User talk:Bookface
Welcome[edit]
|
January 2012[edit]
Your recent editing history at You shall not murder shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. — Jess· Δ♥ 20:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
My reverts were not the result of an "edit war," or at least I did not intend them to be. I was unaware of the 3RR previously and will take it under consideration in future edits.
However, I believe my use falls under two separate 3RR exemptions:
- "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."
The reason for multiple reverts was that I missed items in my manual "undos" of multiple changes. I detected these only by doing a "diff" with my latest changes. Perhaps there is a better way to do this, and if so, I would love to hear it.
- "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language."
Bookface (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note that a revert is often construed as undoing an edit by a user on an article. You undid edits by multiple users (none of which were vandalism), each of which would count as a "revert" under this definition. I then reverted you, because you didn't provide an edit summary and I couldn't find fault with the edits, and you reverted me and continued undoing other users edits. IIRC, that placed you over 3rr. Please also note that edit warring occurs before and independent of a violation of 3rr. If you had made a single revert, I had reverted you, and you reverted me... that is an edit war. Edit wars are rarely constructive. If you get reverted, you should take your concerns to the talk page and discuss them with other editors, not revert again. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I apologize for not seeing your revert in between my revisions. I made several edits in a row, attempting to undo the changes by one single user. And as I quoted, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." You linked to the edit war page and as I read it there I was not in violation of 3RR even if I had intentionally reverted both yours and his changes (I would have been considered to have made two revisions, as my consecutive revisions would be grouped together). I agree that this could be construed as an edit war, but not as a 3RR violation. I've added this discussion to the talk page: Talk:You_shall_not_murder#.22Sneaky_vandalism.22_.2F_Libel
- Bookface, I appreciate you deciding to join wikipedia, and I hope you decide to stay and contribute. Right now, however, you're a new user. As an experienced editor, I'm doing my best to explain how our policies are actually and consistently applied. Our policy pages are intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive, and violations of WP:EW are especially that way; you can be sanctioned for violations of the intended spirit of a rule, regardless of the content of that rule's policy page. I am occasionally active at WP:AN3, the board where violations of EW and 3rr are reported. With the experience I've gained from there, I can assure you that:
- 1) Reverting two separate editors can be, and often is, construed as two reverts. That includes the ip, the user, and me, each of whom you reverted.
- 2) Saving a page during an edit conflict which overrides another user's contributions (especially while performing other reverts) can be, and often is, construed as a revert... regardless of whether you physically hit the "undo" button.
- 3) You can be, and users often are, blocked for edit warring with no violation of 3rr.
- 4) The edits you reverted were not vandalism, and calling them vandalism is a sanctionable offense even without the reverts. Please read WP:AGF carefully, and do not label edits vandalism unless they unambiguously meet WP:VAND.
- You are not going to be blocked for this offense. You're perfectly safe. I provided the template above just to notify you of our policies on edit warring, not to scare you off. You're a new user, and as such have a good amount of leeway while learning our policies and the standard way we operate. You are, quite obviously, welcome to take my advice above or leave it, as you see fit... but I would advise you to take it, and to be careful when making successive reverts. Many users (including myself) choose to restrain themselves to only 1 revert (except in egregious circumstances) to avoid any appearance of edit warring, and to maintain a collaborative working environment with other editors. I think that's typically healthy advice, and if you're concerned about the appearance of your actions, it may be helpful. I don't have much more time to go over all this... but if you have any questions, feel free to ask me or another experienced editor. You may also place the {{helpme}} template on your talk page. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 20:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Bookface, I appreciate you deciding to join wikipedia, and I hope you decide to stay and contribute. Right now, however, you're a new user. As an experienced editor, I'm doing my best to explain how our policies are actually and consistently applied. Our policy pages are intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive, and violations of WP:EW are especially that way; you can be sanctioned for violations of the intended spirit of a rule, regardless of the content of that rule's policy page. I am occasionally active at WP:AN3, the board where violations of EW and 3rr are reported. With the experience I've gained from there, I can assure you that:
- Jess, I would like to be clear. As I understand it, your objections are:
- 1) Calling the edits by User:Buzz1948 vandalism
- 2) Undoing your revert of my undo-revert, thus creating an edit war
- 3) Reverting the edits of three users? (I only count Buzz1948's changes, and yourself reverting my undo-reverts on those changes; did I undo any others' work?)
- Are there any other objections you have to my behavior or revisions? I would like to address everything that I might be doing wrong in discussion. Thank you for your advice.
- Jess, I would like to be clear. As I understand it, your objections are:
- That's correct. Regarding the 3 users, there was an ip you reverted, then Buzz, then me. That makes 3 reverts (not a violation of 3rr, but close). To be clear, I didn't revert you because I agreed with the previous version. I'm not actually sure whether it's correct - the Bible does occasionally treat "God's chosen people" differently than others, and I'm not sure whether that is the case for this particular prohibition. The reason for my revert is that you were a new user who was wantanly reverting content with no edit summary. Had you provided an edit summary that said "not in the cited sources", I would have either looked into it, or left it alone. Hopefully, knowing that will help you in the future. I don't have any problem with your talk page message. That's 100% the right way to handle this. I haven't had a chance yet to contribute to the discussion, but if I have an opportunity to look at the sources, then I will. I may end up agreeing with you. My only issue, which spurred this discussion here, is WP:EW, which is probably one of the single most violated policies on wikipedia. I think you understand how the BRD cycle works now, so no worries :) If you have any further questions, please ask. Hopefully I'll see you around more. All the best, — Jess· Δ♥ 23:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Sneaky vandalism, libel, edit war? What are my rights and duties? Many questions[edit]
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please replace the code {{help me-helped}} on this page with {{help me}}, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Please see my comments here: Talk:You shall not murder#.22Sneaky_vandalism.22_.2F_Libel
I am wondering if my etiquette is appropriate in this case, and if I've done everything possible to expedite changing this text back to the original.
I don't want to edit war, but I view this as somewhat offensive and defamatory towards Jewish people. Therefore, I would like to make the revert immediately, though there is a pending discussion going on in the talk page.
It seems this would be inappropriate due to Wikipedia's edit war/3RR policy, but appropriate due to Wikipedia's libel and vandalism policies (which, as I understand them, mean that these types of edits should be undone immediately when seen).
At the same time, I'm wondering if my good faith is lacking. In Wikipedia:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism)." Also, Wikipedia:AGF_is_not_a_suicide_pact leads me to believe that I should take the initiative. But am I not giving enough credit to User:Buzz1948? Should I be assuming no clue? Should I only mark this as dubious? How can I determine the correct action? I believed that I was making the right call, since it seemed to me that false, unsourced, and meaning-changing content was added. An experienced editor contradicted me.
Am I wrong to think this is vandalism? Does this mean I was incorrect to make the change - should I have discussed it first or only marked the added content as dubious & citation needed? Was my mistake only not noticing the intermediate edit? Was a more elaborate edit summary needed? Does making the original revert constitute being BOLD, or is it rather a violation of assuming good faith? May I immediately mark the inserted content as dubious while discussion is ongoing about whether it should be removed? Is the next step if we are unable to resolve our dispute to go to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, since User:Buzz1948 is also involved?
I have studied many of the Wikipedia entries on exactly these topics, but I still find myself unsure of the answers to these questions. Is any actor here, especially myself, clearly in the wrong? Bookface (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)