Misplaced Pages

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

• WP:AE
• WP:ARE

Please use this page only to:

• request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
• request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
• request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
• appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning SeattliteTungsten

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

SeattliteTungsten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA : 1RR violation

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 21:18, 22 September 2014 Reverted to reintroduce BBC material deleted in the previous edit. Rewrote it slightly.
2. 00:47, 23 September 2014 Reverted previous edit.

Note that SeattliteTungsten called both edits "reverts" in his/her edit summary.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 16:56, 11 September 2014 Official warning issued by HJ Mitchell on account of Sep 10-11 AN/I case]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• 12:54, 27 July 2014 Issued with standard ARBPIA notice.
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Sep 8-11.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I didn't want to submit this case, and over a period of 9 hours twice offered to let SeattliteTungsten avoid it by self-reverting. However, he/she just wants to argue so here we are.

As Penwhale has already pointed out, SeattliteTungsten's understanding of the rule is defective. It is also defective in terms of what a revert is. If reverts can be sanitised by making some changes to the reverted text, then we can happily revert all day long as long as we remember to change the text a little each time. The 1RR rule would become inoperative. In each case, some text had just been deleted in toto and SeattliteTungsten put it back with some changes. The changes don't alter the fact that SeattliteTungsten reinserted ideas and their sources that another editor had just completely removed. In each case, SeattliteTungsten correctly used the word "revert" in his/her edit summary so it is puzzling that he/she now wants to argue they weren't reverts after all. Zero 06:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified Zero 11:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning SeattliteTungsten

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by SeattliteTungsten

The complaintant's contribution to Misplaced Pages is overall worthwhile and positive. However, the current complaint is frivolous and wholly without merit.

1. The purpose of the 1RR rule is to prevent an "edit war"; there is no edit war here. 0) "Obama is black" 1) "Obama is white" 2) "Obama is black" 3) "Obama is white" 4) "Obama is black": not until #4 is there a violation of 1RR ("edit war") because #0 and #1 are edits and #2 and #3 are permissible first reverts. This required sequence did not occur.
2. The 1RR rule applies to edits of the same text. 5) "Obama is a black Democrat" 6) "Obama is a white Republican" 7) "Obama is a black Democrat": I expect there is consensus that #7 is not a a 1RR violation. Suppose the same editor instead submitted sequentially, 7A) "Obama is black Republican" and then 7) "Obama is a black Democrat": by the complaintant's erroneous logic, the editor has committed a 1RR violation with two reverts, first the #7A "white" to "black" revert and then the #7 "Republican" to "Democrat" revert. I hope there is equal consensus that it is incorrect to conclude that #7 becomes a 1RR violation only if the intermediate version #7A is uploaded. (Even if the language of 1RR were to literally support this interpretation, in the immortal words of the Florida Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, it would be "a hypertechnical reliance upon statuatory provisions" and therefore incorrect as a matter of substance.) The complaintant's examples are from different sections and do not have the 0,1,2,3,4 pattern required for a 1RR violation.
3. The 1RR rule requires reversions to previously existing text. Despite the inaccurate characterization of "revert" in both comments, neither of the two edits was a revert that restored previously existing text.
4. Both examples are instances of new text that did not previously exist. Indeed, the incorporation of elements based on the prior edits to create new text is the intention of a collaborative process. This distinguishes the changes as edits and not reverts. WP policy explicitly states, "The first and foremost alternative to reverting when you find you disagree with an edit is to find a third version of the text that incorporates at least some of the elements of the prior text and the current text." Both examples cited are third versions of text and, therefore, are not reverts. In the first example, the text about the BBC was substantially reduced to incorporate an element of the prior edit that the text was unnecessary or irrelevent or too long. In the second example, the reference to GPF's position was changed from an indirect reference to a direct quote to address the concern of the prior edit that the statement might be misquoted or otherwise taken out of context.
5. The first example has eight different changes only one of which is claimed to be a revert (but isn't... see above) while seven of the eight changes are original work.
6. Re: User:Penwhale's interpretation that *RR refers to edits of the same page not the same text, I do not agree. It lacks context. There is no edit war here. *RR is about preventing ad nauseum back-and-forths reverting the same text to a previous version. Distinct *RRs require an intervening edit by someone else before it is possible to revert a second time. The 3RR policy explicitly clarifies, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." This should be clear: multiple reverts are only multiple reverts when there is an intervening re-revert. For the hypertechinical readers: if someone happens to make an intervening minor edit to a completely unrelated section of a page, the wholly unrelated intervening edit to a completely different section does not suddenly create a *RR violation where one did not exist before. Such a claim is absurd. Therefore, the meaning is clearly, "A series of saved revert edits by one user that are unaffected by intervening edits by another user counts as one revert" so even if there are intervening edits, the intervening edits must be edits, i.e., reverts, to the affected text.
7. Re: User:Penwhale's characterization of BBC as revert, I strongly disagree with this characterization and will explain why this is the case technically, contextually, substantively, and editorially. (I do not like technical reasons and I believe contextual and substantive reasons are more important here. The editorial reason is ironic to the point of being humorous.)
   1. Technically, to "revert" means to return to a previous state. This was not the case here. The BBC example is not an example of being returned to a previous state. The introduced edit was a new state that had not previously existed so it cannot technically be a revert. There were only fourteen words added about the BBC of which five words were either "the", "separation" or "barrier" in an article about the separation barrier. Under the absurd definition that an edit containing any new words (only nine "unique" words were added) that were previously deleted constitutes a revert, by reductio ad absurdum we would have the ridiculous definition of any new edit having the word, "the" is a "partial revert" if any previous edit existed which contained the deleted the word, "the"!
   2. Contextually, I am reiterating that there is no edit war. The context of this edit is the definition of what Misplaced Pages policy encourages editors to do: collaborate by incorprating some of the previous edit into new (third) text. The complaintant is wasting time making frivolous complaints when a review of the edits shows they were in different sections and there was and is no edit war comprised of reversions of the same text.
   3. Substantively, this was actually an example of a properly working collaborative process, the opposite of what is alleged: the "first" text contained 43 words about the BBC. The "second" text contained 0 words. The "third" text was a compromise that was shortened to 14 words. Contrary to the complaintant's misleading description of a non-existent, imaginary edit war, "happily revert all day long as long as we remember to change the text a little each time" the correct and non-misleading description of a collaborative process was "FIRST: 43 words; SECOND: 0 words; THIRD: 14 words" which is the opposite of an edit war and is a good example of (in the present case) two editors with different POVs quickly converging upon a solution. The reality is that the third text (alleged 1RR violation) was a 67% compromise from 43 down to 14 words, yet after immediately receiving a 67% compromise the complaintant alleges an editing violation that is characterized as being uncompromising when the reality of the evidence presented is actually an example of convergence -- the opposite of an edit war. (For the scientifically oriented readers, an "edit war" regarding 43 words comprised of edits that are each 67% compromises has a half-life of about 1 - 2 edits.)
   4. Editorially, the compromise text which is cited as the first example by the complaintant has now been restored by another editor (unknown to me) who has derisively mocked the complaintant's deletion of the BBC as an authoritative source of English language usage. In the end, it is the defendant's proposed compromise text that now seems to be accepted as the editorial consensus on the subject page. The irony should not be lost on neutral reviewers that from an editorial perspective, the case for sanctioning should be against the complaintant: in the extreme for vandalism but at least for bad judgment. In addition to typing one hundred times on the defendant's user page, "I am sorry for wasting other people's time filing a frivilous complaint" the complaintant should be ordered to perform self-flagellation with a wet noodle for having bad editorial judgment.

The complaint should be summarily dismissed. Because the complaintant was informed (generally) that the cited examples do not constitute a 1RR violation for the above reasons prior to filing the complaint, the complaintant should sanctioned with a symbolic 1-hour block and a request to type, "I am sorry for wasting other people's time filing a frivilous complaint" one hundred times on the defendant's user page as a sanction for wasting time by filing this frivilous complaint. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SeattliteTungsten

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

• Observation: @SeattliteTungsten: generally speaking, *RR applies to edits of the samepage, not text. - Penwhale | 05:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• The BBC-related material is definitely a revert (partial revert, but a revert nonetheless). I am a bit more lenient on the other one, as the citation that SeattliteTungsten provided is a little better, although in spirit it is still reintroducing something that was removed. - Penwhale | 07:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• The request has merit. Both edits are reverts as described at WP:3RR ("a "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material") because both reintroduce texts, or parts of text, that a previous edit removed. Because SeattliteTungsten's long response indicates that they misunderstand or refuse to accept the revert restriction, a block is required to enforce it. SeattliteTungsten is blocked for 48 hours.  Sandstein  09:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)