| Revision as of 20:08, 14 November 2010 editAnythingyouwant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors91,258 edits →Removal: Ok← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:07, 14 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Edit warring/Archives/2024/November) (bot |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{shortcut|WT:EW|WT:WAR}} |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
{{Policy-talk}} |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(31d) |
|
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Edit warring/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Talk header|WT:EW|WT:WAR}} |
|
|
{{Policy talk}} |
|
|
{{tmbox |
|
|
| type = notice |
|
|
| text = <big>This is '''not''' the page to report edit warring or 3RR violations.</big> Please instead create a report at ]. |
|
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject Policy}} |
|
{{WikiProject Policy}} |
|
{{Merged-from|Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule||Three-revert rule}} |
|
{{Merged-from|Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule||Three-revert rule}} |
|
|
{{archive box|search=yes| |
|
|
|
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2012''': {{Archives by months|2012}}}} |
|
{| class="infobox" width="315px" |
|
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2013''': {{Archives by months|2013}}}} |
|
|- |
|
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2014''': {{Archives by months|2014}}}} |
|
| ] |
|
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2015''': {{Archives by months|2015}}}} |
|
---- |
|
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2016''': {{Archives by months|2016}}}} |
|
|- |
|
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2017''': {{Archives by months|2017}}}} |
|
! Archived polls for Three-revert rule |
|
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2018''': {{Archives by months|2018}}}} |
|
|- |
|
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2019''': {{Archives by months|2019}}}} |
|
| |
|
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2020''': {{Archives by months|2020}}}} |
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2021''': {{Archives by months|2021}}}} |
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2022''': {{Archives by months|2022}}}} |
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2023''': {{Archives by months|2023}}}} |
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2024''': {{Archives by months|2024}}}} |
|
|
'''Archived polls for Three-revert rule''' |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
'''{{cot|Archives of Talk:Three-revert rule Aug 2004 - Nov 2010}}''' |
|
|- |
|
|
! Archives of Talk:Three-revert rule |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| |
|
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
| Line 28: |
Line 41: |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
---- |
|
|
|
''']''' |
|
|- |
|
|
! ] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| |
|
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
|} |
|
}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
===Removal=== |
|
|
A removed the following sentence: "Though they may violate the general rule against edit-warring for other reasons, four reverts during a period greater than 24 hours does not violate the three-revert rule." |
|
|
|
|
|
I can sympathize with the desire to tighten up the phraseology, but am concerned about this particular removal. Here's why.... |
|
|
|
|
|
The page says, "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). This says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." Notice that this quoted sentence doesn't explain that the rule says nothing else; it says what the rule includes but does not say that this is ALL the rule includes. In other words, the page right now says that a person will automatically get blocked for 3rr if there are more than three reverts within 24 hours, but the page doesn't explicitly say that a person will not get automatically blocked for 3rr in other circumstances. So, I think the sentence that was removed is important and will |
|
|
prevent a common misunderstanding. (Incidentally, I have retired as a named editor, but occasionally edit now as an IP.)] (]) 05:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi, responding to your note on my talk page. I don't think I understand your point, sorry. You may be pointing to a general confusion on the page, which I agree is unfortunate, and comes from having merged the 3RR page into this page. So we currently say: you may be blocked for 3RR, and you may be blocked for not-3RR. |
|
|
|
|
|
:In reality, only people violating 3RR are blocked, unless the edit warring is a slow edit war, or in some other ways sustained, or 3RR-gaming. So the policy as currently written is a little inconsistent, and does not describe actual practice. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 06:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for the reply. The sentence I'm urging you to reinsert is this: "Though they may violate the general rule against edit-warring for other reasons, four reverts during a period greater than 24 hours does not violate the three-revert rule." |
|
|
::Do you think this quoted sentence is redundant, or alternatively do you think it is incorrect? I do not think it is redundant or incorrect. Instead it helps to define what 3RR is. |
|
|
::Before I retired as a named editor, I was blocked for "3RR" due to making four reverts during a period slightly greater than 24 hours, when an editor filed a complaint at the 3RR noticeboard. I was quite irate about it at my user talk page. In a subsequent ArbCom proceeding regarding a completely unrelated set of articles, ArbCom looked at that irate comment I had made, and used it to justify rejecting my request that a sanction be lifted. So, I retired. This is what others' misunderstanding and abuse of 3RR has done to me personally, and I would like to spare others the hassle by making this page 100% clear about what 3RR is and what it is not. The sentence you removed did that, I believe.] (]) 06:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't really see how your experiences support the sentence you want inserted. As you've found, you ''can'' be blocked for making excess reverts without breaking the letter of 3RR, and it isn't greatly important that you were blocked for edit-warring generally rather than under 3RR specifically, so it would seem not just redundant but potentially misleading to insert a sentence emphasizing that particular (still likely blockable) behaviour is not technically a breach of 3RR. --] (]) 08:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I was not blocked for any form of edit-warring other than 3RR. There is a reason for that. Getting a user quickly and easily blocked is much more efficient via 3RR than via a more general accusation of edit-warring; i.e. 3RR is automatic, surrounding circumstances such as justifications or the behavior of other editors need not be considered, and the process moves much faster. The characterization at this page of 3RR as a "bright line" is extremely deceptive, if you want to allow use of the 3RR process even when there are no more than 3 edits within 24 hours. |
|
|
::::Retirement is enjoyable, and editors who are trapped by this phony use of 3RR will enjoy retirement as well, so it's not the end of the world if the deception continues. |
|
|
::::The article where this happened to me was ]. An editor had inserted material from an opinion piece titled "". I removed it, with an explanation at the article talk page. Subsequently, the same editor again inserted material from an opinion piece by the same author that appeared in the same publication. Since this was a BLP, I almost removed it immediately, but for greater caution waited past the 24 hours. At which point I was blocked for 3RR, and a remark I made about that block at my user talk page was later seized upon by ArbCom in a completely unrelated case, to extend sanctions for (apparently) the rest of my life. All because of the obviously deceptive material at this page. Cheers.] (]) 16:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Making a fourth revert just outside the 24-hour period in order to game the policy is indeed seen as a 3RR violation, and people are often blocked for it. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Then why on Earth not say so at this page, instead of deceiving editors into thinking that 3RR is truly a "bright line" rule? |
|
|
:::::::The sentence that you removed has made clear for many months that 3RR is not to be used in the way you describe. However, if the consensus is to use 3RR in the way you describe, then please clarify at this page that it is not entirely a "bright line" rule. |
|
|
:::::::The admin who used 3RR this way in my case had previously said it was not to be used that way. Indeed, the fact that a person waits past 24 hours to revert is often seen as a good-faith effort to carefully follow the rules. In my case, I assure you that I was editing in good faith, just like . Anyway, please adjust this page to reflect whatever the policy really is. Thanks.] (]) 19:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::The fact that you made 4 reverts in 24:''01'', rather than 24 hours, was presumably taken as clear evidence of an intent to game the policy. The fact that you still don't get it, and are seeking to amend a fundamental site policy to retroactively justify your behavior, suggests that the blocking admin made the right call. The policy is already clear that 3 reverts is not an entitlement, and that people may be blocked even if they don't cross the bright line. Most editors get that when they read the policy. Those who don't are obsessing over the letter of the law to justify their blatant disregard for its spirit. I don't think tweaking the wording is going to fix that problem. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::The obsession is yours. You follow me wherever I go, and have filed more failed administrative requests against me than I ever imagined possible. MastCell is the editor who successfully requested the 3RR block against me for removing the material described above (from the ] article). |
|
|
:::::::::This policy was perfectly clear until October 28, when it was made unclear. This policy now says that 3RR is a bright-line rule, even though you want to block people merely for coming close to that line. If you want to do so, then give fair warning in this policy, instead of saying it's a bright line rule. Do you know what a ] is? |
|
|
:::::::::An editor once told me, "This is Misplaced Pages, and we don't create or modify policies based on hypotheticals.". So now you're discounting what I say because of actual personal experience?] (]) 19:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::3RR policy has been described as a bright line for as long as I remember. I've clarified that gaming the system with a 4th revert just outside 24 hours is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation too. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 19:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Thx.] (]) 20:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Proposed edit=== |
|
|
If 3RR blocks are appropriate even when the fourth revert occurs after 24 hours, then the policy should not call 3RR a "bright line rule" (unless the purpose is to be deceitful and trap unsuspecting editors). Will anyone object if I come out of retirement to clarify in the policy that 3RR is not a "bright line rule"?] (]) 13:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'm pretty sure the point of the phrase "bright-line rule" is to say that if you cross the line, you must expect to be blocked. It does '''not''' mean that users who don't cross the line '''won't''' be blocked. ] ] 14:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::The term ] is extremely clear. If you want to allow users to be blocked for 3RR even if the fourth edit is after 24 hours, then it is not a bright line rule. The policy right now is very misleading. Again, I propose to delete that it is a bright line rule, and instead say that if you cross the line, you must expect to be blocked, but users who don't cross the line may be blocked for 3RR as well. Does anyone object?] (]) 14:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Well, I for one certainly don't object, in that I've never liked the phrase, anyway. In part because actually, even clear violations of 3RR are up to admin discretion whether to block or not (I've more than once refused to block an editor who had reverted four times in 24 hours because the other editor in the dispute had reverted three times and I didn't believe in blocking only one when both were edit warring). I suspect there will be others who do object, though. ] ] 14:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Again, I'd like to point out that the 3RR procedures are much more efficient than the procedures for general edit-warring blocks; the former do not have to take into account actions of other editors, justifications need not be considered, and the 3RR noticeboard moves much faster. If you want people to be subject to those procedures even if the fourth revert is after 24 hours, then this policy has to stop saying the opposite. I think it's bad policy to let admins dish out 3RR blocks for some nebulous period after 24 hours, but if that's really the policy you want then we need to say so at this policy page.] (]) 14:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Efficient, maybe, but also highly open to gaming, which is pretty much exactly what waiting to make sure your fourth revert falls outside 24 hours is. That's why we need general edit warring blocks. 3RR can't possibly cover all disruptive edit warring behaviour. Personally, I don't bother making the distinction between 3RR and edit warring blocks; I call them all edit warring blocks. That's the real policy; 3RR is just a yardstick. ] ] 14:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I don't understand the assumption of bad faith; for example, if an editor thinks he has a good BLP argument to remove material immediately, but instead waits 24 hours for greater caution in order to get on the other side of the "bright line", I cannot imagine anything in better faith than that. <s>Anyway, there are separate places to report 3RR versus more general edit-warring, right? That's a lot more than a different yardstick.</s> While some argue that waiting to get over the bright line is gaming the system or wikilawyering, they seldom use those labels for editors who file complaints at noticeboards or other venues for administrative action; I always tried to refrain from doing that, because it's much better to work out problems at an article talk page (plus it's usually obnoxious wikilawyering to game the system by constantly requesting administrative action unless it's really necessary). Anyhow, I'll wait 24 hours to see if anyone objects to this edit proposal. I'd prefer if someone else would make the edit, but I'll do it if necessary (and then re-retire).] (]) 15:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::The problem is that the rule is not there to regulate time in which you can revert; it exists to stop edit warring. So waiting until after 24 hours is not helping the problem at all. And if the person has a BLP reason, the material should be removed immediately and is exempt from 3RR. Oh, and no, there are not separate places to report; it's a single noticeboard for reporting all forms of edit warring, 3RR or otherwise. As for your idea to wait to see if there are objections, though, that seems good to me. ] ] 15:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Thanks, I stand corrected regarding the separate noticeboard. Anyway, I'll stick with the rest of what I said, and am glad you're okay with removing the "bright line" phrase. As for your recommendation to remove crud from BLPs immediately instead of waiting past 24 hours, maybe that would be worth mentioning in the BLP policy.] (]) 15:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::The BLP exemption, and the preference for removing violations immediately, is already part of policy. It's mentioned in both ] and ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
(undent) This is not a proposal to explicitly say anything about BLP. It is a proposal to delete that 3RR is a "bright line rule", and instead say that if you cross the line, you must expect to be blocked, but users who don't cross the line may be blocked for 3RR as well. Do you object to that? 3RR is not a "bright line rule" if users are blockable for 3RR after 24 hours. Editors may have perfectly valid reasons for waiting just past 24 hours to make an edit, thinking that waiting in that manner will reduce the appearance of edit-warring (while demonstrating patience, awareness of the rules, and commitment to follow the rules). It would be deceitful for this policy to give editors a false sense of security that they have crossed a "bright-line" when actually they have not. The present policy up until October 28 had made clear for many months that 3RR is inapplicable if the fourth revert is more than 24 hours after the first; if we instead want 3RR to apply in such instances then it is extremely misleading to call it a bright line rule.] (]) 18:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
Incidentally, IP 166 is me.] (]) 18:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Bright line here just means you're probably okay if you only revert twice (but note: probably), but you're almost certainly in trouble if you revert three times, and if you try to time the third so it's strictly not a 3RR violation, you'll find it's non-strictly one anyway. You're focusing too much on the letter of the policy. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 19:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::The letter of the policy can be easily and vastly improved to conform with your interpretation of it. A normal human being will understand a ] to mean that he'll be safe if he doesn't cross the line. Why can't we keep this policy clear?] (]) 20:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Hatnote link to Editor War == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{tl|editsemiprotected}} |
|
|
] redirects here from the mainspace. Shouldn't there be a hatnote link on this page to ], about the vi/Emacs rivalry? ] (]) 15:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}}, thank you. ]]<sup>]</sup> 08:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::I would say that ] ought to redirect to ]. We don't generally like redirects from the encyclopedia to project pages, particularly when there's an encyclopedia page they could be redirecting to.--] (]) 09:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I would disagree. Edit war is different enough from Editor war that most people searching for edit war are going to have intended to find this page; just omitting the WP: at the start. It is a useful enough shortcut. ]]<sup>]</sup> 09:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)r |
|
|
::::OK, I've used a different approach now - I've started a stub article called ] (which people here might like to expand or otherwise improve). Now everyone can get to where they want to go, and there's no need for cross-namespace redirects or the hatnote on this page.--] (]) 10:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Looking good. Thanks for taking the initiative. ]]<sup>]</sup> 10:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Two questions == |
|
|
|
|
|
Scenario: |
|
|
|
|
|
#A contentious portion of an article goes through a rocky period, which, after more than one RfC, manages to reach a majority (although not 100%) consensus, based on some compromising, and via the comment on uninvolved editors. |
|
|
#The article is changed to reflect that compromise. |
|
|
#The article sits for a while (a few days, a few weeks, a few months, whatever), without the contentious portion changed. Like all other articles, it has a few small changes here and there to other parts. |
|
|
#A change is made to the article introducing a factual error (a good faith error, not a vandalism error). |
|
|
#A member of the majority in the compromise position fixes that error. |
|
|
#A member of the minority in the compromise position, on the same day, changes the contentious portion back to their preferred version. |
|
|
#Edit-warring ensues, as the same majority member mentioned in line 5 attempts to return the article to its compromise state. |
|
|
|
|
|
Two questions: |
|
|
#Does the first edit made by the majority editor count towards 3RR? It was a reversion, but a reversion of a different, unrelated part. It was not a reversion of vandalism, so not automatically exempt. |
|
|
#Are the minority editors' actions questionable, given that the seem to have left the article alone until presented with an opportunity to "win" a 3RR fight? |
|
|
|
|
|
Just because I feel like I'm being intentionally deceitful if I write all of this in a generic sense, I'm the "member of the majority" mentioned above. The results of the question aren't particularly critical, nor does the article in question need oversight, as I've stopped at either 3 reverts (his count) or 2 reverts (my count), and am awaiting a discussion on the talk page. I just found it, um, interesting that it seemed like a way for someone to ] the system.] (]) 05:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, 3RR is easily gameable like this. Of course, the side that provoked the edit war may also get blocked for disruption even without breachign 3RR, but the very fact we have this "rule" encourages people to think in gaming terms, which is the main reason I don't think we should have it. If an admin's ability to identify and counteract disruption is limited to an ability to count up to 4, they probably don't have much business being an admin.--] (]) 07:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Opinion among administrators is split on this issue of the first edit. For example suppose that the minority editor leaves the article alone for a year and a day and then changes a phrase back to their preferred version, then is that a bold edit or a revert? It is not clear cut because we accept the principle that over an (unspecified) length of time that consensus can change and it is reasonable to assertion consensus through bold edits. Some administrators consider it to be a revert others do not. I think it better if it is not decided with a mechanical rule but is left to the discretion of the individual uninvolved administrator. -- ] (]) 23:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Suggestion == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello. |
|
|
|
|
|
I have read this page, and would like to propose a slight modification to the rule, but with the caveat that it is just based on what seems to be appropriate in theory, and it would need someone with experience of actual editing conflicts to comment on how it might work in practice. |
|
|
|
|
|
The change is to insert some text, inserted text underlined here: |
|
|
|
|
|
:A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user, <u>or with only intervening edits which are obviously independent of all of these reverts</u>, counts as one revert. |
|
|
|
|
|
I am thinking about the case where there is a busy article, and someone reverts some change(s) in bits rather than in a single edit, at what happens to be the same time that someone else is making a series of unrelated and uncontested changes (e.g. to a different section) which end up as intervening edits. It would seem unfair if the person making the reversions fell foul of a rule about "edit warring" just because of this. |
|
|
|
|
|
Many thanks. ] (]) 19:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, I would agree with that. Though I don't know if it's necessary to actually write it, or if it's something we would expect admins to take into account anyway, per common sense.--] (]) 08:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Thanks. Anyone else any opinions? ] (]) 12:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I would oppose making this an actual change in the edit-warring policy. An admin who stepped through all the edits in a dispute would possibly make this allowance anyway, but creating a rule about it increases the admin's burden of analysis too much. I recall one case which depended on this distinction, a couple of years ago about a Canadian topic. The person in question had been working up to the very edge of 3RR, so I still think that a block was justified. We do not like it when people treat 3RR as a fixed allowance that they can exhaust as they please; we prefer to use it as a criterion for when a case can be closed as unimportant and not needing further study. If they technically go over 3RR then we try to assess the motivations and predict whether the person will cooperate in the future, or will keep on doing the same thing unless they are sanctioned. ] (]) 22:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Nomenclature == |
|
|
|
|
|
"Revert" is mainly a verb, and although it does exist as a noun, "reversion" is much more normal (so it should be the "three reversions rule"). I guess it doesn't really matter because this is only a "behind-the-scenes" page rather than an article, but even so, it would be nice if it was in more natural English. ] (]) 20:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:"Revert" is used in Misplaced Pages-speak as a noun - I think it's acceptable jargon for what is, as you say, a behind-the-scenes page.--] (]) 08:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::(No name...) Grammaraticalistically<sup>;-)</sup> speaking, perhaps... but I suspect, jargon wise, "revert" is easier to type, spell, remember and understand. Since the idea is to properly convey this subject in a fashion as comprehensible as possible (with an ease of finding it as well), I prefer "revert". Best, <small>] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 00:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reverts done with the tacit permission of the other editors are not edit-warring. == |
|
|
|
|
|
Reverts done with the tacit permission of the other editors are clearly not edit-warring. Yes, I know this can be assumed. However, editors can get sandbagged into making too many reverts under the assumption that they have permission. Great way to get a ban on a pesky, but naive, editor. And yes, it would be quickly sorted out. However, best this policy gets spelled out, just in case. ] (]) 16:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I absolutely disagree that this can be assumed or should be made a policy. You can't just invoke "oh, those 2 other agree with me, so I can revert as many times as I want." If you're going to cross 3RR, you have to stop and let those others who agree revert. How many other editors do you need to have "tacit" support? And what if there are 2 different groups, who each give "tacit support" to 2 different positions? Edit warring amongst a big group of people is still edit warring, and can/should result in page protection if not blocks all around. In any event, if you have a "naive" editor, you should be informing him/her about Misplaced Pages editing policy/guidelines, not seeking to use a rule to get him/her off the page. Maybe you meant something different than what I'm interpreting; if so, please clarify, but as I read it now, this seems like a really bad idea. ] (]) 21:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Tacit permission from other editors? How does that work? Anyone can claim to have tacit permission from editors. The exceptions to 3RR are supposed to be bright line situations that either do not violate the spirit of our policies (such as self-reverts) or where a higher principle takes precedence (such as BLP vios). This isn't one of those. Tacit permission isn't good enough to make an exception. ] ] 23:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Sorry, I was imprecise. What I meant was everyone on the discussion page agrees to the revert. I bring this because I have seen professional edit-warriers agree to a fourth revert or otherwise trick another editor into doing one and then use this to accuse the other editor of violating the three-edit rule. A good way to drive off pesky nubies who don't know any better. BTW, I've been here in one way or another for close to 6 years-- the only one I ever revert is myself. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Perhaps the article should simply warn that such trickery can happen, and yes it is a gross violation of a bunch of rules. But that none-the-less the three edit rule still stands. ] (]) 16:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If everyone on the page agrees to the revert, then one of the other editors should be making the revert. Now, this may "trick" the new editor into making a 4th edit, which may get them blocked for a very short period of time. However, one of the talk page people should warn the new editor about 3RR. The goal of 3RR and the edit-warring policy in general isn't to drive away the nubies--it's to drive those nubies to the talk page. Sometimes, of course, that requires tings like "attention-getting blocks." Ideally, of course, if a group of people is editing disruptively just to keep out new editors, an admin will notice that and then start scrutinizing their behavior. |
|
|
::::If you're saying, though that the new editor breaking 3RR does so because they were explicitly told to do so on the talk page (i.e., they're already engaging in conversation), then the admin probably shouldn't even block them in the first place. ] (]) 02:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Tricking inexperienced and/or too-trusting editors into making too many edits is an architype example of ]. So over-reacting to it just rewards bad behavior, not what you want to do. As for "attention-getting blocks", We are not training horses here. Particularly in the case of "experts", if I'm a nubie and then get even briefly banned after being throughly-gamed, I'm out-of-here, never to come back. Which is the gamer's goal in the first place. ] (]) 14:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Do you know someone this actually happened to? Admins usually try to judge the whole picture before issuing any blocks. ] (]) 14:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::There is a complaint of it on ]. See: "Example: Double-teaming on 3RR". Apparently, it was in the article itself as an example of an abuse, but was removed. Remember, this is an error likely to be committed by less-sophisticated editors. These may not bother to complain or, just having been throughly beaten up and thrown into an alley, will just blow off wikipedia as a "Bad Idea". As for admins, as others here have remarked, ya never know what they are going to do. ] (]) 15:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), ..... == |
|
|
|
|
|
] sez " Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist." |
|
|
Anybody question this ? ] (]) 15:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==3RR question== |
|
|
Should something be added to 3RR to relate it more directly to ]? I ask this because I've seen a situation where an editor will make a change, which is reverted, and they will revert etc. till they claim the other has violated 3RR. ''eg''. |
|
|
|
|
|
# '''A''' adds content to article |
|
|
# '''B''' reverts |
|
|
# '''A''' reverts to add content |
|
|
# '''B''' reverts a second time |
|
|
# '''A''' reverts to add content |
|
|
# '''B''' reverts a third time |
|
|
# '''A''' reverts, and claims that B has now reached 3RR while they haven't. |
|
|
The information is thus forced into the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
Should the first edit, if reverted, count as a revert as well? ] (]) 13:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think this is splitting hairs too finely. The second time each editor reverts, especially without any intervening edits by anybody, each editor should be warned and immediately cease reverting and start discussing. If the reverts are childish ''my version is better than your version'' without any offered insight into ''why'' the edit is an improvement, I might block an editor if they revert again after being warned, even though they haven't technically reached the 3RR limit. This is in the spirit of minimizing Misplaced Pages disruption, minimizing the hassle each good faith editor encounters, quickly ending destructive practices, and encouraging editors to focus on reasonable arguments, preferably based on the ], and collaborating. —] (]) 01:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I only ask because I've seen it happen before. Whoever makes the first change gets the information in. ] (]) 05:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2024 == |
|
:::Is that so bad? Anyone else is free to revert it. What's more important is that the edit warring end quickly. If you are editor A, then appeal to anyone else who has edited the article recently, or to any WikiProjects covering the article. —] (]) 05:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Misplaced Pages:Edit warring|answered=Yes}} |
|
::::It's actually editor B that's in trouble ;) but thanks, I'll keep that in mind! ] (]) 05:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] (]) 03:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::They're both in trouble for gaming the damn system... warn them both, that way we don't have people asking questions like this one ] (]) 08:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
* {{Not done}} It's not clear in the slightest what edits you'd like made. ] (]) 03:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
Not done It's not clear in the slightest what edits you'd like made. Departure– (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)