| Revision as of 02:20, 31 August 2014 editKendrick7 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,315 edits →Tightened the wording of WP:CAUTIOUS: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 23:33, 23 December 2024 edit undoPaul Erik (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators76,591 editsm Undid revision 1264866177 by 202.134.9.144 (talk) test edit?Tag: Undo |
| (713 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Policy talk}} |
|
{{Policy talk}} |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
{{talk header}} |
| Line 6: |
Line 5: |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|counter = 5 |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Editing policy/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Editing policy/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
{{AutoArchivingNotice|age=60|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Editing policy/Archive %(counter)d|dounreplied=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|small=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Misplaced Pages is a work in progress section needs an update == |
|
== Notice of an RFC that may affect this policy == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
An RFC proposing to move ] out of ] has been started at ]. One of the options suggested for its new location is to move ] into this policy. Other options are a standalone policy page, or some other policy page. Please comment there if interested. ]] 20:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
I want to see the section "]" somehow changed. It has been used justify poor articles such as . With the attrition of experienced editors, a backlog that is not bing cleared, and 4,064,486 articles that need protection, it is high time we tighten up on poor articles. One way of doing that is to make the deletion process a little more ruthless. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Conservative" is being misused to describe far right and nationalist views. == |
|
I will have to leave the change to the policy to others - it is not my forte. I think will have to be an RFC? -- ] (] - ]) 00:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::The above article AfD is at ]. ] (]) 21:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think editors would be willing to listen to your thoughts, but only with specific suggestions, especially if you were to open an RfC. Respectfully, there's not much we can do to policy with what you've said so far. <small><font face="Tahoma">] · ]</font></small> 01:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::I would like to add, after the sentence "At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing." the sentence "The criteria used is, is the ''subject'' notable and deserving of starting an article?" ] (]) 21:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That sounds good. It would reinforce that deletion is not dependent on the article's status, but on the topic's notability. ] (]) 10:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It needs to clarify that notability isn't the only indicator that we should have an article. ] (]) 10:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
At the suggested inclusion point and with the format "The criteria used...", I have linked a pointer to the wp:Articles for creation project page that explains ''all'' the criteria – to include notability. – <font size="1" color="darkblue">]</font> <sup><font size="1" color="blue" face="Arial">]</font></sup> 22:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When attempting to correct descriptions of nationalist far right groups, currently described as "conservative" Chris X deletes these changes. This wrong! ] (]) 21:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Talk and edit section == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:This is not the place to seek help with this issue. See the "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Editing policy page" box at the top of this page for suggestions regarding where you should go for assistance. - ] (]) 15:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
The Signpost recently had an ] about civility and I suggest the following changes to the "Talking and editing" section to help improve civility. The overall tone of the current Talking and editing section is fairly aggressive clearly stating that editors should be bold but only consider talking to previous editors if they think an edit may be controversial. I suggest the tone of this section should be changed to reflect more respect for changing recent contributions. I will put my suggested edits in bold and struck-through to make them clear on this talk page. An example of behavior which prompted this suggestion is from my recent experience of having hours of research, even referenced work, promptly deleted; a very discouraging experience. In my experience the Bold, revert, discuss cycle on recently added contributions is uncivil. I think editors who have recently made contributions should usually be contacted before major edits or deletions are carried out. The exception to this is in the Biographies of living persons. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== We shouldn't revert edits just because they're unsourced right? == |
|
I suggest the first paragraph read as follows: |
|
|
Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes''', however it is much more civil to discuss significant changes to contributions which were recently added.''' Nobody owns articles. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is, however, called for if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page)''', or if the previous edit was made within one month'''. A BOLD, revert, discuss cycle <s>is used on many pages where changes</s> might often be contentious. |
|
|
Boldness should not mean trying to impose edits against existing consensus or in violation of core policies, such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by their having already been carried out, are inappropriate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a bit of a mistake I've made in my Huggle sessions. Most people who add unsourced material that sounds true are completely new to Misplaced Pages. Usually, it's not only true, but the source ''is'' out there. Looking for a reliable source (and knowing ''which'' RS guideline applies) will take effort most people are unwilling to put in. People who add unsourced material are generally here to build an encyclopedia, they're just bold. (Of course, there's the defamation issue, but although you should revert unsourced claims on BLPs you should paste them somewhere first so you can research them.) ] ] ] 02:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
Also in the sub-section "Be cautious with major changes: discuss" I suggest the following changes: |
|
|
Be cautious with major changes: <s>consider discussing</s> discuss them first '''if the edits were made recently'''. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it <s>may be</s> is best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page. This will make it less likely that editors will end up reverting the article back and forth between their preferred versions. To facilitate discussion of a substantial change without filling up the talk page, you can create the new draft in your own userspace (e.g. User:Example/Lipsum) and link to it on the article discussion page. ] (]) 13:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I typically revert newly added unsourced edits where I'm not 100% sure they're true and leave a note for the editor who added the information, on the grounds that if they added the information to begin with, then they're probably most qualified to know from where they found the information. ] (]) 05:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Unfortunately, it can take a while to learn what sources and information are appropriate for Misplaced Pages in general and a specific article, so there may be good reasons for a removal. There often also are capricious, "ownership" related reverts that are against policy. It can take a while to figure out which it is, especially if it is in a contentious area. That's what talk pages are for. And study and utilize ] to deal with those editors who are just plain recalcitrant. '']'' 14:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:In my experience, most instances of editors making totally unsourced additions to articles will fall under one of the following scenarios: |
|
|
|
|
|
:# The addition boils down to a series of claims with dubious verifiability |
|
::Thanks Carol. I only mentioned having edits deleted as to communicate that I am suggesting changes from experience. I am surprised no one had commented directly the main topic of this section: my proposal to change the tone of this section to be less BOLD and more civil. I will wait longer and maybe bring this up in a chat room before making any changes. ] (]) 18:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:# The added material is very likely to be undue within the article. |
|
:::I would not add the one month time limit... any edit can be BRDed, even one made several months ago. ] (]) 12:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:# After being reverted, the material is readded in a constructive manner that includes viable inline citations |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think there's a very real difference in net editor-work required to improve the encyclopedia between adopting a GIGO stance that insists on new iterative additions being adequately cited, and going out of one's way to remove existing uncited but plausibly WP:V material of unknown provenance—which often makes it harder for later editors to fill in the gaps of substance that are often created. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 07:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Tiny minority viewpoints == |
|
|
|
::Repeating my wish for a tool that would display each of the major additions throughout an article's history that have since been removed. I would make tough choices with much less dread if I knew it was easier for others to see and evaluate what is no longer in an article if they so choose. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 08:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:My approach is similar to Doniago's. If it seems like a plausible and useful addition, I'll do a quick search to see if I can add a source myself (and sometimes succeed). I don't know about Huggle, but Twinkle lets you select ''Reverted good-faith edits'', which is a bit gentler. ] ] 13:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
I know we've been through this before, and I haven't recently pressed the issue on ] (which keeps reverting to a Jimbo's dubious "Word of God" on the matter), but, yes, "tiny minority views" can deserve their own articles. ] for example, has maybe ~10K non-prominent adherents out of the current ] of 6,000,000,000, but not having an article about such a sourcable and verifiable topic would certainly not be in the spirit of ]. If I had my druthers, what view a certain percentage of living people currently held -- prominent or otherwise -- would have no bearing on our policy, no matter what Jimbo rambled about once, and as such, I hope my recent parenthetical addition will stand. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Right. One alternative at ] is tagging. - ] (]) 15:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:That's not the correct interpretation. It would be fine to have an article on a group of 100 adherents, if ] were met. However, the article would be written from the mainstream point of view, according to ]. The article would not be written from the point of view of the 100 adherents. ] (]) 06:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::I'll tag if the content isn't newly added (i.e. if it's a stable part of the article), but in the majority of instances where I've tagged, the upshot is that a couple of months later I'll remove the still-unsourced content. That said, I've been editing long enough that 'majority of instances' allows for a fair number of instances where citations were subsequently added. ] (]) 23:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::No, that's not correct either, per ]. The article would be written to include as many RS/V (reliably sourced and verifiable) POV's as editors chose to put in. There's no such thing as a "mainstream" point of view in our arithmetic, last I checked. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 05:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::The post that started this conversation talks about edits that are "not only true, but the source ''is'' out there." Why remove the still-unsourced content? - ] (]) 02:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Is "new editors should be strongly encouraged to always cite their contributions, as to not to inherently create more work someone else has to do" an acceptable answer? Pragmatically, I think it is. (While tagging may be encouragement, reversion is clearly stronger.) Secondly, in the grand scheme of things the class of clearly V statements is actually pretty small, and I generally don't trust myself to produce verifiable prose if I'm not looking at a source. Plus, there's also the DUE issue. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Remember inclusion isn't a binary thing. Inclusion of viewpoints has ''three'' tiers... 1) Viewpoints that deserve their own dedicated article; 2) Viewpoints that deserve to be mentioned ''somewhere'' in Misplaced Pages (in some related article) but ''not'' in article on their own; and 3) Viewpoints that are so fringe that they don't deserve to be mentioned ''anywhere'' in Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
|
:::::]. - ] (]) 05:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::As for your example: A religion with 10K adherents is a minority... but I would not call it a ''tiny'' minority. Certainly Zoroastrianism can not be classified as "Fringe". On the other hand, if there were a religion with only '''5''' adherents (world wide) that religion would ''not'' rate an article. ] (]) 13:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::I firmly reject treating reversion like a "bite" in itself: I am putting the page into a better state than it was presently in, and there is nothing to apologize for in that as long as my reasons are adequately communicated—in this case adequately for an editor still very much getting the hang of things. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 05:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::How many people still think Roman Emperors are living gods? Perhaps only a few more than 5, and yet ]. Who still votes for the ]? Basically no one, but that link was blue last I checked. I simply find it silly, per ], that we have a policy which no one actually follows in practice. Views held by currently living people shouldn't be a consideration at all, even if ''you'' think 10K/7B (1.4x10^-6!!) isn't "tiny" (?!). -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::Reject all you want, but it's example 1 at ]. - ] (]) 05:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::The distinction is that our articles on ] and ] both discuss their topics in a ''historical'' context. It is not UNDUE to discuss them in that context. The Imperial cult was practiced by thousands in Ancient Rome, and the Whigs had thousands of voters in the 1800s. More importantly, there are multiple very reliable sources that discuss both topics in depth. So, in a historical context there is no Fringe issue. In a modern context, however, things would be a quite different. Having an article devoted to explaining the beliefs of five ''modern'' adherents to the cult (]) or ten people trying to form a revived version of the party (]) probably ''would'' be UNDUE. At ''most'', they might rate a passing mention in some other article (but probably not). It is highly likely that the only sources that would discuss these topics (ie the modern version of the cult or the party) are unreliable websites and promotional materials directly connected to adherents/party members. ] (]) 14:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::::What provides more benefit to a new editor, though? Fixing their edit for them, which they may not even notice, or reverting their edit and bringing Misplaced Pages's sourcing policies to their attention so that they (ideally) won't contine to add unsourced material and possibly be reverted in a less gracious manner? ] (]) 06:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::These are not the only two options. - ] (]) 15:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
::::::::::I didn't say they were...but if you're going to note that there's other options, perhaps you could bring them up? ] (]) 00:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::Example 1 at BITE says: |
|
Some of the opinions there may be of interest, re this policy and whether it should / has been replaced with a policy of ''"only move it into main space when it is ready for prime time"'' instead. ] (]) 10:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::::::::Improve, don't remove. If something doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's standards, try to ] rather than just remove what's broken. (Nothing stops new contributors and regulars from coming back like having all their hard work end up in the bit bucket.) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::If you click on the "fix the problem" link you'll find a list. - ] (]) 05:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I'm not involved in that discussion, but I've glanced through it (without looking at the article in question) and except maybe for by ] <small>(and even there I'm not sure he was trying to make a general point about notability vs. merely about something that userspace is good for)</small>, I'm not seeing any substantial support for the idea that a page which clearly meets notability guidelines ought to be kept out of mainspace only because it's otherwise flawed. The "prime time" comment that you're quoting is a stress-reducing suggestion following a clear acknowledgement that pages can be in mainspace so long as they have clearly met notability requirements: ] said in , "As a general remark, if you want to avoid people tagging your new articles for notability/deletion/whatnot, then you should '''either''' ''make sure that already your first version establishes notability very clearly'' '''or''' (more relaxed) first work on it in your sandbox and only move it into main space when it is ready for prime time." (Emphasis rearranged.) Maybe I'm just missing it, but I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Regards, ] (]) 17:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::::::::None of that is clearly intended to apply to new edits though. As I've said, I treat unsourced content differently if it isn't new to the article. ] (]) 03:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::As I said in my initial message in this thread, if something is 100% true and I'm 100% sure a source is out there then I might leave it alone. But that's a rare occurrence. I'd also note that it's almost always more expedient to just add a source when content is challenged than it is to argue about whether a source is needed, and very often when editors do question the need for a source I find myself questioning whether they're making that argument because they don't themselves believe that a source exists. Put simply, if the editor arguing for inclusion of content isn't willing or able to provide a source (or at least demonstrate that they want to collaborate to find one), then I feel that punches a large hole in any arguments that it's appropriate to include the content. ] (]) 03:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Policy contradiction between ] and ]'s ] == |
|
|
|
:::::Right, an editor who is challenged has the obligation to produce an RS. But how should you challenge? Reverting from the get-go is easy, fun, and likely to cause hurt feelings on the part of the reverted (especially if they're a newbie). All I'm asking is that editors consider alternatives first. - ] (]) 05:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{archive top|<p>This interesting RfC concerns the situation where a site-banned editor makes a productive edit. WP:PRESERVE says that appropriate content should be preserved, and WP:BMB says that when someone's site-banned, all their edits good and bad are to be reverted.</p><p>To me, the matter's not obvious at all. I think it has a lot of permutations and complications. Other editors seem to have found the question much simpler. I don't entirely agree with this consensus, but there is a clear consensus and it is that '''banned editors' contributions can always be reverted even if they appear to be productive.''' But since this concerns editors with conduct issues, and there might be some pointy tactical misunderstanding of this close, I think it's necessary to add some qualifiers to that. Most editors will find the next paragraph very obvious. In an attempt to reduce future problems I'll say it anyway.</p><p>You do need to think before you revert. Some site-banned editors are not above setting a trap for you. If a banned editor removes unsourced negative, defamatory or even libellous material about a living person, don't put it back. If a banned editor changes a copyright violation into a non-violating article, don't restore the copyvio. Notwithstanding the consensus in this discussion, '''you''' are responsible for your reverts.</p><p>I hope this helps.—] <small>]/]</small> 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)</p>}} |
|
|
|
::::::Honestly, if you're new and you're going to have your feelings hurt because someone reverted you while telling you relatively gently that you need to provide a source (and again, this shouldn't be a significant burden), then I think you're in for a rude awakening if you continue to edit in any meaningful capacity. There's a lot of policies and guidelines on Misplaced Pages that it's easy to fall afoul of (frankly I'd rather have a single sentence reverted because I didn't provide a source than have the five hundred words I added to a film's plot summary reverted per ]), and I think new editors should ''expect'' that they might accidentally run into some of those P&Gs. Similarly, anyone who sticks around long enough is, unfortunately, probably going to run into editors who will be a lot more rude than an editor who gives someone a Level 1 advisory for having added unsourced content. ] (]) 05:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
So it's been brought to my attention that ] and ] currently contradict each other. My opinion is that the older policy should trump the newer one, which just seems petty, but I'm happy to hear other views. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::Yes, a first revert that is accompanied by a relatively gentle explanation is less likely to scare off a newbie than one that is a lot more rude. But I believe the point of the BITE essay is that someone whose very first edit is reverted is not likely to stick around at all regardless of the tone of the explanation. You may disagree - or you may feel that an editor who cannot handle a "gentle" revert of their very first edit is too thin-skinned and it is best to scare them off from the get-go. - ] (]) 15:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
:'''Oppose:''' Unnecessary rule creep. There are many policies which say that editors should or may do things. See, e.g., in the ] section of the ]: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source." If we're going to go around qualifying everything that says something like that with a, "but not if you're banned or blocked," we'll never see the end of it. Banned is banned, you can't do anything here legitimately. That's just common sense and this isn't needed. — ] (]) 18:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Just to note, the discussion that resulted in this proposal is at ]. — ] (]) 18:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose premise'''. I see no contradiction. IMO, ] seems to say that ''if'' there is something that could or should be there, but is not complete, it should be fixed rather than deleted. ] says that it shouldn't be there. In the case of this particular banned editor, he was "blocked" (as a floating IP, blocks are meaningless) for having most of his edits being wrong, misleading, or a violation of one of the guidelines to the point that there is nothing there to fix. In the ''rare'' case that there is something there to fix, a non-banned editor can take credit for the edit, and restore it. Of the last 5 edits that the poster restored, 3 were additions of ''misleading'' Wikilinks or clear violations of ], and 2 were possibly helpful. |
|
|
*:As a legal analogy, an edit by a banned editor would be considered ], while ] would be analogous to the principle that, in case of ambiguity, anything that is unambiguous should be considered agreed to. There's no conflict ''there'', and I don't see one ''here''. — ] ] 18:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::How can you not see a contradiction between preserving good, encyclopedic content and removing good, encyclopedic content? Other editors shouldn't have to follow the ] patrol around with a mop and bucket when the easy solution is not to create a mess by violating ] in the first place. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose premise'''. Arthur Rubin sums it up nicely. I am also in agreement with the responses to the thread that was posted here ]. As {{u|Vsmith}} states "if you feel any edits made by the (or any) blocked ip were good - then you are welcome to re-instate those edits and make them your edits." As {{u|EatsShootsAndLeaves}} states "the policy is certainly VERY clear - block evasion IS a valid reason to undo any edit." BTW blocked editors and IPs always have the ] if they want to return and make useful edits. ]|] 19:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose premise''' A bit late to the party (invited by the bot) so I don't think I have anything new to add, Arthur Rubin and MarnetteD are correct. As of course is TransporterMan. ] (]) 11:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Fix the appearance of a problem''' Perhaps the problem is that ] is missing a mention of WP:BAN. ] (]) 02:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''', <strike>in concurrence with the editors above,</strike> the new language added at ]. Constructive edits added to Misplaced Pages shouldn't be removed just because some set of editors have a vendetta against some other set of editors. For the vast majority of editors, that's just a bunch of monkey business. Our goal here is to build an encyclopedia, per ]. Deciding encyclopedic content shouldn't belong because it was added by a "bad person" doesn't support that goal in the least. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 04:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose premise''' - the fact that the edit was done by a banned user makes it default to being considered bad. It probably shouldn't be there, so there's no need to preserve it. However, edits by other users are not automatically considered bad. ] ] 11:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:*In point of fact, ] explicitly says it's OK to remove good, encyclopedic content. ] says that such behavior is impermissible. I don't see how people sticking their heads in the sand helps move this discussion along. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 03:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:**Not everything in life or at Misplaced Pages is easy—there is no set of rules anywhere that covers all possible situations in an entirely predictable and desirable manner. While PRESERVE has many merits, it is also the case that ] is the only way to handle ]. Any editor who loudly proclaims the right of banned editors to make good contributions—contributions which ''must'' be kept—is encouraging those banned editors to suck up more community time because there is always a good reason someone was banned. ] (]) 03:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::In point of fact PRESERVE makes no comment whatsoever about the edits of banned users. Nor does it say that removal of any edit is "impermissible" - indeed that word is not in PRESERVE at all. It does gives suggestions as to how an edit might be improved rather than removed and there is still the option that "if you feel any edits made by the (or any) blocked ip were good - then you are welcome to re-instate those edits and make them your edits." BTW a) bans are decided by the community b) an editor has to go above and beyond "bad" behavior to receive a ban. The only way to edit after banning is by socking which is another violation. Why, after someone has treated the community like dirt, should they be welcome to edit? What does it matter if the edit is good, bad or indifferent? Actions have consequences. This proposal seems to me to be an attempt to remove those consequences. If an editor wants to edit productively they can go through the process of the ]. ]|] 03:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::What part of "Preserve appropriate content" are you unclear about? It's exactly my point that the editing policy does not make any "comment whatsoever about the edits of banned users." We're here to ]. Spitefully removing encyclopedic content just because there is a consensus that the editor who added it is a "bad person" is simply contrary to our project's fundamental goal. Please see ]. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 06:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::What part of ] are you unclear about? As with your hyperbolic use of the term "impermissible" you continue to misrepresent policy. For example BATTLEGROUND has nothing to do with this situation. Nowhere in BMB or BAN is the term "spiteful" used. Your insistence that any editor who removes edits by a banned user is being "spiteful" shows a lack of ]. Yet again "if you feel any edits made by the (or any) blocked ip were good - then you are welcome to re-instate those edits and make them your edits." I am not sure why you continue to ignore this fact but it certainly fulfills your stated goal. One last thing, as stated by TransporterMan ] also removes content and editors who do that aren't being "spiteful" either. ]|] 15:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Yes... we should try to preserve ''appropriate'' content. The problem is that an edit made by a banned user is by definition '''inappropriate'''. ie, PRESERVE does not apply to edits made by banned users. ] (]) 11:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}}Nonsense. Since when does content become ] just because the editor who added it isn't otherwise popular? Human knowledge is not a popularity contest -- ]<sup>]</sup> 03:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:OK... The distinction here is between "content" and "edit"... It may help you to think of it this way: Since the vast majority of banned editors are banned for adding inappropriate content, it is important to review their edits to determine whether the content they added was or was not appropriate. Undoing a banned user's edits highlights the content for review. When we undo a banned user's edits, what we are really doing is a '''''temporary''''' removal of content... pending review. If other editors think the content ''is'' appropriate, they can return it. ] (]) 12:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I liked your reply enough that I've added two of the sentences to the policy: |
|
|
{{cquote|] allows the removal of content for ''ad hominem'' reasons. When we undo a banned user's edits, what we are really doing is a ''temporary'' removal of content...pending review. If other editors think the content is appropriate, they can return it.}} |
|
|
::] (]) 04:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::], not a ]. Per the tradition of ], ] issues should never be a part of our process. As such I've reverted your change. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 05:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::On the policy page, you cited WP:CREEP in your revert. In the edit summary above, you cited a Misplaced Pages article. Here you talk about the WP:AGF of a banned editor. Also, the policy-page edit resolved your concern. But maybe you can answer this, why should ''ad hominem'' considerations never be a part of our process? ] (]) 00:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That edit hardly resolved my concern! This is ''the editing policy''! And I won't have Misplaced Pages poisoned at the root. If we change ''this'' policy, then we must change ''dozens'' that flow from it. Is a ] not reliable when added by someone we don't like? Yes, says ]. Is information not ] when added by someone we don't like? Yes, says ]. Is a ], otherwise verifiable via reliable sources, suddenly ''invalid'' because it's added by someone we don't care for? Yes, says ]. Even the ] policy -- the violation of which largely kicked off this discussion on my end -- would have to be changed. ''Sure, ], but, not if it's done by someone we don't like.'' It's completely absurd. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, and I'll take all the help I can get. Projecting your own personal ego complexes (to the point that many of you deny how out of whack ] is with the rest of the project's goals) onto a bunch of random IP addresses whom you've decided are sinister foes (We must deny their ego gratification?? ''Really???'') is, in contrast, profoundly unhelpful. Perhaps meta puts it better than I can: ]. Focusing in on ''the editor'' rather that ''the edit'' is the ultimate dick move. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 03:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Poison, an appeal to absurdity, egocentrism, and genitalia arguments do not demonstrate that ] considerations should never be a part of our process. What I see instead is that you are not requesting community resolution of a perceived conflict. We had a recent ], in which the closing of this RfC concludes that consensus denial for WP:BAN is inherently unreasonable. Do you agree that, "WP:Banning policy documents an English Misplaced Pages policy"? ] (]) 00:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose premise''' and '''oppose''' any change. It would be nice if a simple set of rules covered every situation, but that's not going to happen. Long-term abusers are a fact of life, and particular cases may need significant application of "banned means banned"—I have seen a couple of such applications be quite successful. Of course we want to preserve good edits, but life is more complex than suggested by this proposal. ] (]) 06:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::One last thing to note ], ], ] etc etc also remove encyclopedic content. I have had articles (or sections of articles) that I put hours of work into vanish and I am not a banned editor. Though I regretted there disappearance I also know that it is part and parcel of editing at Misplaced Pages. I see no reason to change any of the policies or guidelines or essays which caused the removal of those edits anymore than I can see the need to coddle banned users. ]|] 15:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support explicit wording in the Banning policy making the deletion discretionary''' That is in fact the situation--although some admins delete as a matter of course, others first check the article. Whether or not the article can be presumed to be bad depends on the reason for banning, because many of them have no reference to the quality or nature of the contribution: Some do of course, such as persistently submitting copyvios. If the problems are behavioral, this not not necessarily imply that the article will be unsatisfactory. |
|
|
:the only real reason for maintaining a strict policy is that there is otherwise no way to enforce the ban, except by removing the temptation to contribute. Experience seems to show this does not work well. There is in fact almost no way of accurately detecting and enforcing a ban, and there never will be as long and we continue to permit anonymous contribution. In practice, removing the article seems rather to encourage ingenious attempts at circumventing the ban, making the situation all the more difficult. It is of course necessary that some editor in good standing take responsibility for verifying the material, but the deletion should be slow enough to give the editors who want to do that an opportunity to do so. I am aware that my position here is likely to remain a minority, but the more I work here and see the decent articles we are needlessly discarding, the more I am convinced that we do need to change it. Our purpose is to write an encyclopedia, and accurate content is what is needed. The identity of the contributor does not fundamentally matter. ''']''' (]) 02:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::WP:Banning policy already says, "...no editor is personally obligated to help enforce any ban." How much more explicit do you want it? ] (]) 04:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think ] has basically the right idea, but he is confused about the scope. ] is about preserving the encyclopedic content ''within'' an article, not about ''deleting'' an ''article'' (for which there is an ]). But yes: "Our purpose is to write an encyclopedia, and accurate content is what is needed. The identity of the contributor does not fundamentally matter." On that we agree! -- ]<sup>]</sup> 05:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::yes, there are two problems: one is edits to articles made by banned editors, where we need to be careful not to reject necessary improvements or corrections (perhaps one solution is to encourage them to suggest them anonymously on the article talk p., analogous with the COI policy). The other is what to do with articles they submitted. Obviously no individual admin has to delete them, the way all admins do have the obligation to delete copyvio etc. --the problem is that those admins who think it necessary to delete them all make it much harder for anyone to endorse them (which is at present usually best done by making a substantial edit) ''']''' (]) 15:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Tightened the wording of ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I will take the policy's own advice, per ], and mention this change here. I don't think, however, that I've changed any substantial underlying priciples of this policy as a whole. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
When attempting to correct descriptions of nationalist far right groups, currently described as "conservative" Chris X deletes these changes. This wrong! Pjtawney (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
This is a bit of a mistake I've made in my Huggle sessions. Most people who add unsourced material that sounds true are completely new to Misplaced Pages. Usually, it's not only true, but the source is out there. Looking for a reliable source (and knowing which RS guideline applies) will take effort most people are unwilling to put in. People who add unsourced material are generally here to build an encyclopedia, they're just bold. (Of course, there's the defamation issue, but although you should revert unsourced claims on BLPs you should paste them somewhere first so you can research them.) T3h 1337 b0y 02:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
