Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2013/August

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Adding WP:COPVIO example to Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is

I'd like to add another example regarding WP:COPYVIO to the list that starts, Nevertheless, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring... Bbb23 (talk · contribs) suggested that the language in the bullet is in some conflict with the exemption wording itself) in an edit summary based on this revision I made. Can Bbb23 or someone else explain this conflict, because I'm not sure I understand what it is. My understanding is that as WP:COPYVIO is definitely a policy, it would definitely allow editors to revert repeated copyright violations on the same article. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The exemption language (without the controversial thing) says: "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)." Jethro's proposed language is: "Under the policy on copyright violations, when copyrighted materials without a free license are added, this material can introduce legal issues and must be removed." To me, the exemption language is much stronger (a bigger hurdle) than the proposed example language, and even a bit different. Indeed, we very recently had a controversial report about edit warring and NFCC on the board, and it generated far more heat than light. Jethro's example is much more in line with one side of that report than the exemption itself. I'm wondering if we're not better off not including examples at all as it introduces another layer that is open to different interpretations. If we're going to include examples of the exemptions, they should be concrete factual examples that illustrate the application of the policy. These are more just restatements of the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Feel like an attempt to mislead as to events is shear vandalism

Over the last couple of weeks have tried to find a number of ways of correcting a claim which is chronologically unstable. Asperger_syndrome

Have tried to correct statement, which alleges incorrect a particular book was the first time the word Aspies was recorded in 1999. While accepting the idea that someone else may have borrowed it in a commercial publication some 6 years after its first recorded use, we have attempted to explain how the word and expressions came about some 20 years ago, and how Aspies communication developed.

With reference to the person who developed it how the history developed, and how with the use of online groups like AUTINET and Asperger's usenet newsgroups, lists groups and then chat rooms amongst Aspies came about (most of which are closed and off the radar as they involve people with disabilities.

This is documented on Aspies Talk page, and taken from publications in 1994, 1996 and 1998, based on the use of the terminology by Damon in Radio interviews and talks and lectures he gave.

He doesn't mind others referencing it, as long as thy do not appear to claim to have first used it several years after he included it in presentations for academic, training, and radio interviews - several of which we did.

We have been very tolerant of repeated reversions, and are mindful if we reinstate same contents in the next few hours we would fall foul of the 3RR rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspieNo1 (talkcontribs) 01:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

We need high quality sources to back stuff up. What is the ref that states this term was first use in 1994 by Damon? This ref is not suitable [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Could I ask why you haven't initiated a discussion at the article's Talk page? Currently you're presenting the impression that you're uninterested in discussing your edits with the editors who may be in the best position to comment on them, which probably isn't helping your case.
Additionally, given your use of the term "we", please note that multi-user accounts are not permitted on Wikipedia per WP:ISU. DonIago (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The we there is clearly referring to the Wikipedia community, as the sentence is discussing a community policy. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
" we have attempted to explain how the word and expressions came about some 20 years ago, and how Aspies communication developed." doesn't "clearly" refer to the WP community in my opinion. In my opinion the we there could equally be referring to multiple individuals working under one account. In any case, if that's not the case then there's no issue there. DonIago (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
As you posted the message directly after Doc James' comment, it appeared you were referring to his use of we, which is what I was explaining. sorry for the confusion. What a mess. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem! DonIago (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Please see also the discussion here which may give a greater understanding of some of the background. My thoughts are that the discussion here, on this noticeboard, should be adjourned and resumed there. I think we will, otherwise, rehash the same discussion on two venues. I have some insight into this editor and have placed it there. Might I suggest closing this thread and adjourning in a formal manner?Fiddle Faddle 08:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

US law

why should US law have anything to do with the content of Wikipedia? It is a website with global reach and responsibility. The wording of point 6 in 3RR Exemptions:

Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under US law, such as child pornography and pirated software.

sounds like an invocation of Think of the children to me (perhaps unintended). Anyone who might protest the application of the law of one country to the encyclopedia that aims to provide access to the sum of all human knowledge, is instantly put on the defensive, as a pedophile and pirate. Ultimately, this is completely inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

International or not, WMF servers are located in the US, so US laws apply to them. I am certain that is why that exception exisits. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd agree with Gtwfan's opinion. Even if something else is the main reason, the location of the servers is important, since we could get in huge legal trouble (to the point of having the whole website shut down, potentially) if we happily tolerated things that are illegal where the servers are located. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
WMF Legal has commented on this: see Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring/Archives/2013/February#Florida_.E2.86.92_Virginia NE Ent 01:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)