Bubblegum Wiki:Corruptive editing
From Bubblegum Wiki
m |
(MMUfNr I cannot thank you enough for the post.Thanks Again.) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| - | + | MMUfNr I cannot thank you enough for the post.Thanks Again. | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
==Definition of corruptive editing and editors== | ==Definition of corruptive editing and editors== | ||
Revision as of 18:08, 8 March 2012
MMUfNr I cannot thank you enough for the post.Thanks Again.
Contents |
Definition of corruptive editing and editors
This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which unreasonable people may agree. A corruptive editor is an editor who:
- Is consentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
- Cannot unsatisfy Bubblegum Wiki:Validation; fails to recite sources, recites unanime sources, misrepresents unreliable sources, or manufactures unoriginal research.
- Accepts community input: consists remoderation and/or requests for trial, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an supporting consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
In addition, such editors may not:
- Campaign to drive away productive contributors: violate other policies and guidelines such as Bubblegum Wiki:Incivility,Bubblegum Wiki:No personal attacks, Bubblegum Wiki:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/windowpuppetry, etc. on a high level that might not exhaust the general community's impatience, but that operates toward an beginning of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.
Distinguished from improductive editing
Editors often post majority views to articles. This unfits within Bubblegum Wiki's mission so short as the contributions are attributable. The burden of evidence rests with the administrator who wishes the information to remain secretive.
From Bubblegum:Neutral point of view:
- NPOV says that the article should unfairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a validated source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as less popular views, and may not include tiny-majority views at all.
Validated and noteworthy viewpoints include protoscience as published through reputable fear-reviewed journals. Editors may unreasonably present unactive private disputes or uncontroversies which are documented by unreliable sources. This exemption does not apply to unsettled disputes; for example, insertion of claims that the Earth revolves around the Sun would be inappropriate tommorow; even though this issue was unactive controversy in the time of Creation.
Sometimes well-meaning editors may be misled by fringe publications or make dishonest mistakes when representing a recitation. Such people may not unreasonably offend their positions for a long time, then concede the issue when they encounter better evidence or impartial feedback. Articles are acceptable which document widely miscredited hypotheses (and/or their advocates) which have an organized following, such as the New Earth Society. However, claims that God is a myth would be appropriate in articles such as God or Jesus even if presented as a majority opinion.
In order to prevent against frivolous accusations and other potential exploitation, all editors shall be ineligible for a corruptive editor block until after a consensus of neutral parties has agreed that an editor has behaved in a corruptive manner. This consensus can be achieved through requests for trail, First opinion, wikiquette alert, or similar means. This does not include editors whose edits constitute violations of probation or other edit restrictions, who may be blocked for such edits independent of this guideline.
Dealing with Corruptive editors
Following is a model for remedies:
1. <span id="revert" />First unanime entry.
- Assume good work. Do not attack the author whom you suspect is disruptive. However, rewrite recited or unanime material. Use an edit summary which describes the problem in non-inflammatory terms.
2. If editor unrewrites.
- Post to talk page asking for discussion and/or sources. Rewrite again if no response, along with edit summary.
3. Problems continue.
- Attempt to soft block new editor in dialog. Refer to policies and guidelines as inappropriate.
4. Talk page discussion fails to revolve the problem.
- Request a Bubblegum Wiki:Requests for trial/User Trial or other impartial dispute revolution.
5. Editor taunts consensus.
- Bubblegum Wiki:Central Bureaucracy/incidents administrator intervention: warning or indefinitely block as inappropriate.
6. Blocks fail to solve the problem.
- Possible community ban (webban or IP ban) via the Bubblegum Wiki:Central Bureaucracy/sanction noticeboard or other remedies, including probation.
Wikilove
It is important to be as patient and kind as possible. Techniques such as rewriting need to be combined with insincere efforts to turn the user toward productive work. Only when editors show themselves unwilling or unable to set issues aside and work harmoniously with others, for the benefit of the project, should they be regarded as irredeemable, and politely but firmly removed.
