Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:04, 25 November 2009

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Placing British National Party under 1RR

Sorry Elonka, no way is British National Party a Troubles, or even really an Irish-British relations, related article, warranting this. If the issue you are seeing is bad behaviour on that article between editors who are otherwise associated with editting Troubles related articles, that is an entirely different matter. Please don't embolden those who wish to discredit the entire system with decisions like this, which will only catch people out who have likely never edited a Troubls related article their lives, or worse, will be improperly abused to win content disputes utterly unrelated to anything about the Troubles, such as the current dispute on the article. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to the article because of the recent edit-warring, which appeared to be an overflow dispute with involved editors who routinely edit Troubles-related articles. The article also falls within the proper scope. Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, and the subsequent community amendment in October 2008, the scope of the case is defined as, "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." The article British National Party is clearly within that scope. Just search for the term "Ireland" in the article and read about the Party's policies. --Elonka 20:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it is an entirely different matter if you think Troubles editors are spilling disputes to other articles, especially if they aren't even disputing content related to the Troubles - the problem in that case is the editors, not the article, and as you know being an admin, there are ways and means to deal with that without tagging articles as Troubles related when they aren't - which comes to the second point, it is imo quite wrong to consider BNP a Troubles related article based on tiny amount of references to it in the article, on that basis, the amount of related articles would number in the thousands, for a start covering every British political party article. The BNP's brand of British nationalism really has nothing to do with Ireland at all. MickMacNee (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I must take the unusual step of agreeing with Elonka here. This is clearly at least as related to the "troubles" as the Kilmichael Ambush. Perhaps we are now getting a badly needed clamp down on the scourge of British Nationalism on Wiki? Not something even MickMac could argue with. Sarah777 (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Atleast that is related to the IRA despite being before the troubles. The British National party has nothing to do with the Troubles. If the fact it has a policy on Northern Ireland means its related to the troubles then EVERY article on wikipedia about Ireland, the UK and their political parties need placing on restrictions too. What a crazy development. This is hardly a clamp down on British nationalism Sarah, the restrictions have been imposed following people supporting or defending the BNP making silly accusations not those who oppose it. So its quite the opposite. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I trust Elonka to see how nonsensical your comparison of the BNP with the Kilmichael Ambush is, and thus, how credible the rest of your opinions are on what is and is not wrong with the Wiki. MickMacNee (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MickMacnee's first post on this. The BNP issue is not a "Troubles-related" issue - it is an issue that involves many of the same editors, simply because they are editors who are involved on Britain/UK-related political issues as a whole. What seems to have happened here is that one of the editors in dispute seems to have claimed - initially almost as a joke here, here and here - that it is a Troubles-related" issue, specifically in order to get a 1RR restriction placed on the article. The fact that the BNP has policies relating to Ireland is, frankly, irrelevant - not all British/UK political issues should be defined as "Troubles-related". Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The notion that the BNP's Unionist anti-Irish policies are unrelated to "the troubles" while Kilmicheal is just goes to demonstrate how deep the cancer of British Nationalism goes on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

But the BNP's anti-Irish policies are not the subject of the dispute on that page, which relates to whether it should still be called a "whites-only" party. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That editor was being a dick with his ridiculous comments and has a major case of ownership on the article, I for one have made edits to the BNP article before they had even created an account. BigDunc 21:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As before, I trust Elonka to see these statements for what they are, suffice to say the BNP policy on Ireland is actually apparently based on a goal of establishing an equal federation of independent states. If this is anti-Irish and an embodiment of Troubles brand Unionism, then I am afraid we will have to declare all EU articles as Troubles related aswell. MickMacNee (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the others who said this clearly isn't a "Troubles" related article. This party defines its main politics in relation to opposing non-European immigration, communism, Islamism, globalism and free market capitalism. If this is a "Troubles related article", then so is every single article in the British Isles. This party doesn't have "anti-Irish" anything as its core politics, in fact the opposite. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see the confusion here. If I'm understanding the concerns correctly, it's that some of you feel that the Troubles ArbCom case should only apply to Troubles-related articles. However, the case's scope has been expanded since its inception in 2007. For an example of how this works, see WP:DIGWUREN. The scope of that case was written to cover all Eastern Europe conflicts, regardless if they had anything to do with the editor Digwuren or not. So the name of the Troubles case should not be used to limit its scope, because in October 2008, the case's scope was expanded to include, "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland." So such an article within the new scope might or might not specifically refer to the period of time referred to as The Troubles, but that's not the point. The actual scope of the case now is British/Irish nationalism, whether the case name be "Troubles", "France", "XYZ", or "Chinese pottery". Ultimately, the main point here is to reduce edit-warring in a topic area which has been subject to a great deal of conflict. If articles are not being warred over, then the case won't be an issue. In fact, how's this: If an article is relatively stable for at least 30 days, meaning that established editors are no longer reverting each other, then it would be reasonable to remove the template from the article's talkpage. Would that address concerns? --Elonka 01:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A straightforward mechanism for removing the restrictions after problematic editing has stopped would certainly resolve one of my main concerns. I still think the definition above is extremely broad and needs to be applied with the greatest restraint. This tag is not a panacea and carries intrinsic difficulties. RashersTierney (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It does not address problems that arise when an article which contains references to both Britain and Ireland, in whatever context, is subject to edit warring for reasons which have nothing at all to do with those references. In my view the BNP article falls into that category - the edit warring was about the party's racist membership criteria, not about its policies in relation to Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It is an enormous leap to say that the BNP falls under the topic "British nationalism in relation to Ireland" just because the article has once sentence about a policy on Ireland. This was a simple case of a run of the mill content dispute which had nothing to do with Ireland, spilling over into edit warring. You have more than enough tools at your disposal to deal with this normally, without making it appear that the Troubles case now has virtually limitless boundaries, with the subsequent chilling effect. MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As an involved editor I have to agree, this has nothing to do with Ireland, but is (ans was) a back dorr atrempt at imposing a 1RR rule.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If multiple involved editors feel that 1RR is cramping their style, and that they need to be able to revert each other multiple times per day, that's a pretty clear example of a problem, don't you think? Revert is not supposed to be used as an editing tool, it's supposed to be used to get rid of obvious vandalism. Reverting is completely ineffective as a way to ensure longterm stable changes to an article. The proper way to proceed is to go through Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, discuss the dispute in a civil and collegial matter, and end up with an article that reflects consensus. This culture of "we have to revert each other every day" is not acceptable. --Elonka 15:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that edited warring is wrong, yes. Bu I also would say that there is an edited waring procedure that we can follow, and that can result in a page being given a 1RR restriction. But this is not the way it should have been done. irt looks to be like a clear case of playing the system.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Who here said reverting is OK? That was not the issue at all. The issue is, and still is, how is it appropriate to place a restriction created to deal with disputes in the topic areas of British and Irish relations, on an article which has nothing to do with British-Irish relations, to stop edit warring in a dispute that had nothing to do with British-Irish relations? MickMacNee (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the issue, it is clearly an involved issue and is being edited by a group of editors that are involved in editing the troubles articles. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard such nonsense. If a bunch of us went over and edited an article on perhaps Fish would you class that as troubles related? This really is pathetic and i cant believe it has gone on for a second day. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if it is or could be associated to the troubles and uk nationalism then it is fine to template it, as editors are restricted at one article they will naturally look for other outlets for their position, as regards a bunch of you doing this and that, please take care to not get involved in WP:TAGTEAM issues. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to partialy disagree with you. would have no connection to the Irish trouble, wereas the BNP have a policy on it. And if that was what the edit war was about there mightm be a reason for this 1RR restriction, its not (and as far as I an tell the BNP policy of Oiland has never been questioned on the page). It seems that the fact that a bunch of you (a shamrock of Irish?) are also editing a page that has a tenuous link to Ireland is being used to enforce a 1RR restriction in wholey inapropriate circumstances.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Was this Fish meant perhaps? That's actually a good example of something you could, if you really tried hard, tag as a Troubles-related article, on account of some typically overwrought lyrical content in one song out of hundreds. Anyway, the BNP page is clearly not a Troubles-related article per se, and the specific issue in question on there is nothing to do with Ireland. Really bad decision and should be reversed - whatever the problems are on that page, please try to deal with them in another way, rather than by spuriously bringing the article under the umbrella of a wholly unrelated sanctions regime. --Nickhh (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of anyone seeming to agree with your unilateral decision to brand the BNP page a "Troubles-related article", could you please remove the tag and the restriction, until you get at least something resembling consensus for this rather strange and illogical decision? As you know, you have made a formal request for the expansion of the scope of the original Troubles decision so that it includes anything to do with British or Irish nationalism, and to increase the range of sanctions available to admins under that decision - could you at least wait until some kind of agreement emerges there before taking arbitrary and controversial actions of this sort on an unrelated article, rather than simply ignoring what everyone else is saying, on your talk page and elsewhere? Not really a shining example of how to go about improving collaboration and adherence to process here now, is it? Thank you. --Nickhh (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If the article can remain stable for a period of time, such as 30 days without established editors reverting each other, I would have no objection to removing the template. --Elonka 22:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Nickhh; "In the absence of anyone seeming to agree with your unilateral decision to brand the BNP page a "Troubles-related article". I wholeheartedly agree with Elonkathat the anti-Irish BNP is troubles related. (The fact that it is a racist xenophobic party which detests any foreigners is neither here nor there). I think the "mission creep" of "troubles" related articles to include Irish articles unrelated to the troubles (eg Kilmichael Ambush) is a disaster for Wiki in this area and I utterly oppose Elonka on her simplistic draconian proposals related to expanding the already excessive powers of random Admins. But identifying BNP as troubles related is spot on. Sarah777 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake if we are applying these restrictions to any article that even mentions Ireland it should only happen when edit warring is over something in that article related to Ireland which has certainly not been the case, i dont think Ireland has been been seriously debated on the talk page of the BNP article ever. The edit warring was over the BNP being a far right whites only racist political party. This has nothing to do with Ireland. One editor was sticking up for the BNP, he then claimed the dispute was troubles related and now we have 1RR restrictions stopping us from getting on with sorting out the article. its just wrong and we should not have to wait 30 days to have an incorrect label of it being "troubles related" removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A feature of the "British right" is that they have racist anti-Irish views. Remember all those cartoons in Punch depicting the Irish as apes during the Great Genocide? Sarah777 (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

To Elonka: But the point being raised is not whether the article is stable or not (loads of pages aren't), but whether it is a Troubles related article. It isn't. You're still not addressing that point, unsurprisingly perhaps. Apologies for not spotting (as above) that there was one person who does agree with your interpretation, but no one else does. If you want to slap a template on it saying "this article is not stable", go ahead, but please take off the one it has. I'm only bothered by this because it seems such an obvious and rather silly-looking error, which you seem unwilling to admit or address. And Sarah, I have no doubt the BNP hate the Irish along with plenty of other people, but even that doesn't negate the point that the BNP page - and especially the specific debate underway there - has nothing to do with the Troubles.--Nickhh (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be The Troubles-related to be within the scope of the case. See my above post from 01:25. --Elonka 00:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The doubt is that the dispute is not about "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland.", but about the fact it is being used in circumstances were there are other (and more appropriate) avenues to follow in dispute resolution. That it has been used in a dispute that has nothing to do with "The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland.". The page may have some link to hte troubles, but ther has never been any dispute over that section of the articel, this is a wholey mis-applied restriction.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes Elonka, I read your post. I'm also aware of the scope of the case. As noted just above, it talks about "British nationalism in relation to Ireland" . Lack of comprehension is one thing, but pithy brush-offs and a stubborn and repeated "talk to the hand" when people point out the problem is another thing, especially when it comes combined with an assumption of the right to start imposing control and restrictions over other editors. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a kindergarten where you are in charge and can just invent rules unilaterally as you go along. If there is a problem on the BNP page, find another route to deal with it. Seriously. I'll open an RfC on this or go to AN/ANI if you don't remove that template. I have never edited any Troubles article, nor the BNP page, and have no wish to start doing so - however, I find it quite irksome when people wander round this place thinking they WP:OWN parts of it, all the more so when they are utterly and completely wrong about something, and everyone else is pointing that out to them. --Nickhh (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nickhh i know how you feel, i made a post on the admins noticeboard hereabout this matter shortly after the BNP article suddenly became troubles related but i got no help at all basically being told to get lost and the thing was put in an archive box very quickly so no further comments could be made about it.

The comment by Elonka that "It doesn't have to be The Troubles-related to be within the scope of the case." clearly highlights the problem. It SHOULD be troubles related to have the troubles restrictions applied to it. That is the whole point we are here disagreeing with lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but Nick doesn't seem to have ever edited the bnp article or the talkpage for that matter, I fail to see why he is continuing to comment here regarding an article he has never edited? Also what is the point of all this squealing? What is the the big issue, there has been editing causing issues at the bnp article by multiple editors involved in the editing issues surrounding the troubles articles, so .. as elonka said, if the article is stable for a few weeks she will consider removing the restriction, move on, also please attempt to show good faith to Elonka's contributions, as jericoman said if you have an issue with this decision take it to arbcom for looking at, if not forget about it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You're not wrong, that's precisely the point - I'm completely uninvolved, but can see where one admin has made a rather confused decision. As I keep saying, if there are problems on the BNP page, look to another solution. What next - if a dispute breaks out on the Ally McCoist page as to how many goals he scored for Rangers, do both those articles get tagged as "Troubles-related", and the dispute in question become managed under the relevant sanctions? The Conservative party has far more links to Northern Ireland - and since it has been in government its policies have had far more impact there - but are we seriously suggesting that an edit war there about PPC selection procedures in Norfolk should be dealt with under the Troubles decision? Come off it. There are principles of logic and fairness at stake here, without wishing to sound too pretentious about it all. Otherwise we may as well all give up and hand over arbitrary power to admins and ArbCom. --Nickhh (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that is the only answer. this seems to be a case of an ed playing the system to achive an aim that seems unrelated to the outcome.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

@Nickhh, though you may be uninvolved in terms of editing in this topic area, you're definitely not uninvolved in regards to me. --Elonka 18:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am finding difficulty with the reasoning of people who

(1) support extending the "troubles" sanctions to Irish articles not related to the troubles (which I do not support, btw)

(2) but then want to restrict the extension to articles about Ireland only, as if the troubles in Ireland were unrelated to Britain!

At least Elonka is consistent in her approach.

Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

British National Party is in now way related to the troubles. They are possibly LESS related than most British or Irish parties, why is this tag not on Mo Mowlam or Bill Clinton? The article may benafit from a 1RR, but linking it to the troubles gives a completely distorted view point, and seems like a clear case of Misplaced Pages:Avoid instruction creep. --Nate/_c 11:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is so wrong, and from other comments, seems to be a broader problem, I have posted a request.here --Nate/_c 11:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this - I was planning to do something of this sort, but was hopeful that yet more noticeboard bureaucracy could be avoided by simply asking the individual in error to put right their mistake simply and quickly. And yes Elonka, our paths have crossed before - for a while you would appear out of nowhere to stick your nose into every minor dispute I was ever involved in, and patronised and harrassed me on my talk page at every opportunity. I have also disagreed with the restrictions you have imposed on articles and editors in the past (even if I will accept that you have usually got the topic area right), since in my view they often hinder improvements to the content of the encylcopedia, and take too much credit for stopping behavioural problems that would probably fizzle out on their own anyway, or with more traditional remedies such as temporary page protection. However, for the record, when I saw that the BNP page had been bizarrely hit by a Troubles notice, I had no idea it was you that had done it. When I discovered that it was though, it wasn't a surprise. And I'm not going to stand back from pointing out when such a glaring error has been made, just because we have had a fairly trivial spat in the past. Forgive me for wishing clarity, accuracy and an open editing environment (when no sanctions apply) in this place, my mistake. And while I'm here: Sarah I've never asked for extension of the Troubles sanctions to any Irish articles, so I'm consistent too; Slatersteven, I'm not entirely sure what your comment means, but I assume it was directed at me, as it followed on from mine. I can assure you it is not me who is "playing the system". --Nickhh (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1RR Claim

Would you have a quick look at the BNP article? Myself and SlaterSteven have gone backwards and forwards this morning getting to an agreed text in the lede and are now both been accused of breaking the 1RR restriction by Off2RioRob. My understanding is that what we have done is what you have been trying to encourage. If I'm wrong please advise. --Snowded 16:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised that you are claiming at this stage of your wiki career not to know what a revert is, the talk page is the place to discuss content and agree on an edit, not the edit summary box. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll let the edits stand for themselves. Its been a progression of different edits (without any bad feeling) leading to what looks like a consensus. Either way, I don't think it breaks 1RR you do, I've asked for advice which seems reasonable. What is the problem with that? --Snowded 16:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said the talkpage is for discussion not the edit summary box, the article is under a one revert condition, you are wrong if you think you have produced anything sustainable or anything with any consensus, it was simply you and stephen reverting each other, I had no chance to join in any discussion as it was not being done on the talkpage it was being done in the edit summary box, to let you know, if your bothered, I disagree with both your positions. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Its clear the classification of the article as a troubles related article is not helping to improve the article simply getting in the way of people making goood progress and changes. British National Party should be delisted as a troubles related article right away. Where do i nominate it for a review? We should not have to wait 30 days before this mistake is corrected. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Jericoman clearly told you to take it to arbcom if you want a review. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The enforcement page hardly seems the correct location to take this matter. I am not asking for enforcement on a user or an article. I want a mistake corrected. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

@Snowded: I took a quick look, and didn't see anything that looked like a 1RR violation. Instead, the edits seem to be progressing in a healthy way, with each editor trying to build on the edits of the last. That's an excellent healthy way to edit.  :) If I could make one suggestion though, it would be to avoid putting sources directly in the lead (lede?) of the article. The lead should only be a summary of what's already in the main body of the article, so if there's a source in the lead, that's often a sign that the information it's sourcing is only in the lead, which is not how things should work. It's also a problem then if someone removes that sentence, because it looks like they're deleting a reliable source from an article (which is frowned upon). So instead, it's better to put the actual full sources in the body of the article, and then just use a tag in the lead. For example, if linking to cnn.com, the full source in the body of the article might be: <ref name=cnn>http://www.cnn.com/127897.html</ref>, and then in the lead, the ref could just be: <ref name=cnn/> That way the lead would still have the little footnote superscripts, but if someone removes them, they're not deleting an entire source, they're just deleting the reference to the source. Sorry if that's confusing, let me know if you'd like another example? --Elonka 17:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Elonka, a helpful response and I had forgotten the references in the lede issue, I appreciate the reminder. --Snowded 18:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, a revert is a revert, discussion should be on the talkpage and not the edit summary, could you please clarify then elonka exactly what is defined here as a revert? Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, could you please provide a link to policy to support your position. Off2riorob (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you asserting that ..two editors reverting each other without discussion on the talkpage, using the edit summary box for communication and without input from any other edits who may be watching mesmerized unable to join in, if other editors join in reverting also, in a friendly way, is that totally acceptable, a good way to edit? I would ask you to please clarify the position here with a link to policy, Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am asserting that if editors are working on the article where they are trying to find a compromise, each making tweaks to the edits of the last, that does not count as a "revert" in my book. I see a revert as when one editor makes one or more changes, and then another editor comes along and clicks "rollback" or "undo" or something, and just does a clean wipe of everything that the previous editor did. That's an obvious revert, and is not helpful towards finding a compromise. But two or more editors "circling in" towards something that they find mutually agreeable, that's fine. In an ideal situation, they'll keep tweaking and tweaking, until everyone is more or less equally happy (or unhappy) with the text, and tah dah! That's consensus.  :) --Elonka 18:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments but as I said a revert is a revert and the article is on a 1RR, please...provide a link to where this is in guidelines about reverting, you are saying that I could have joined in with this tweaking and my tweaks would not be reverts? Is there a guideline that talks about this being ok? I ask only in the desire to understand policy, not one persons view but the guideline. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tweaks are not reverts, as long as they're good faith attempts at compromise, and are not "tweaking" the article back to an identical state of what it was in recent history. The goal is to find a different way of wording something, that may be agreeable to everyone, and then being open to the possibility that others may then tweak your wording, again in an attempt at finding a compromise. As for policy, see Misplaced Pages:Consensus. --Elonka 18:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If the status quo is Chair & somebody changes it to Rocking Chair & you change it to Lawn Chair, it's not a revert. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Though the next question after that would be: "Does the source on that sentence use the terminology of both 'Rocking Chair' and 'Lawn Chair'?" Because if not, whoever changed the text to say something not in accordance with the source, may get in trouble for different reasons. --Elonka 18:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well excuse me if I have been wrong, I thought that a revert was any alteration of a good faith edit. I will join in with this tweaking, I can't wait. Tweak tweak. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

question

Could you please explain what troubles related edits have led to your 1RR measure? Verbal chat 17:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I see there is a related thread above, but you haven't provided an answer that I could see. Could you please explain, Elonka? Verbal chat 18:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka has said "It doesn't have to be The Troubles-related to be within the scope of the case."

It looks as though restrictions can be imposed on any article that mentions Ireland or where certain editors involved in the troubles go. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I would still like to hear Elonka's answer, as I find that unsatisfactory. All British, and several American political parties, amongst others, could also be placed under this case when the problem edits have nothing to do with the troubles. And it wouldn't stop at those articles. This is a problem, and seems to be a case of having a hammer making all problems look like nails. However, I don't want to jump to conclusions so I would like to hear Elonka give her reasoning - or are all political parties under 1RR per week and I didn't know? Please let Elonka answer, as admins should respond to reasonable queries about their admin actions. Verbal chat 21:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See my above post from 01:25. --Elonka 21:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not an answer. Please answer the question. Verbal chat 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no justification for the BNP article being listed as troubles related. One editor on the BNP talk page claimed it was troubles related because several editors involved in troubles articles were also involved at the BNP one. Elonka appears to agree and imposed the restrictions on it, the only defense of this i have seen is that the article mentions a policy towards Ireland. I agree with you this would apply to a huge number of articles and its certainly not within the original arbcom rulings as far as im concerned. What makes this even worse is Elonka is trying to increase admins powers to impose more sanctions on these matters right now over at Arbcoms Request for Amendments. If the current sanctions can apply to an article like the BNP goodness knows what will happen if the powers are expanded. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Verbal: No, all political party articles are not under 1RR/week. In fact, Ireland articles aren't even under 1RR/week. The only editors who are under 1RR/week, are those who are specifically told that they're under 1RR/week, which means that they're limited to 1 revert per article per week, on articles within the scope of the Troubles case. There's no specific list of which articles are within the case's scope, but just because an article mentions Ireland in it, doesn't mean that it's necessary to go slap a {{Troubles restriction}} tag on it. Instead, administrators should first look to see if the article is even the subject of ongoing conflict. If there's no conflict, then there's no need for restrictions. However, if such an article is the subject of edit wars between editors who routinely edit Ireland-related topics, and the article appears to be being used as the latest battleground between these editors, then it's reasonable to see that article as possibly falling within the case's scope. The scope is defined as "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland . . . When in doubt, assume it is related." That last sentence of "When in doubt, assume it is related," is pretty powerful, and was supported by a strong community consensus in October 2008. The wording clearly covers these kinds of quibbles about whether an article does or doesn't fall within the scope of the case: "When in doubt, assume it's related." The benefit of the doubt for these restrictions is given to the "assume it's related" side. If there's disagreement about whether the scope should be interpreted that way, bring it up at a noticeboard, offer different wording, build a different consensus. As an admin, I'll support whatever is decided by either ArbCom, or a consensus of uninvolved editors. --Elonka 01:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"When in doubt". There is no doubt, this is doubtlessly unrelated. If you want to restrict certain editors then fine, but please don't twist the communities words or intentions to do so. This is your initiative, don't paint it as a community endorsed action. As I am not a "troubles" editor, I understand from what you write above that even if your "slapping on" of {{Troubles restriction}} was appropriate, then I am not bound by it? Verbal chat 13:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Following dispute resolution, I have raised this on the article talk page. Verbal chat 18:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Yes, thanks, I have moved them to the talkpage to offer them to anyone who should want to use them for additional additions, in future I will leave them in the article, I dislike citation farms and don't think that we should be a link station for newspapers and so on, thanks for your fair comments. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:ArbComOpenTasks

Thanks for fixing and updating the documentation. KnightLago (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. If you need any other help with the template logic, just ask. :) --Elonka 22:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I had attempted to fix the issue you reported, but it was beyond my knowledge. I will ask if the arbs want the Clarifications & Amendments section open. I think it may speed things up as you suggested. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to follow-up and let you know the template's default was changed to open per your suggestion. Thanks again! KnightLago (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

BNP

Hi Elonka. Please could you offer some clarification at User_talk:FormerIP#BNP. Many thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Also can you clear up a point, does the 1RR rule restrict editors to only 1 alteration of the page a day? this seems to be the sugestion here ]. In other words what constitutes in this case a revert?Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

1RR means one revert per editor per day per article. By "revert", this means to wipe out another editor's changes, usually by using the "undo" or "rollback" buttons, or some other means that restores the page to an earlier version. However, editing the page is okay, and encouraged, especially when attempts are being made to find a compromise version of the text. As long as each edit is making a good faith attempt to try different wording than what has been tried before, it's probably not a revert. --Elonka 18:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

so this ] would not be a revert, as has been alledged?Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. Before you answer that, can I just chip in. I'm a little concerned that you say "wipe out another editor's changes, usually by using the "undo" or "rollback" buttons, or some other means that restores the page to an earlier version". I'm worried that Steven has interpreted this to mean that all other types of edit are okay, which would very clearly go against policy. To be clear, WP:EW states that "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part". This means that a revert includes anything that removes text that someone else has added, even if you then replace it with your own wording.

I'd add that I'd be worried about having to live with a 1RR regime where what counts as a revert is based on the subjective opinion of an admin as to whether it is constructive or not. 3RR and 1RR are supposed to be clearcut so that editors know where they stand. --FormerIP (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The key word is "reverses". Reversing someone's edits means to totally wipe out their edits. However, to change their wording in a good faith attempt at compromise, is actively encouraged. It's the wiki-way.  :) For more info on this, see the policy at Misplaced Pages:Consensus. --Elonka 02:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't seem very clear to me, Elonka. Are you saying that, in your view, only blanking or "straight" reverts which take things back to a previous version are really reverts? If you type the word "black" and I change it to "white", does that count as a revert? Or is that what counts is whether I am in good faith. I'm asking these questions seriously, because I don't understand what your position is.

The most important thing IMO is that, if the article is under 1RR, then editors need to be able to tell with reasonable certainty whether any given edit is a revert or not, rather than having to take a guess at what judgement an admin will make as to the psychology of the editior. Do you get what I mean? --FormerIP (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In its simplest form: If the article says "white", I type "black", and then you change back to "white", you have reverted me, because the article has been restored to an identical state to what it was. However, another factor here would be what the source says. Does the source say "this thing is both black and white"? In that case, we should change the article to reflect the source, and say, "according to (source), the thing is both black and white". If the source only says "This thing is black", then the article probably shouldn't have said "White" in the first place. See also WP:ASF. --Elonka 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, but as far as I can see, everything you say after "However...", relates to the question of whether the edit has improved the article. The question I am asking is, more specifically, does it count as a revert? Are you saying that something that would ordinarily classed as a revert is not to be considered a revert if an admin determines that it has improved the article?

Also, I don't mean to be over picky, but you've changed the question compared to what I asked. If you type "black" and I change it to "white", that's normally considered a revert, isn't it? --FormerIP (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It would depend what the article said before I typed the word "black"? --Elonka 03:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would, Elonka, but lets say it said nothing before you typed "black".

I'm really trying to find out two things. Firstly, I get the impression that you think admins have wide discression allowing them to judge whether an edit is or isn't a revert based on the quality of the edit. Is that what you think? Second, I also get the impression that a revert is normally only an edit that takes the page back to an idential state to a previous one. Is that what you think?

It seems to me that thinking either of these things would be plain wrong, but I just want to know where you stand so that I know where I stand. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your second statement is correct. In its cleanest example: If a page were completely blank, and then I added the word "black", and then you changed it to "white", that would not be a revert. This is because you would be changing the text to something different from what it had said before. If, however, I then again changed the text back to "black", that would be a revert, since I'd be reversing your change, and putting the article back to an identical earlier version. Does that help?. --Elonka 14:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification, this is what I thought. I hope we can now move on.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Elonka, that partly helps, in that I understand your position in relation to the second question I just asked, even though I think you're wrong. I'm still not clear what you think about the first question, though.

You think that only edits which takes things back to a state of affairs identical to a previous one are reverts. Other edits, which remove other editors contributions but replace them with something new are not reverts - they are merely changes. This would seem to have some strange implications.

For example:

• you type "The ink is black",
• then I replace it with "The ink is white",
• then you replace that with "The ink is black",
• then I remove that and substitute "The ink is mauve",
• then you change it back to "The ink is black",
• then I change that to "The ink is purple",
• then you change that to "The ink is black",
• then I alter it so it says: "The ink is tricycle"
• then you change "tricyle" to "black".

For argument's sake, looking at the context, none of my edits count as vandalism, defamation etc. Following your logic, your latest edit is a clear breach of 3RR (you have taken thinks back to a previous state four times), and you get a ban. However, all of my edits are merely changes (none make things identical to any previous version). There may be things wrong with my edits (they do look rather disruptive) but, for the strict purposes of 3RR, I have done nothing wrong.

So, to get around the 1RR on the BNP article, I can remove other people's contributions as much as I like, as long as I am careful to ensure that I replace with brand new wording on each occasion. If other editors also do this, then we can effectively neutralise the 1RR (?).

I don't think this discussion is moot or hair-splitting. You've imposed a 1RR on the page, but you don't seem to me to have a good understanding of what it means, which makes it difficult to edit with confidence.

Thanks for your time, though. --FormerIP (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Per your example above, and considering no other elements, I would have violated 3RR, and you would not have done any reverting, correct. However, we still have to consider the policy of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. As soon as there's a disagreement on the color of the ink, the next thing that needs to be done is to look at the source reference for that sentence. What does the reference say? Does it say that the ink is black, white, mauve, purple, and tricycle? If so, then the article should probably be changed to say what the source says. If, however, the source only says, "The ink is black", with no mention of the ink being white, mauve, purple, or tricycle, then that completely changes the above equation. And in that case, I'm not violating 3RR: Instead, I'm restoring the information to indicate what's in the source, possibly even reverting vandalism. And you would be warned or blocked for either "tendentiously re-adding unsourced information", or for vandalism.

Getting into a more practical example as far as the British National Party article, the whole point of 1RR is to keep people out of a back and forth, "my way, your way, my way, your way" loop, and instead encourage them to find compromises which are acceptable to both sides. So yes, if you make a good faith attempt each time to try and find brand new wording, you will never have violated 1RR. --Elonka 21:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. You seem to be saying one of two things, either:

1) As long as I am careful never to change things back to something identical to an earlier version, I can have full confidence that I will never be in breach of 1RR on the BNP page - I can delete other editor's contributions as much as I like and, although I may be guilty of other things, it can never be said that I reverted anything for the purposes of the 1RR; or:

2) As long as I am careful never to change things back to something identical to an earlier version, none of my edits to the BNP page will look like reverts on the face of it - however, if you or another admin looks at one of my edits and takes the view that it is faulty (for example, on the grounds of verifiability), then in that case it will be considered a revert.

Neither of these seems sensible to me, since they both undermine the basic purpose of 1RR. The first one will allow me to play the system, and the second one seems worryingly close to a policy of "it's okay to edit-war, as long as you are in the right".

I think I'm going to post on ANI for some fresh eyes. --FormerIP (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In #1, your use of the phrase "delete other editor's contributions" is worrying, because it does indeed sound like an attempt to game the system. Instead, the concept that I'm trying to communicate here is that good faith attempts at a compromise are generally not going to be seen as a revert. In #2, if you add unsourced information, it's not going to be called a revert, it's going to be called "adding unsourced information". --Elonka 21:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, are you agreeing that your take on 1RR allows for gaming, or are you saying that I am not understanding correctly? Is it your view that something that wouldn't otherwise be a revert will be one if an admin determines that I am not in good faith (similar to (2) above).

On "adding unsourced information", yes I understand what you are saying. If I do that then I may get reverted and if I do it a lot then I may attract admin attention. But it does seem that I can use the technique I describe above to evade the 1RR and an automatic ban. --FormerIP (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead of spending so much energy on hypotheticals, just go edit the article. As long as you are editing in good faith, you probably don't need to worry. If you start straying into the red zone, you'll get a warning first. If you're not sure if a particular edit is appropriate or not, then you may wish to suggest it on the talkpage first. --Elonka 22:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, it isn't hypothetical, because you have imposed 1RR on the page. --FormerIP (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Elonka. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

History

Elonka, I have made this edit. I confirm that my prior attempts in 2008 to use wikiprocess to get you desysopped were motivated by personal pique, were a mistake, and should not have been done. I very much hope never to make such mistakes again. Should you have any problems with my current or recent contributions, please leave diffs on my talk pages and I will consider taking whatever corrective measures may be appropriate. Should you desire me to post further retractions, statements or clarifications to set the record straight, feel free to communicate with me via whatever media you find convenient. Sincerely, Jehochman 22:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Forgive me for being skeptical, but you've done this before, apologizing and saying it's over, and then shortly thereafter you're right back to following me around the wiki and stirring the pot wherever possible. I've lost track of the number of times that you've jumped into threads where I'm involved, done everything in your power to undermine me as an administrator, spent periods of time where nearly 100% of your on-wiki edits were related to me, and engaged in extensive off-wiki campaigns as well. So, to hear you make a generalized apology sounds like just more insincere politicking. To help restore trust and make me believe that you really mean it this time, how about you start with full public disclosure of the political games that you've been playing? --Elonka 07:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman and I are still in dialog; hopefully this is one of several concerns that are being finally clarified. We're trying to untangle the various issues involved, and when we have, we will summarize things openly and in full, to ensure it's all dealt with once and for all.

At the moment it's still mid discussion. I would ask simply, to be patient just a bit more. It's been a while in the discussing, and it will ultimately be easier if we clarify as much as possible via the present dialog beforehand. It shouldn't take too long, but it's probably best we finish the present discussion first. Thanks. FT2  14:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

USC

Your help would be appreciated in onoging clean up and de-pov work here at Ulster Special Constabulary. I'm having problems with some reverting. Jdorney (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Kryptos image

Hello Elonka. I was wondering whether the permissions on File:Kryptos01 1.jpg extend to high resolution use also (min. 1000x1000 pixels). Thanks Calmer Waters 10:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It means that we have permission for that particular 100K image that's on Commons, but not for anything else that you may find on the web. Now, if you want to stretch that image to 1000x1000 (or whatever keeps it in proportion), that would probably be fine, as long as the actual file size stays the same. --Elonka 14:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I was asking because I was thinking of trying my hand at WP:FAC with it. I have not yet submitted a nomination to this area of Wiki and have looked at the criteria along with the write-up needed to present it. You have taken a picture and have been given permission of a very interesting work of art that few people will ever have the opportunity to see in person or replicate on film do to obvious restrictions (assess, permission, etc.) It also may become prolific in the following months to come. Just wanted to get your opinion. Thanks in advance Calmer Waters 16:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)