This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Let me preface this by saying that I do not typically pursue sanctions for editors, but I do not like seeing them enforced selectively. 1RR violations in the last day:

RedHotPear: [1] reverts [2], and [3] reverts [4].

Volunteer Marek: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Granted I think these are just considered 2 reverts.

Do you think those were 1RR violations? I have some more, depending on your opinion for these. I'm not looking for those editors to be sanctioned, and do not want them to be. But I would like you to undo your block of Kolya until across the board enforcement is in place. Mr Ernie ( talk) 18:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I agree that I don't want to see discretionary sanctions enforced selectively. I think that, to maintain regular order at Joe Biden pages, we need to see them enforced across the board under all circumstances. If those two editors violated the sanctions, they should be sanctioned. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, for the first one, those are reverts to different sections of the page, and they did not revert back to the same version. I know that 3RR says that it applies "whether involving the same or different material", but I don't think I've ever seen 1RR interpreted that way - generally people are allowed to make multiple reverts provided they are to different content. Regarding the second one, I think that would all be counted as one revert (or even as one bold edit), even though it was interrupted by a completely unrelated edit. And I'm with both you and Muboshgu here - these restrictions need to be applied uniformly, or they simply won't work. – bradv 🍁 18:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought 1RR meant no more than one revert on the page period, even if it's different content. So I could have reverted the Stephanie Carter addition yesterday that I held back on because I had already made a different revert?

Brad, you're Canadian, and not INVOLVED in the post-1932 U.S. politics realm. Please monitor Biden pages for the next six months. I'll give you all of the barnstars if you do. :) –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the first time I've heard 1RR described that way. The edit notice is unambiguous - "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article." Marek's reverts were interrupted by another person, resetting their revert count. I don't think the sanction is applied evenly or fairly. Mr Ernie ( talk) 19:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"resetting their revert count" - that's not how it works. If somebody is editing an article it's often the case that they do it piece by piece (it's more efficient and easier that way). If it worked the way you think it works, then someone could simply jump in between their edits with any ol' mundane boring trivial edit just to "reset" their revert counter and basically... prevent them from making any further edits to the article. Basically it would open up the restriction to some really bad faithed WP:GAMEing (and yes, this has been tried very often in the past).

Rather the basic rule is - could these edits have been made as one edit? If yes, it's at most one revert. If no, then it could be more than one revert. If someone reverts text X, then someone comes in and undoes that revert, then it's impossible to revert text X again in just one edit. If someone reverts text X, then someone comes in and makes some completely unrelated edit, then first person removes text Y, the removal of X and Y is still one revert. Volunteer Marek 20:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That has been my understanding as well. Yesterday, I was making a series of edits and editor jumped in to revert one of my edits before I completed the series. For all intents and purpose, I had made one continuous edit. - MrX 🖋 00:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Replying to both of you – do you recall ever seeing someone blocked at ANEW or AE for making two completely unrelated reverts to an article under 1RR in the same 24-hour period? It's always been my understanding that the community interprets "revert" a little more loosely when counting to 2 than when counting to 4. But I could be mistaken. – bradv 🍁 19:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You may need to communicate that project wide. Just yesterday MrX and SPECIFICO (well and me) were giving editors a heads up when they went over 1RR, as in made more than one reversion in 24 hours, regardless of what section of the page. Mr Ernie ( talk) 19:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ernie! We all like to see uniform and impartial enforcement. Ernie, your concern would all be much more valuable if you'd also sleuth out recent violations among those who might share your POV on content issues. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this kind of battleground behavior shown here, and the same in SPECIFICO's recent comment on KB's talk page, deserves sanction. Following editors you're in a content dispute with from page to page and taunting them is basically harassment. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 19:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, they were pinged here. And it's a valid request, especially considering the request here is to enforce things equitably. – bradv 🍁 19:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That's true about the ping but I disagree very strongly that it's a valid request. First, it presupposes that there are editors who have violated 1RR recently who have not been reported (there aren't, as far as I can see). Second it ignores the fact that Ernie is specifically not asking for sanctions, and instead makes it sound like he is. Third, it divides editors into factions and avoiding that sort of tribalism is what WP:BATTLEGROUND is all about. Honestly, I hate when admin let this sort of "food fight" behavior fly, especially when the same admin is blocking another editor who was, in good faith, attempting to address SPECIFICO's specific concerns (each reinstatement attempted to address the concern in the preceding revert's edit summary). You know, KB's 1RR violation was an attempt to gain consensus but a technical violation of our rules, while SPECIFICO's violates no technical rules but poisons our collegial environment. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 19:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, it's a polarizing article, and it's not helpful to pretend that there aren't competing interests at play. We're having a conversation here about how to enforce things equitably and fairly. If you want to join in the substance of the discussion you're welcome to, but you don't get to tell other people to get off my talk page. – bradv 🍁 19:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't tell anyone to get off your talk page, I'd never do that. I'm saying polarizing conduct should be addressed, and I'm saying it's more important than if someone technically violated 1RR through partial reinstatements, OR by editing the same section or a different section. I'm making a forest-and-trees argument. The problem isn't who's reverting how much, the problem (in this topic area) is polarizing behavior running rampant. The problem is that some editors are trying to work with their colleagues (that's clearly what KB was trying to do by making a series of partial reinstatements, don't you agree?), while other editors are actively fighting their colleagues (was SPECIFICO's statement not "fighting words"?). That's the problem that we should be focusing on. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 19:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not what KB was trying to do. Volunteer Marek 20:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, why do you say so? Each edit addressed the specific objection raised in the preceding reversion. Why is that not an attempt to respond to editor's concerns and move towards consensus? Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 20:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I think you may be relatively new to this content area (not sure) but regarding your words about "forest/trees" -- here is the diff that KB put in the article at the outset of what led to her block: [10] That is one of the worst edits I have seen in this long miserable stretch of work on the Biden bit. The problem -- the forest -- is not about editors, it's about our readers and the article content, and per BLP it is about Biden, That edit and the summary are outright misrepresentations of the sources, both of which I read closely before I reverted KB's edit. Whether they were careless, negligent, or whatever, that kind of content must not appear on Wikipedia. And I don't think it makes sense -- especially where there is an explicit page sanction referencing BRD -- for the first editor not to use the talk page to ensure that the problem is solved by whatever new version. Remember the violation was not KB's purported improvement from my revert. It was when VM pointed out the problem was not solved and KB put in yet another version. And then we have the whole talk page thing where she compares me and Marek to criminals vs. Crimestoppers or something. And finally, Levivich, we have Mr Ernie who chose to reinstate what was undoubtedly a disputed bit in the lead. So even if you believe KB was just trying to help out with content, that doesn't tell us how Mr Ernie stepping in to override Brady's settlement was anything but "polarizing behavior running rampant" - to use your words. We can have general discussions about improving the editing process on this or other articles, but let's start from something that reasonably resembles the facts and history to which we refer. SPECIFICO talk 23:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, please judge that edit yourself based on my presentation of the sources. [11]. SPECIFICO states there that he opposed my proposal without reading all the sources, so I question the assertion that he has carefully evaluated my original edit.  And please don't confuse an analogy with an aspersive comparison. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 18:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, that's really over the top. I read both the sources you put in the lead when I reverted it. That's why my edit summary said that your text was not verified by the cited sources. A day or two later after your block, you were still going in the talk page and, while several editors unanimously rejected your subsequent attempt at a rewrite, I commented that your 4th or 5th version -in which you added a new additional source alongside the first two did not appear to correct the BLP violation. I also said that I had not read the additional later-added source but that (as several other editors had recently told you) your new version was still a BLP violation here. The reason had been spelled out to you by others and I repeated the reason. You as an editor cannot cobble together an overstated BLP assertion as you continued to attempt. OK. Incidentally, there's a big difference between writing article content without knowing the sources and giving a quick opinion on the talk page. Nobody is obligated to read your talk page suggestions at all whereas you are required to take due care with BLP article content.

So now you are telling everyone Levivich and the world that I said I did not read the sources before my initial revert of what half a dozen have said is your BLP violation? I am going to recommend, either here or at a noticeboard, that your ban be extended to all content related to Joe Biden, including talk pages, for an extended period of time. Every time others try to disengage from you, it appears you create new problems that tie things in knots. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a gish gallop of misrepresentations and I refuse to engage with you by defending these misrepresentations, except to illustrate your main strawman which is the misrepresentation of my comment: "SPECIFICO states there [at Talk:Joe_Biden#Reade's_story_corroborators] that he opposed my [new] proposal without reading all the sources, so I question the assertion that he has carefully evaluated my original edit. [12] If you are truly trying to disengage with me, continue this discussion at the article talk page and discuss content not me.   Kolya Butternut ( talk) 20:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Every time I have warned or sanctioned an editor for violating 1RR it's been because they were edit warring over the same content. You could be right, this may require a broader discussion. – bradv 🍁 19:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Brady, there's been some discussion about that from time to time. The Edit War page is not clear and is subject to unpredictable and radically differing interpretations by Admins. In terms of the American Politics articles, the result is that most of us are guided by the strictest interpretation to avoid any possible violation. Regardless of whether a community-wide consesnsus and documentation can be reached as to the meaning of a revert, the central points for Ernie are that there was unambiguous disruption at the article and that he brought a rather incomplete list of possible recent violations to the table here. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t report your unambiguous violations of 1RR either SPECIFICO. Be careful who you accuse of selective enforcement, and ensure your own behavior isn’t applicable. Mr Ernie ( talk) 20:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I'm not aware of any such violations. If you ever see any, please do come show them to me so I can undo them. Without links I don't know what you're talking about. Also, please don't say you didn't report XX either - because I don't recall seeing anyone report anything of yours, and as I said above, 1RR reports are extremely rare and never happen without a request to self-undo the violation. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I suppose that if editors are following the stricter interpretation, and enforcing admins are enforcing the looser interpretation, that gives us a suitable buffer. – bradv 🍁 19:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It works well. Generally, 1RR violations are inadvertent and the offending editor immediatly self-removes the violation when reminded on their user talk page. The more frequent problem in politics-related articles, I think, have related to issues of WEIGHT and RS, especially among editors who are not widely familiar with the range of mainstream reporting, who may be steeped in twitter/reddit/blog/podcast narratives, or who may have fringey political beliefs. I don't recall having seen an editor plead for immunity on the grounds that his judgment overrules the most liberal interpretation of 1RR. Those arguments never prevail. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I also was hoping there were more exceptions to 1RR. I felt that I was restoring different text than the text which was cited for reversion; I restored the collaterally removed text. Obviously after reading 1RR and 3RR I see how unambiguous it is; there is no leeway as there is in BRD. I don't want to see anyone sanctioned either. I don't think that is an effective way to improve collaboration. I ask that administrators look at what is happening beyond the straightforward policy. There is WP:CIVILPOVPUSHING happening. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 19:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I simply cannot believe an administrator on this site doesn't know that a revert is a revert even if it is to a different part of the article. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period", and subsequently "The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert"". If you seriously don't know or understand that, you should resign your bit, immediately, until you have a bit more experience, we can't have people who don't understand the rules being in charge of enforcing them JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk) 20:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

^^^ more of that polarizing behavior. That you disagree with an admin about something doesn't mean they should resign their bit. In this case, if you read Brad's comments, he's obviously aware of the rule you quoted. His query is about whether a different, more lenient, standard is applied to 1RR than 3RR. On that, there is no rule. Brad's query doesn't evidence a lack of understanding of our policies, but rather a very nuanced understanding of our policies (which is kind of what you'd expect from an admin who was just elected to the arbitration committee). Like you, I do not entirely agree with Brad's actions here, but going straight to "resign your bit" is ridiculously over the top (especially saying that to someone who was just elected to arbcom). This also poisons our collegial atmosphere. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 20:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

He should resign his bit not because he disagrees with me, but because he can't enforce the rules if he does not understand them. 1RR is not different than 3RR as far as the definition of what constitutes a revert - I quoted the relevant policy, word for word. Competency is required, not just from editors but from (and especially from) admins. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk)

That's way over the top, and not at all consistent with widespread practice. Our "rules" are more descriptive than prescriptive. - MrX 🖋 00:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

So way over the top. Bradv is one of the most competent editors, admins, and Arbitration Committee members I've yet to meet. And I've been here since 2004 and became an admin in 2005. El_C 00:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec)No, in this case, bradv is correct. If a series of consecutive edits, to different parts of the article are "interrupted" by a unrelated edit by someone else, then that series still counts as at most a single revert. This is especially true on a high volume article such as this one, where sometimes it's hard to make ANY edit, revert or not, without running into an edit conflict.

I saw problems all through out the article. I wanted to remove them all. I could've done it one edit. I tried in fact, but kept getting edit conflicts (because it takes longer to make a whole lotta changes in one single edits so the chance of getting an edit conflict is higher). So I did it piece by piece to avoid edit conflicts, and in between these somewhere someone made some different completely unrelated edit. That's one revert at most.

Also, this is the SAME rule as the one that is applied to 3RR. No difference in "leniency". Volunteer Marek 20:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Generally editing the article a piece at a time is preferable to doing it all at once. That way people can revert just the part they disagree with, and each edit can be discussed based on its own merits. I don't think it would be fair to call each one of them a revert for the purposes of 1RR - that would just encourage poor editing practice. While some editors, out of an abundance of caution, are free to limit themselves to one edit like this per day, I personally wouldn't consider enforcing the restriction in this manner. – bradv 🍁 20:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, I'm sorry, but that's not how the restriction has been interpreted until now. Can you please, as an arb, consider something at ARCA that could help clarify this? 1RR threats have been pushed by more experienced editors against newer editors in the last days regarding editing at those pages, and that behavior really should stop, if it is out of line of what a 1RR actually is. The unambiguous wording of the 1RR edit notice is being interpreted differently and should be clarified. Mr Ernie ( talk) 20:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I'm telling you how I interpret 1RR for the purposes of enforcement. I believe I have done so fairly and equitably, and plan to continue in this manner going forward. You are welcome to interpret 1RR stricter than I do in your own editing practices, and you are welcome to report people to noticeboards for edits that you believe are violations. I'm not sure what else I can say, and I don't know what involving ArbCom would accomplish. – bradv 🍁 20:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What you can say is that you will start enforcing the rules as they are written, or, failing that, resign your bit. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, that is an unreasonable request. No one can force me to use the tools I have in a manner I don't agree with. – bradv 🍁 20:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No, what is unreasonable is for you to hold a position of authority in this project, and then apply policy in a way different from how it clearly written, just because you don't agree with it. That is manifestly unfair to users of this project, as Mr Ernie clearly explained. If you don't agree with policy, work to change it, and resign your bit until you do. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk) 20:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you derive that understanding JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, but Arbcom has given admins wide discretion in meting out sanctions. Really, so has the community. Identifying disruptive behavior is a bit more nuanced than just counting reverts. - MrX 🖋 00:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

That's right, JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, enforcement is at our discretion. I agree with Bradv. No action is needed. And no calls for resignations are called for, either. El_C 00:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, if I reported RedHotPear at AE, you would not view those reverts as a sanction violation, but other admins might? If so, we need to clarify that standard so that editors are clearly informed about what the restrictions are. If you interpret 1RR differently than others, it is inherently unfair to good faith editors who simply have the bad luck of having the wrong admin check their edits. I'm asking if it would be useful to ask Arbcom to clarify exactly what 1RR means. Mr Ernie ( talk) 20:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr.Ernie, this is how "revert" has always been interpreted in my experience. And you know, I have a lot of it. Volunteer Marek 20:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I would be very curious to hear whether other admins would view that as a violation worthy of blocking, yes. If there is a large enough discrepancy that the different interpretations are unfair to editors, that could potentially rise to the level of needing ArbCom's involvement, or at least a broad discussion at AN. But I really haven't seen any evidence that differing interpretations of 1RR is an issue among enforcing administrators. – bradv 🍁 20:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to look any further than the comment on this page, by fellow administrator MelanieN - "You CAN be called out for violating 1RR if you do a revert at 10 am and then another revert at 2 pm (in other words not in the same series of edits) - whether they are related or not". Your idiosyncratic interpretation of policy is at odds not only with the very clear language of the policy, but with the way it has been applied by other admins. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk) 20:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, with all due respect for your position here, you may need to reread parts of this discussion. I fully agree with what MelanieN has said below. But both of us are obliged to follow WP:NOTPUNITIVE, and therefore wouldn't block for something that was a mere technical violation and didn't disrupt the editing process. You are suggesting that admins must block whenever someone technically breaks 1RR, and that is simply not true. – bradv 🍁 18:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You missed my point. I am well aware that admins are under no obligation to block, and I am not suggesting they are. But they do have an obligation to enforce policy as it is written, and not apply their own interpretations interpretations that go against the clear language of written policy, they way you seem to be doign when you say you consider two different edits (each of which is a revert) to not break 1RR. The 1RR language is clear. "accidental" violations can of course be excused (better yet, self-reverted by the violator), but intentionally making two reverts to two differtn sections of a page subject to 1RR is a violation, wheter you agree with that or not. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk) 18:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a volunteer project, no one is obligated to do anything. El_C 19:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

One is obligated to follow the project's policies. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk) 19:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, please don't misinterpret what I said below. The reason I put CAN in capital letters was to indicate, via stress or tone of voice as it were, that you CAN be called out for making two reverts separated in time, but you probably won't be. Not if the reverts were of different material or otherwise clearly not intended to be disruptive. As I went on to say, in such a case you will often be prompted to self-revert rather than blocked. As Bradv rightly pointed out, admins evaluate the whole situation; they aren't required to take a particular action. If you don't understand that, it's a good thing you are not an administrator. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not the time separation that concerns me, but the idea that two reverts, each to a different part of an article, do not violate the revert restriction, which goes against both the explicit language used in WP:3RR, and the way it has been enforced in the past. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk) 20:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the explicit language at WP:3RR: . An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Note: "series of consecutive edits". -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to read this discussion from top, before commenting further . None of this has anything to do with consecutive edits, which I agree are counted as one. But this set of edist,which is what we are discussing, - RedHotPear: [13] reverts [14], and [15] reverts [16] - in not consecutive. What we are discussing here is the language in WP:3RR that says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material" (relevant part bolded for your convenience) - which bradv apparently feels does not apply to him. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk)

Volunteer Marek and Bradv, I'm quite certain if I had reverted like that someone, maybe SPECIFICO, would almost surely be at my talk page warning me of a 1RR violation. Actually, come to think of it, something exactly like that has already happened, and just a few weeks ago. If such a sanction were universally understood then that pleasant conversation on my talk page could have been avoided completely. Mr Ernie ( talk) 20:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

If it isn't clear, Brad I am asking if you think SPECIFICO's talk page warning about 1RR I linked above is valid. Otherwise if such a discrepancy exists, where should I take this to get definitive community consensus on, so that other editors with thinner skin aren't subject to baseless threats. Mr Ernie ( talk) 21:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I wouldn't block for that. The intervening edit was unrelated, and you didn't revert it. – bradv 🍁 21:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Ernie, my visit to your talk page sounds more like a reminder than a "warning". Anyway, please exercise a bit more restraint at the Biden article. It's chaotic, and nothing much is going to be settled in the short term, anyway. Regards. Did you think somebody was about to report you? Were you even asked to self-revert? SPECIFICO talk 23:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

( edit conflict) If that was the nature of the mistake, I could be fine with you getting a pass, Volunteer Marek. But not next time it happens, so I would therefore advise to edit via sandbox, proofreading the one version you actually need. El_C 20:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That wouldn't solve the problem. By the time you proofread the "one version" you actually need, the current state of the article would be different and you couldn't implement it without an edit conflict or at least without undoing whatever constructive edits were made in the mean time.

Again, the issue is that if you're working on "one version" on a high traffic article, by the time you're done, it's a different article. Volunteer Marek 20:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I still think a sandbox version could help, even for such a high traffic article. Anyway, that's of course optional. El_C 23:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

VM is obviously one of the most intelligent and diligent editors on WP, and it would be a clear loss for them to be sanctioned, but the reverts at the Biden page *while an RFC was active* and now at the allegations page *while talk page discussion is ongoing* are disruptive that lock up the article and tempt other editors into reverting out of frustration, which is what happened a little while ago to Kolya Butternut. Granted, VM didn't technically break any bright lines, but the edits go against the spirit of collaboration. Again, I don't want to see any experienced, useful editors sanctioned (because let's be honest such sanctions are rarely productive), but we need to be honest with how we approach these articles. Mr Ernie ( talk) 20:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Certainly, while an RfC is ongoing, its topic of dispute should remains on the status quo ante version, until the RfC is resolved and the consensus is codified accordingly. If this has not been happening, please request enforcement (no, it does not need to involve sanctions — warnings may well do the trick, too). El_C 20:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

But that's part of the point. The "status quo" (and personally I object to this criteria - there's nothing privileged about the status quo version, if it violates policy) was that this section was NOT in the article, after an initial attempt to put it in, it was removed, then people kept trying to cram it back in. Volunteer Marek 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You may disagree, but that's how I approach enforcement. If there is a dispute about which version complies with and which version violates policy, the longstanding text should be the interim version while that matter is being decided. Unless, of course, there's a pressing BLP violation, in which case I usually choose to err on the side of caution. El_C 21:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I think there's general agreement on that point. – bradv 🍁 21:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This whole question of "long standing version" and the "tyranny of the status quo" is a separate one from the main issue discussed here. But yes, I disagree with current admin practice, I think it's not based in any actual Wikipedia policy, it's just a result of laziness and convenience on the part of admins, and in fact it contradicts traditional Wikipedia ideals such as WP:BOLD, "always improving" and... just the very nature of a crowd sourced encyclopedia. But I recognize that this is how admins see things and given the inherent institutional inertia and path dependence I don't see that practice changing anytime soon. Volunteer Marek 22:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You're entitled to your view, of course, and I'm not saying it applies to all situations, but generally, adhering to WP:ONUS is the practice that makes most sense for the free flow of the editorial process, I find. So, that's something I continue to recommend while an emerging consensus takes its course. That's because edit wars are highly discouraged. Of course, protection is a more random affair. El_C 23:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I hope we can at least agree that content introduced into an article two days ago is not "longstanding", especially if it's been repeatedly challenged and if the totality of the talk page discussion about it does not approach consensus. - MrX 🖋 00:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of course, two days can never be considered longstanding, no matter how that is defined for a given article — and no matter how high traffic the article is. El_C 01:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Without getting into the details of this situation, which I have not followed, I would just like to point out that the word "revert" includes "a series of reverts". "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." In other words, you are not limited to one revert-type edit in a session. You can revert something in paragraph 3 and then something in paragraph 7 and then something in paragraph 9, and as long as you do them in an uninterrupted series they are one revert. You CAN be called out for violating 1RR if you do a revert at 10 am and then another revert at 2 pm (in other words not in the same series of edits) - whether they are related or not. Sanctions are more likely to be applied if a person makes the SAME revert in the stated period. If they accidentally make an unrelated revert in the time period, it may be suggested to them that they self-revert to avoid violating 1RR. Maybe this has already been explained in this lengthy discussion, but I did see some people confused about it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Saw this thread earlier, but the discussion is rather sprawling. What's the take-away regarding 1RR?

I'm ever surprised that I'm learning new things about our edit warring rules after being around for a while. Recently I learned that if someone makes a controversial change 4 times and someone reverts to the status quo 4 times, only the latter has broken the rules (contra BRD/ONUS). Yes, there are other policies that could result in sanctions for the former, but it's weird for one of our only bright line policies to favor the bold rather than the status quo.

This particular case is one I haven't considered before. 1RR limiting someone to a single revert of any material (or a series of edits that function as one revert) is what makes sense per the rules, but like the other case I just mentioned, doesn't actually seem like the best way to enforce the standard editing practices that have overwhelming support. Specifically, if I make a problematic edit and it's reverted, then make a different problematic edit, it would require a different person to revert, and so on. With a few edits, I alone can use up multiple editors' revert power for the day. With 3RR, it's easier to identify behavioral problems/edit wars. With 1RR it's much more a numbers game, it seems, and that doesn't seem ideal. To me the most sensible thing, especially given this started with the discussion over a BLP, is to consider 1RR applicable as bradv [as I understand] interpreted it: as the counterpart to the BRD enforcement: just like different bold edits are permitted, different reverts are permitted. I don't know if there's room in the policy pages for that kind of interpretation, though... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

If someone makes a controversial change and gets reverted, they should be bringing the matter to the talk page and working out a compromise before implementing the change again. If they make it again prior to discussing it, they have broken the 1RR and "consensus required" page restrictions. If they then get reverted by the same editor, that editor has also broken the 1RR page restriction. In that case both editors would be warned and/or sanctioned, or the page protected until the issue is settled.

The point of all these rules it to prevent disruption on the page, to allow for orderly collaborative editing to occur. But even when the rules are violated it doesn't automatically result in a block - blocks are applied to prevent disruption, not merely to punish editors. So a block for a mere technical or accidental violation usually isn't appropriate. There must be some evidence that the disruption will continue, either on the article in question or in another area of the project.

The same goes for your example of someone making controversial edits simply to use up other people's reverts for the day. While it may not technically violate the 1RR or consensus required page restrictions, that type of disruptive wikilawyering and sanctions gaming needs to be discouraged. – bradv 🍁 18:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't quite get to my point, which may not have been clearly worded. There's a massive range of behaviors between someone violating the brightline rule of making the same change twice and someone being sanctioned for wikilawyering/gaming.

Ultimately, the BRD restriction works as a counterpart to 1RR for one bold change made to an article, but as the number of bold changes increases (to different parts of the article), you continuously reduce the number of available editors to revert while still allowing other bold edits (assuming those changes aren't made all at once).

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that someone is acting completely in good faith, but making bold edits that others disagree with. Maybe I'm trying and failing to find a compromise, maybe my understanding of the sources isn't great, maybe completely different issues are in play with each edit, but falling short of a clear behavioral problem. As it stands (at least with my understanding of how the restrictions work), it is within the rules for me to make a bold edit to 4 different sections at four different parts of the day, such that each one would be reverted independently, requiring 4 people to revert (again, let's assume good faith that I'm not gaming in this example). If the way I understand 1RR is correct, that means none of those 4 would be able to revert anything else outside of the usual exceptions.

That's more or less the opposite of how it should be, as it favors the bold/controversial edits rather than the status quo. It's all well and good to say admins can use common sense, and that we'll see other issues that could be sanctioned or otherwise addressed, and that we can take someone to ANI -- but why should the rules be set up to need those interventions, putting the burden on those looking to revert problematic edits in highly controversial articles rather than on those making the contentious edits to begin with? It's in that way that it's similar to my 3RR example -- yeah, there might be other behavioral issues we might be able to highlight if we're willing to put in a bunch of work and if there's an admin willing to address it, but controversial articles should favor the consensus version, and not the new changes. $0.02. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, if we're in a position where one person needs to safeguard against a rash of bad edits by reverting them, that's usually a sign that protection is needed. A request at RFPP or ANI is usually enough to restore sanity, and it's pretty rare that the filer gets sanctioned for a violation (although the idea is to ask for help before running out of reverts). If, on the other hand, the "one person" in this scenario is someone who is actively edit warring to keep their preferred version, they could find themselves blocked. It all comes down to whether the intent or the result is to disrupt the consensus-building process, and (fortunately) doesn't come down to simply counting reverts.

And yes, this process does favour the bold over the status quo. But, on the other hand, Wikipedians generally are fairly conservative when it comes to content, in that they would rather discuss things before changing them, so questionable edits to controversial articles usually get reverted and brought to the talk page. So, in that sense, the system is working. – bradv 🍁 21:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I get that it often winds up working out, one way or another, despite the rules being set up as they are. What it doesn't explain is why the rules are that way. Why does process favor the bold over the status quo [even though] Wikipedians are fairly conservative when it comes to content. I.e. why isn't the person forcing a bold edit the first one to cross the line as opposed to the person restoring the status quo? Why is the burden on those who would otherwise revert to go find an admin because the rules are set up to limit the R in BRD more than the B? It's not like it has to be that way. It's a bigger question than this particular case, obviously. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC) In case you didn't notice, this is more a procedural concern relating to something you were involved with than an issue with anything you did/said. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I think the rules do need to be this way. Because of entropy, it's easier to destroy than to create. Someone can spend hours researching and writing content, only to have it all deleted in a single click. This is the same reason our project is set up that anyone can write an article, but it requires a consensus discussion to delete it. We need to favour content creation processes or, simply put, we wouldn't have an encyclopedia. – bradv 🍁 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

At some point, WP:PRESERVE seems like it has ceded some ground to WP:BRD in terms of the reality of editing norms, and quantity to quality. But fair enough. Here, however, the context is a hotly contentious subject -- sufficient to be subject to special rules. Those rules are intended to preserve the status quo and enforce discussion rather than err on the side of including bold edits (even with a BRD restriction -- but the spirit of that BRD restriction is undermined by the typical understanding of 1RR. Meh. Don't want to belabor this, though.. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The better way to handle all of this is to simply enforce WP:ONUS policy without even worrying about how many RRs. If I add content X, and someone removed it, X shouldn't be re-added no matter who re-adds it or how many reverts they've made, until and unless there is consensus for it. So if Editor 1 adds X, Editor 2 removes it, Editor 3 reinstates it and Editor 4 removes it again, Editor 3 should be warned/sanctioned, regardless of what else they reverted or when. Editor 4 should not be warned/sanctioned, regardless of what else they reverted or when. However, if Editor 1 (or anyone else) re-adds X in a different form in response to Editor 2's concern (as stated in their edit summary), that should not be seen as a violation at all, but rather as a normal part of the editing process. I don't think that's how our rules currently work but that's how they should be. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 21:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, under the "consensus required" part of the page restrictions, Editor 3 would be cautioned for reintroducing contested material. The assumption is that Editor 2 disagreed with the entire edit, and therefore it should be discussed before re-adding, either in whole or in part. If Editor 2 only disagreed with part of the added content, they should have only reverted that part. This discussion on which part is acceptable should occur on the talk page rather than in edit summaries. – bradv 🍁 21:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

What "consensus required" page restriction? I see 1RR and Enforced BRD but not Consensus Required (which is different from Enforced BRD right?). FWIW there are "editor 3" situations (editors reinstating challenged content without consensus) today on both the main and sub articles, as there are every day. I could go revert it and be Editor 4, but I'm not going to do that. I could notify the editors on their talk pages, but that only leads to lengthy discussion about the definition of a revert. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 14:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Here are some of the criteria I look at when enforcing 1RR:

• I do look at whether it's the same content being repeatedly reverted, and I'm less likely to enforce 1RR if it's not.
• If the "revert" happens as part of a larger constructive edit I'm less likely to count it as a revert. (Example: somebody, in restructuring a paragraph, happens to remove a phrase that had been added yesterday by another user.)
• I tend not to go with the view that any removal of content counts as a revert. (This was popular interpretation a few years ago but has thankfully died out.) Although it depends on how recently that content was added. If it was added yesterday then removing it is a revert. If it was added 6 months ago then removing it is just a "bold edit" that removes longstanding content. There's no bright line on what is "longstanding" and the interpretation can vary from article to article and admin to admin. This has the potential of being problematic, so it's important to assume good faith when someone claims they didn't know content was recently added.
• If multiple reverts happen in a rapid string of edits that happens to be interrupted by an unrelated or bot edit, I usually just count it as one revert. The more constructive these edits are (i.e. they're actually original edits, not a string of undoing others' edits) the more good faith I extend.
• I may also consider the time between reverts. If the reverts are 23 hours apart I'm more likely to ignore it than if they happen on the same day. Unless it's the continuation of a slow revert war.
• I also take into account the other things the editor is doing. Are they discussing the issue on the talk page? If so, are they trying to find a compromise/consensus, or are they stonewalling?

I really like the idea of linking 1RR to content (whether someone is reverting the same content more than once). It's actually something I've been thinking about for a few months. I've been on the brink of making a proposal at Village Pump /Policy or something, since this would require a project-wide change in interpretation. (It wouldn't be good to have a walled-garden with an alternate definition of 1RR for American Politics.) Something along the lines of: 1RR:' You may not make the same edit (adding or removing the same content) more often than once per 24-hour period. The other option I was considering was to test it out myself by removing the 1RR restrictions on some of the articles that have both the 1RR and BRD sanction template attached to them.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this page: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this page (except in limited circumstances) You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

That would have the same effect, preventing editors from adding the same content more than once every 24 hrs, with the extra requirement of making them discuss it on the Talk page before re-adding it. That way we don't have to change the definition of a revert (WP:3RR still applies in the way it always has), and it still clamps down on the back-and-forth revert wars while giving people a bit more flexibility to revert multiple bad edits in the scenario presented above by User:Rhododendrites. That might end with 1RR eventually being phased out or replaced with something different, not necessarily the BRD rule, but something that isn't strictly a revert rule and that removes the first-mover advantage of 1RR. ~ Awilley ( talk) 22:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, after my block I thought I understood the Joe Biden page sanctions, but after this discussion at User talk:SPECIFICO#Edit warring I am confused as to why you did not revert the discussed edit, as you did after you had told me I violated page sanctions. [17]

The edit in question was boldly added: Special:Diff/955772478, reverted: Special:Diff/955895855, restored: Special:Diff/955900473, self-reverted: Special:Diff/955909770, restored: Special:Diff/955910074.

For background as to why this new edit is so controversial, note that this edit expands on another controversial non-consensus edit which has been edit-warred in: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] (There may have been consensus to include something from The Times, but not this quote.

Please let me know the difference here, or please revert the latest edit. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 01:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I reverted your edit after you declined to self-revert and I blocked you from editing the article (and the people who specifically disagreed with your edits were already at 1RR). I am still waiting for Specifico's response. – bradv 🍁 01:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I do understand that I violated the letter of the policy, and even though I felt that my block came too fast for me to process whether to self-revert, you were actually more lenient with me than you had to be. But after reading the discussion at User talk:SPECIFICO#Edit warring, is more evidence needed to establish a case of WP:Civil POV pushing? It's unclear to me how much time editors are to be allowed to figure out what to do before their edits should be revered by administrators, but I hope context matters. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 02:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Related thread at WP:BLPN

A related thread appears today here. SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Enterprisey/live-reload. I find it pretty helpful for keeping up with 1050, since it puts the number of new entries in the name of the tab. Enterprisey ( talk!) 00:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Enterprisey, no need to peddle your wares here. MusikAnimal's bot pings me on IRC. ;) – bradv 🍁 00:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that the filter is doing the heavy lifting here - the article history hasn't actually changed. – bradv 🍁 00:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition to User:MusikBot/AbuseFilterIRC, I also built toolforge:event-streams. You could use this to get notified any time any event happens to any page, namespace, etc., on any wiki. For instance, for our "New user removing references" filter you could use [31]. Or if you want to listen for edits to Today's Featured Article ( Sega Saturn): [32]. Note also the notification options (audible ping or push notification). Pinging you too Enterprisey in case you find this useful! Not to say the live reload isn't, because it certainly is :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

That looks awesome! I linked it from the live-reload docs. Enterprisey ( talk!) 18:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding [33]. It was always my understanding that the sourcing expectations are in regards to articles only, and that on their talk pages we can discuss first if sources are reliable or if they have relevant information that article should include in future form. It would seem counter-intuitive if there was no venue to discuss sources and their information first, and I must say this would be extremely harsh to stifle any discussion(after all we are told that Users should approach article talk page discussions as a place to advance arguments, listen to other users, and try to move the group towards a consensus.) Is this something you are able to answer as a clerk for this case or should I ask for clarification(which seems a very detailed and complicated procedure I must admit)? Kind regards,-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 16:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount, is there a relevant discussion somewhere that I should be aware of when answering this? Because I would interpret that restriction as saying that it applies only to articles. More to the point, discussions on talk pages about whether or not a source meets that criteria strike me as a good idea, and not something that should be prohibited. – bradv 🍁 21:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, the reason for my enquiry was that I was wondering if by discussing certain aspects of the articles on their discussion pages, I also need to follow the strict sourcing requirements when pointing out for examples(example here [34]). Just in case some people could be trigger/ban happy I would prefer to be sure I am not violating any rules.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Miraclepine is requesting unblock on UTRS. They have addressed all the issues and I am inclined to unblock, albeit earlier than anticipated. Please let me know if you are agreeable. Thanks, -- Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I received some very disturbing images from someone claiming to be Miraclepine, but the email was not sent through the Wikimedia email system so it could easily have been an imposter. Apart from that concern, which doesn't appear to be provable either way, I am not opposed to an unblock provided you're satisfied with their appeal. Note though that TonyBallioni was the blocking admin, not me. – bradv 🍁 19:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Tony thought it a bad idea based on the emails. Don't know how long ago that was, so cannot make proper assessment. The crux of the matter is whether or not the personal issues are truly resolved. The more recent the email, of course, the more not ready. If the reset of the block is congruent/contemporaneous with the email, I feel sanguine about unblocking. At the same time, I don't feel a need to hurry to unblock someone 4 months early. They have been editing constructively on other projects, so that weighs in their favor. Do y'all UTRS? It's a marvelous change of pace. Cheers, -- Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, after talking with Brad I’m less concerned about the emails. Unclear it was them. I guess my current thing is that I’m not really convinced by the UTRS because they had a habit of creating issues, stopping, saying the right thing, and causing issues elsewhere. They know how to say the right thing. I’m not sure if they know how to actually follow through on actions, and I don’t buy the theory that re-blocking is easy, it’s not. Anyway, like I said on my talk, use your judgement, but I’d prefer if the appeal is public so they can be held to any commitments they make. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Hyacinth has asked for a deletion review of Michael Byron (composer). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Cryptic 15:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@ Cryptic: Sorry I didn't notify you Bradv, since you requested the redeletion and relisting I assumed you where aware and [I] (19:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC) failed to point you directly to it. Hyacinth ( talk) 19:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hyacinth, no problem, I noticed it. I have no opinion on whether that article should exist - I just closed the AfD according to the clear consensus at the time. – bradv 🍁 19:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

In my post above did I suggest that the article should have been deleted or should not have been deleted? Hyacinth ( talk) 19:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hyacinth, what do you mean? When you unilaterally undeleted the article despite consensus you clearly indicated that you thought it should not have been deleted. – bradv 🍁 19:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood you: you might not have minded not being notified of the relisting because you had no wish to participate in it. Hyacinth ( talk) 19:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hyacinth, I was just explaining why I haven't participated at the DRV. Although per the DRV process, I appreciate being made aware of it. – bradv 🍁 19:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, I apologize for not notifying you. Hyacinth ( talk) 19:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey bradv, hope you are well. Just wanted to give a quick thank you for your help over at Russian battleship Peresvet with blocking those IPs. Appreciate your help :) -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

LuK3, what will happen first - the vandal gets bored and stops vandalizing, or the admins get bored and protect the page? – bradv 🍁 00:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I would definitely go with the latter. This has been going on every day for a month or so. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

LuK3, well that's enough of that. – bradv 🍁 01:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Might want to extend block as https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&page=User%3A190.198.241.0&type=block says it was blocked as a open proxy a year ago and might still be a open proxy unless there is evidence it is no longer a open proxy and was either a closed proxy or not a proxy anymore 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 ( talk) 17:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Most of our proxy checks are done automatically, but I did look at this one and it doesn't show up as an open proxy. Obviously our featured article vandal is using some sort of VPN which exited on this node, but unless there's additional disruption coming from it there's not much point in extending the block. – bradv 🍁 22:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

So, I got sanctions for respecting wikipedia policies, and got banned from editing ee pages and talk? Great job. Of course I will complain.06:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you even read what it was about? How is it ok for other editors to remove quoted text, and for me to be punished? Čeha ( razgovor) 06:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I started apeal at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Čeha Čeha ( razgovor) 06:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure I edited a diff instead of the live page. oopsy :) AlmostFrancis ( talk) 05:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, no problem, it happens. I just wanted to fix it quick before it became even harder to undo. – bradv 🍁 05:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169 Online events: New: Pride / United Nations / Geofocus on reducing gender imbalance Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

-- Rosiestep ( talk) 17:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thank you for protecting the article, it really needed it. I have noticed that you reverted a good edit by "S0091", which I assume was by mistake (easily done while trying to sort out a mess), seeing as the version you reverted to is only supported by baseless OR using as a source a WP article that doesn't even mention the topic. If this was done on purpose, please let me know, otherwise, I would really appreciate it if you could self-revert. Thanks. M.Bitton ( talk) 15:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

M.Bitton, thanks for letting me know. I have no idea how that happened - it certainly wasn't intentional. I've reverted. – bradv 🍁 15:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It happens. Glad it's all sorted out. I hope you won't mind me taking this opportunity to pick your brain about an issue that I had been dealing with, namely the non-English sources misrepresentation, especially when the sources are not accessible. I honestly can't begin to tell you how frustrating it is to spend ages searching for a cited source only to find that it doesn't support the statement attributed to it. Strangely, there is nothing in the WP policies or even in the user warning templates that deals specifically with this problem, which as far as I'm concerned is worse than OR, because if OR at least stands a chance of being challenged, content that is attributed to a misrepresented source tends to become unchallengeable after a while, with the risk of it ending up in some secondary source that relies on Wikipedia for content. Is there anything that can be done to prevent or at the very least strongly discourage such deceitful editing? M.Bitton ( talk) 22:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bradv, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 ( talk)

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

from DGG: I asked you:

"I want to make sure you see a question I just asked at PD talk, before the decision is actually finalized.

Does "2) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles." apply only to articles on drugs, or also to such things as general articles about the drug industry or mentions of drugs in all contexts whatsoever within WP? I see some discussion on it below from Bradv. but I do not think it answers  the question. What for example would be the status of information on a drug pricing controversy involving a particular manufacturer in a page on the company? What about a discussion of drug pricing in an article on a supreme court lawsuit that might hinge on the issue, or even mention the issud, ? What about discussion of drug pricing in an article on the introduction of a requirement for negotiation about dug pricing in Medicare? And what about an article specifically and exclusively about he pricing of a specific drug, assuming afd would accept such an article?" I' apologize repeating  it here , but I want to make sure you see it before the actual close. 
 DGG (
 talk ) 14:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed decision#Comments by DGG. – bradv 🍁 14:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bradv,

Just wanted to drop you a thank you for your active participation on the Medicine Arbcom talk page and in encouraging and amending PDs to be more in line with community concerns, particularly with highlighting general trends and answering questions.

DGG's question above is relevant, but I look forward to seeing the final version. Cheers! Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, thank you for your kind words. – bradv 🍁 14:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You redirected Talk:Derek_Chauvin. Did you give any thought as to what effect that redirection would have on the discussions under way there? Geo Swan ( talk) 02:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan, I saw the page when it was tagged for G4. I was going through the two page histories to see if it qualified, when Praxidicae redirected it. As I concurred with that decision, I redirected the talk page too for consistency. If you disagree you're welcome to revert it I guess, but I don't really see the point of that conversation. – bradv 🍁 02:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oh. Are you saying you started to compare the deleted history of Derek Chauvin (police officer) with the contents of Derek Chauvin prior to Praxidicae's redirection? I think you are saying that you stopped trying to compare the two, after Praxidicae restored the redirection.

• I'd like to ask Praxidicae what their last comment meant. Its surface meaning seems to be "since you aren't an administrator, and you can't look at the deleted version you can't prove the two iterations aren't essentially identical, so Foxtrot Uniform." Since you can see them, would you do me a favour, and finish the comparison you started?

Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan, yes, I did look at both of them. While the text is different, the subject is clearly the same, and notability hasn't changed. Given the sensitive BLP issues at play in the previous AfD, I would not endorse a recreation of that article. The redirect is the right outcome. – bradv 🍁 03:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for the prompt reply.
• Thanks for checking the two versions. Geo Swan ( talk) 03:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Added WP:NCORP here /info/en/?search=Talk:Poki Paahcs ( talk) 18:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

DrL ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Just to let you know. If anyone thinks I'm reading all that, they don't know me very well. Sorry I looked actually. Back to sleep, God willing. -- Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 18:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't easy but I read it. She now says she understands not to WP:OUT anyone, and I gave her some tools for problems that are out of the scope of usual editing. Considering the situation that led to her block has been remedied, (see here and here) would it not be reasonable to unblock her? (Her husband's harasser has been indeffed.) Thanks, -- Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 18:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, her talk page access has not been revoked. She should be filing her appeal there. I told her the same thing by email a few days ago. – bradv 🍁 18:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll look it over and see if there's anything she should not post here. She's quite expansive. -- Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 18:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 18:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Bradv,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Turning Point USA on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Bradv. I've just discovered your user page, and I thought I would drop by and say I found it very interesting. I suppose a more constructive use of the page than the trivial bits of information about oneself that fill up so many user pages (including mine). JBW ( talk) 17:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks JBW. I'm old enough to remember a time without Wikipedia – when the answers to life's questions weren't available at the click of a button. Progress, of course, has its downsides, but I choose to view these as growing pains while we all figure out how to adapt to this new reality where information and knowledge are freely shared. In the meantime, let's not take it for granted. (That reminds me, I should tell my kids to read this.) – bradv 🍁 14:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bradv, how are you ? last year you reviewed Guilhad Emilio Schenker and put the template "close connection" above the entry. I rewrote it thoroughly, I don't know him, could you please check and see if now it's ok ? Tzahy ( talk) 08:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Tzahy, I've had a quick look, and I'm concerned by the number of interviews and self-published sources that are in use. Are there reliable sources available that are independent of the subject? – bradv 🍁 14:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

There are in Hebrew in Walla!: one and two and three and in Haaretz: here and in Ynet here, and in 13 news here, they are all used as a references in the entry. There is a new fact which I didn't include in the entry, in Variety here. Tzahy ( talk) 06:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

may i ask you to back steve dabliz page to can edit and publish again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amr gamal eldin ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

No, for several reasons:

• It was deleted following a community discussion, so the proper forum for reviewing that is WP:DRV.
• The version you posted also violated WP:PROMO.
• Judging by your English abilities demonstrated here on my talk page, versus the text of the deleted article, I don't believe this is your work. Therefore it is also a copyright violation. – bradv 🍁 21:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  All of this together further begs the question, who is paying you to write this article? – bradv 🍁 21:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

No one pay to me and i can use google translate to write any thing and iam new here if you can help me to publish steve page this will be good for me thank you Amr gamal eldin ( talk) 21:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Queen Letizia of Spain on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)