Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2013/February

3RR change proposal (small)

I'd like to propose a small change to the definition of 3RR. Although it's a small change, because it's such a sensitive rule, I don't want to do it unilaterally. Here's the change (it's the second sentence in the colored oval):

Undoing other editors's actions—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.

I've bolded the change. The current wording (Undoing editors) is often misinterpreted to mean a direct undo of another editor's edit. I would actually prefer "material" to "actions", but "actions" is more consistent with the rest of the section (read the paragraph underneath the oval).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding the word 'actions' there shouldn't be a problem. As you say, the term is already used in the same way in the paragraph under the oval. Actions sounds better to me than material. If you revert someone else's *removal* of something, you are reverting his action but not his material, since he did not add any material. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

ban / block update

Changed

1. Reverting actions performed by banned users, their sockpuppets and by tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts.

to

1. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users.

per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_blocked_editors and prior discussion Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring/Archives/2012/April#3RR_exception_for_edits_by_blocked_users NE Ent 14:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Florida → Virginia

Could someone confirm both the change in server location, and the relevance to this guideline. I thought the relevant law is that of the HQ of the organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Which is San Francisco. NE Ent 16:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

At present Wikipedia#Rules and laws governing content and editor behavior says:

Content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular, the copyright laws) of the United States and of the U.S. state of Florida, where the majority of Wikipedia's servers are located.

However foundation:Terms of Use#13. Disputes and Jurisdiction refers to the state of California. Does somebody want to do research on this and find out how WP:EW should read? EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks to NE Ent for letting me know about this; speaking as one individual I think the discrepancy is that we're incorporated in Florida. Still, IANAL and do not work for Legal, but I'll let those who do know :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, guys. I was asked about this yesterday and checked with Geoff Brigham and Philippe Beaudette. I come back with a suggestion from the WMF:

Actually, since our servers are no longer just in Florida, this is probably as good a time as any to do something we've intended to do for months, and align the language here with the language in the Terms of Use. Since we refer to "US law" more generally there, why don't we make this section say:

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

This way, our language will be the same in both places.

--Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done NE Ent 12:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - 3RR exemptions

In WP:NOT3RR, the part that says "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption" is not part of #7. It should be dropped down to create it's own paragraph. Thanks. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. Actually, it is part of #7. The idea is that unless the BLP exemption is really clear, you shouldn't rely on it; instead, you should report it to WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You know what, Bbb? I actually somehow missed the BLP part of that text. Haha. I was thinking it was simply referring to 3RR exemptions in general and so therefore must be part of the closing notes. I must be really tired! I'm really not as dumb as my request might indicate. :P Thanks for your quick reply. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries; I didn't think you were dumb. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)