
responded, so I restored my version, and considering his comments I
removed paragraph I added on controversy.

Slrubenstein came along reverted my edits without comment or explanation
on talk. I explained my edit on the talk page and the comment line again
and waited a while for a reply. After a while I decided he was either
somewhere else, in which case I would restore my version and we would deal
with it when he got back, or else he was acting like an edit ninja and I
could disregard him altogether. We were both cautioned about 3RR and the
version stood as I left it - still with no discussion on the present
issues from SLR. SLR commented on a previous issue which we were dealing
with on the talk, but at that point we were dealing with the first issue
of the lede, and on that he still said nothing. Nothing at all to back up
his revert. 

Orangemarlin came along and did the same thing. Instead of no comment at
all, he simply said the issue was NPOV. I waited for an actual explanation
on talk. Nothing, so I restored my version again, telling him that wasn't
good enough just to call something NPOV without discussing it and backing
it up. Fair enough?

So, in dealing with two edit ninjas, neither of whom gave two cents worth
of reasoning for their reverts, on either comment or talk, other than
NPOV. Now I don't know about you, but I have a problem with people
claiming ownership of articles such that they think they don't have to
deal with the actual content of an edit such as mine.

I got hit with warnings about "edit warring," and I was blocked. SLR now
claims on AN3 that I am "lying" and conjectures that I "will no doubt
respond to this either by dismissing me, or attacking me, or with some
irrelevant ramble." Indeed. Of course, his explanation is not faithful to
today's chronology, and has nothing to do with his reverts 
today, and he instead is dealing with a separate issue. Two separate
issues, and separate edits. He has been responsive on the controversy
issue, but not on the issue of the lede, and his unqualified reverts. 

Now, in the course of yesterdays issues, SLR and I exchanged a few jabs.
He called me a subtle anti-Semite, and I insinuated that he was a peddler
of anti-Christian dogma disguised as scholarship. Other choice words such
as "irrational" have been thrown around. I think I kept my cool for the
most part.

I happen to really think the edit ninja concept is wonderful; it
identifies a certain kind of editor that we've had on WP all along, (and
now have a name for) without actually resorting to the use of an epithet,
which one might feel quite inclined to do. I have respect for SLR, and
have dealt with him for years. But his apparent responsiveness yesterday
vanished today, and he acted like just another edit ninja. Orangemarlin
followed suit, and likewise offered no substantive reason for asserting
one version over another. He could have just left it alone, as SLR and I
apparently were, as we both recieved 3RR warnings. But he didn't. He, like
other admins like to do stuck his nose in without reason, and without
addressing the substance.

Am I being a jerk here? ...For assuming that I deserve some kind of actual
response and rationale when someone decides to just undo what Ive done?
Should I just infer that other people know better than I do, and they
should be able to just basically screw with people whenever they want to? 

Stevertigo