| Revision as of 00:20, 4 September 2013 editA Quest For Knowledge (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,187 edits Opening RfC.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:07, 14 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Edit warring/Archives/2024/November) (bot |
| Line 6: |
Line 6: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Talk header|WT:EW|WT:WAR}} |
|
{{Talk header|WT:EW|WT:WAR}} |
|
{{Policy-talk}} |
|
{{Policy talk}} |
|
|
{{tmbox |
|
|
| type = notice |
|
|
| text = <big>This is '''not''' the page to report edit warring or 3RR violations.</big> Please instead create a report at ]. |
|
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject Policy}} |
|
{{WikiProject Policy}} |
|
{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot II|age=31}} |
|
|
{{Merged-from|Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule||Three-revert rule}} |
|
{{Merged-from|Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule||Three-revert rule}} |
|
{{archive box|search=yes| |
|
{{archive box|search=yes| |
|
{{nowrap|'''2012''': {{Archives by months|2012}}}} |
|
{{nowrap|'''2012''': {{Archives by months|2012}}}} |
|
{{nowrap|'''2013''': {{Archives by months|2013}}}} |
|
{{nowrap|'''2013''': {{Archives by months|2013}}}} |
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2014''': {{Archives by months|2014}}}} |
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2015''': {{Archives by months|2015}}}} |
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2016''': {{Archives by months|2016}}}} |
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2017''': {{Archives by months|2017}}}} |
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2018''': {{Archives by months|2018}}}} |
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2019''': {{Archives by months|2019}}}} |
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2020''': {{Archives by months|2020}}}} |
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2021''': {{Archives by months|2021}}}} |
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2022''': {{Archives by months|2022}}}} |
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2023''': {{Archives by months|2023}}}} |
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2024''': {{Archives by months|2024}}}} |
|
'''Archived polls for Three-revert rule''' |
|
'''Archived polls for Three-revert rule''' |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
| Line 19: |
Line 33: |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Archives of Talk:Three-revert rule''' |
|
'''{{cot|Archives of Talk:Three-revert rule Aug 2004 - Nov 2010}}''' |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
| Line 27: |
Line 41: |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
|
''']''' |
|
''']''' |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
| Line 35: |
Line 49: |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2024 == |
|
== Adding ] example to ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to add another example regarding ] to the list that starts, ''Nevertheless, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring...'' {{User|Bbb23}} suggested that {{tq|the language in the bullet is in some conflict with the exemption wording itself)}} in an edit summary based on . Can Bbb23 or someone else explain this conflict, because I'm not sure I understand what it is. My understanding is that as ] is definitely a policy, it would definitely allow editors to revert repeated copyright violations on the same article. ]] <small>(note: not a ]!)</small> 21:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:The exemption language (without the controversial thing) says: "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)." Jethro's proposed language is: "Under the policy on copyright violations, when copyrighted materials without a free license are added, this material can introduce legal issues and must be removed." To me, the exemption language is much stronger (a bigger hurdle) than the proposed example language, and even a bit different. Indeed, we very recently had a controversial report about edit warring and NFCC on the board, and it generated far more heat than light. Jethro's example is much more in line with one side of that report than the exemption itself. I'm wondering if we're not better off not including examples at all as it introduces another layer that is open to different interpretations. If we're going to include examples of the exemptions, they should be concrete factual examples that illustrate the application of the policy. These are more just restatements of the policy.--] (]) 21:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Feel like an attempt to mislead as to events is shear vandalism == |
|
|
|
|
|
Over the last couple of weeks have tried to find a number of ways of correcting a claim which is chronologically unstable. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
Have tried to correct statement, which alleges incorrect a particular book was the first time the word Aspies was recorded in 1999. While accepting the idea that someone else may have borrowed it in a commercial publication some 6 years after its first recorded use, we have attempted to explain how the word and expressions came about some 20 years ago, and how Aspies communication developed. |
|
|
|
|
|
With reference to the person who developed it how the history developed, and how with the use of online groups like AUTINET and Asperger's usenet newsgroups, lists groups and then chat rooms amongst Aspies came about (most of which are closed and off the radar as they involve people with disabilities. |
|
|
|
|
|
This is documented on Aspies Talk page, and taken from publications in 1994, 1996 and 1998, based on the use of the terminology by Damon in Radio interviews and talks and lectures he gave. |
|
|
|
|
|
He doesn't mind others referencing it, as long as thy do not appear to claim to have first used it several years after he included it in presentations for academic, training, and radio interviews - several of which we did. |
|
|
|
|
|
We have been very tolerant of repeated reversions, and are mindful if we reinstate same contents in the next few hours we would fall foul of the 3RR rules. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::We need high quality sources to back stuff up. What is the ref that states this term was first use in 1994 by Damon? This ref is not suitable ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Could I ask why you haven't initiated a discussion at the article's Talk page? Currently you're presenting the impression that you're uninterested in discussing your edits with the editors who may be in the best position to comment on them, which probably isn't helping your case. |
|
|
:Additionally, given your use of the term "we", please note that multi-user accounts are not permitted on Misplaced Pages per ]. ] (]) 01:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::The we there is clearly referring to the Misplaced Pages community, as the sentence is discussing a community policy. ] (]) 03:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::" we have attempted to explain how the word and expressions came about some 20 years ago, and how Aspies communication developed." doesn't "clearly" refer to the WP community in my opinion. In my opinion the we there could equally be referring to multiple individuals working under one account. In any case, if that's not the case then there's no issue there. ] (]) 04:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::As you posted the message directly after Doc James' comment, it appeared you were referring to his use of we, which is what I was explaining. sorry for the confusion. What a mess. ] (]) 04:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No problem! ] (]) 07:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*Please see also the discussion ] which may give a greater understanding of some of the background. My thoughts are that the discussion here, on this noticeboard, should be adjourned and resumed there. I think we will, otherwise, rehash the same discussion on two venues. I have some insight into this editor and have placed it there. Might I suggest '''closing this thread and adjourning''' in a formal manner?] ] 08:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== US law == |
|
|
|
|
|
why should US law have anything to do with the content of Misplaced Pages? It is a website with global reach and responsibility. The wording of point 6 in 3RR Exemptions: |
|
|
|
|
|
Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under US law, such as child pornography and pirated software. |
|
|
|
|
|
sounds like an invocation of ] to me (perhaps unintended). Anyone who might protest the application of the law of one country to the encyclopedia that aims to provide access to the sum of all human knowledge, is instantly put on the defensive, as a pedophile and pirate. Ultimately, this is completely inappropriate. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:International or not, WMF servers are located in the US, so US laws apply to them. I am certain that is why that exception exisits. ] (]) 06:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'd agree with Gtwfan's opinion. Even if something else is the main reason, the location of the servers is important, since we could get in huge legal trouble (to the point of having the whole website shut down, potentially) if we happily tolerated things that are illegal where the servers are located. ] (]) 00:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::WMF Legal has commented on this: see ] <small>]</small> 01:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Are 4 reverts over 5 months evidence of edit-warring and if so, should editors be topic-banned? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure how many editors follow ArbCom cases, but there is IMHO an extremely troubling ruling in a current ArbCom case that I believe that the community should be aware of. ArbCom is about to rule that an editor is guilty of edit-warring for only 4 reverts over the course of 5 months and are proposing that the editor be topic-banned as a result. Here's the evidence that is being used as proof of edit-warring: |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
If these 4 reverts were performed over a 24 hour period, the clearly editor would be guilty of violating ]. However, these reverts were spread out over a 5 month period. These reverts are not over the same material so it doesn't even qualify as a slow edit war. |
|
|
<p> |
|
|
This seems to me to have no basis in existing policy or practice. The community has decided that 4 reverts over a 24 hour period is the bright-line in which administrative action be taken. Of course, this is just a general rule; an editor can still be sanctioned even if they do not cross this bright line. However, 4 reverts over 5 months doesn't even come remotely close to violating existing policy. In fact, this is light-years away. I am fairly certain that if an editor were to file these diffs at ] or at ], not only would the request be denied, the filer would risk being sanctioned for filing a frivolous request. |
|
|
</p> |
|
|
<p> |
|
|
Please understand that my concern is not about this particular editor or this particular topic-space. The reason why I am so concerned is that this establishes a very dangerous precedent. If the community allows this to proceed, this means that ''any'' editor who ''occasionally'' performs a revert (less than one a month) is potentially at risk of being sanctioned. If we topic ban everyone who performs an occasional revert, there would be very few editors left to edit Misplaced Pages. Is this what the community wants? ] (]) 21:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
</p> |
|
|
:No, it shouldn't be considered edit warring. I've seen admins block an editor for "edit warring" for a single edit. We should clarify the editing and reverting is part of the normal editing process and therefore single reverts are ''not'' evidence for edit warring. <small>]</small> 21:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{ec}} I would tend to agree with NYB, that the diffs linked in the proposed finding of fact are insufficient to justify a finding of edit warring. However, Arthur Rubin made many more edits to the article, including that directly undid an edit. This isn't the place to conduct a detailed analysis of Arthur Rubin's editing as it relates to the controversy, and without doing so, its hard to say whether the committee is justified in imposing the proposed sanction. Wouldn't this discussion be more approriate at ]? ]] 21:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::I did start a discussion at the appropriate talk page and as you can see, it did not go very far. I don't think that even 13 overt reverts over the course of 69 months (that's only 1 revert every 5 months) is evidence of edit-warring, and does not come remotely close to what policy says. If anything, this is evidence of ''not'' edit-warring. My question to the community is whether every editor who averages fewer than a revert per month be topic banned for edit-warring? ] (]) 22:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Of course not, but that's not the question. This ''specific'' editor was felt to have made a ''specific'' set of edits which met ArbCom's definition of edit-warring - a definition which intentionally allows a great deal of subjective interpretation. If you disagree with ArbCom's interpretation, then you need to take it up with ArbCom - not on a policy page, because policy is intentionally silent on the question of the lower bounds of edit-warring. For what it's worth, I suspect many in the community would agree with you that the edit-warring finding to which you refer was extremely tenuous, but opening a thread here isn't going to help. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{replyto|MastCell}} I did take it up with ArbCom. ] (]) 22:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yes, that was the right approach. I know you haven't gotten much response from them, but raising the issue here isn't going to help. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::{{replyto|MastCell}} I've tried in ] to reach out to ArbCom. Since they haven't responded, notifying the editors of the most relevant policy seems like the next logical step. ] (]) 23:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
{{RFC|policy}} |
|
|
=== RfC - Edit-warring === |
|
|
I've opened this RfC to solicit community feedback over whether 4 reverts over the course of 5 months constitutes edit-warring and if so, should such editors be topic-banned. Please see above discussion for background. Please note that I did attempt to bring this up to ArbCom first, but that discussion did not go very far. ] (]) 00:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== A flaw in definining a "revert"? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Can I clarify something here, it is something that has always bugged me about how 3RR operates. A "revert" for the purposes of determining whether 3RR has been violated is defined as a ''series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
OK. The problem I have with this, is that I can effectively remove the same content in three different ways, and one of them would see me violate 3RR. Let me provide a simple example to illustrate my point: an editor adds four unsourced claims to ] in four sequential edits which I decide to remove. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Misplaced Pages:Edit warring|answered=Yes}} |
|
#I remove all four names in a single edit. That counts as one revert. |
|
|
|
] (]) 03:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
#I revert each individual edit, resulting in four consecutive edits. By the definition provided above that counts as one revert. |
|
|
#I revert each individual edit, but another editor also editing the article intermingles their edits with mine, meaning that my edits are no longer consecutive. By the definition of the rule I have made four reverts and violated 3RR. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* {{Not done}} It's not clear in the slightest what edits you'd like made. ] (]) 03:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
Basically I have carried out exactly the same action, but one method is punishable by a block. I am pretty sure this is not how the rule is intended to work, but that is how it reads in a literal sense. It just seems very arbitrary to me. I think 3RR should only apply to the ''same'' material i.e. it is a revert ''cycle'' you are trying to discourage, not necessarily a revert ''series''. ] (]) 06:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Its designed to capture the situation where you remove name 1, then another re-adds name one, then you remove name 2, and another editor re-adds name 2, you remove name 3, and another editor re-adds name 3... which is just as bad as edit warring over one point in the article. I think this is just a place we need to count on Admins to exercise good sense in applying the rule. ]] 14:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Right, so the rule is really designed to actually tackle repeats of a previous action? That makes much more sense to me. So what we are really counting is "redos" i.e. you redo an edit that either you yourself or someone else has done previously? ] (]) 17:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
Not done It's not clear in the slightest what edits you'd like made. Departure– (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)