| Revision as of 07:47, 17 September 2014 editHighInBC (talk | contribs)Administrators41,786 edits →Edit warring and advanced permissions: not the way← 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 7: |
Line 7: |
|
{{Talk header|WT:EW|WT:WAR}} |
|
{{Talk header|WT:EW|WT:WAR}} |
|
{{Policy talk}} |
|
{{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}} |
|
{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot II|age=31}} |
|
|
{{Merged-from|Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule||Three-revert rule}} |
|
{{Merged-from|Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule||Three-revert rule}} |
|
{{archive box|search=yes| |
|
{{archive box|search=yes| |
| Line 14: |
Line 17: |
|
{{nowrap|'''2013''': {{Archives by months|2013}}}} |
|
{{nowrap|'''2013''': {{Archives by months|2013}}}} |
|
{{nowrap|'''2014''': {{Archives by months|2014}}}} |
|
{{nowrap|'''2014''': {{Archives by months|2014}}}} |
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2015''': {{Archives by months|2015}}}} |
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2016''': {{Archives by months|2016}}}} |
|
|
{{nowrap|'''2017''': {{Archives by months|2017}}}} |
|
|
{{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''' |
|
'''Archived polls for Three-revert rule''' |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
| Line 20: |
Line 33: |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
'''{{hat|Archives of Talk:Three-revert rule Aug 2004 - Nov 2010}}''' |
|
'''{{cot|Archives of Talk:Three-revert rule Aug 2004 - Nov 2010}}''' |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
| Line 29: |
Line 42: |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
{{hab}} |
|
{{cob}} |
|
''']''' |
|
''']''' |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
| Line 36: |
Line 49: |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2024 == |
|
== definition of 'revert' == |
|
|
|
|
|
'Revert' is defined three times on this page. |
|
|
|
|
|
In the lead |
|
|
|
|
|
A revert means undoing the actions of ''another'' editor. |
|
|
|
|
|
In the body |
|
|
|
|
|
An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes ''other editors''' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. |
|
|
|
|
|
A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of ''other editors'', in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. |
|
|
|
|
|
Another editor suggests one other editor, other editors suggests more than one. To avoid confusion they should be brought into conformity. I do not understand Bbb23's objection to my edit at all, but to be consistent Bbb23 should surely wish for the same wording throughout. Are there any objections to my redoing this edit. ] (]) 17:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, the policy does not mean the reverting has to be plural (reverting more than one editor); , which , changed the text to a plural matter. ] (]) 17:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::If you support the revert in the lead why don't you want to change the wording in the body of the article? ] (]) 17:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I have no answer to this question. Does anyone object to my undoing Bbb23's revrt so that the definition of 'revert' is consistent throughout? If not I'll undo it. ] (]) 05:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It looks like the body text should be changed to "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes '''''an editor's''''' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Obviously there is no requirement that multiple editors be reverted in order for the edit to count as a revert.- ]] 17:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::'An editor' could mean 'one other editor' The confusion I experienced was that I thought you could undo editor x 3 times, editor y 3 times and editor z 3 times, in fact that there was no limit to the number of reverts provided you didn't undo the same editor more than 3 times. That's clearly wrong. How do you put it succinctly and unambigously? The body text to me is less ambiguous than the lead therefore I have altered the lead to fit the body rather than the other way round. (To be pedantic deleting just two words could break the rule if they were the work of four editors, for example hair > grey hair > greyish hair > greyish hairs)] (]) 17:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::That's a fair point. How about "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes '''''any editor's''''' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."? - ]] 18:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Glad I've found someone that understands the point. This sounds better. But I'd be reluctant to change the wording in the body of the article which to me is clear enough, I just wanted to make the lead conform to the body. But if you change the lead to 'any editor's' that seems an improvement on previous. However I might change my mind on this tomorrow! ] (]) 19:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I think input from a few other users would be beneficial. Technically, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors'<small>←(plural, possessive)</small> actions..." could be construed to mean that only reverts of multiple editors edits count as reverts. In other words, one could revert a single editor's edits with impunity.- ]] 19:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::"That undoes the actions of one or more other editors" might do the trick. The 'pedantic point' I raised is valid because if you remove two or three sentences you could remove the actions of more than three editors in one an edit can only count as one revert. ] (]) 19:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Yes, that would work and it would remove some ambiguity as well.- ]] 19:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I'm surprised nobody much joins these discussions. I'm not bold enough to change without wider support. ] (]) 19:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Interest in a new addition to WP:3RRNO == |
|
|
|
|
|
I was just wondering if I could gauge some interest to a probably common sense addition to WP:3RRNO. It would be related to personal information and 'outing' of other users. Something like: {{tq|8. Removal of information that could be construed as ] This includes but is not limited to names, addresses, phone numbers, off-site connections or social media accounts.}} ] (]) 20:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Why are you edit warring when you can ask for quick, quiet oversight? --] <sup>]</sup> 20:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Policy consensus == |
|
|
|
|
|
If a user corrects ] errors on a page (e.g. corrects "12:00 pm" to "Noon" per ]), and another user reverts it back, then the original editor again corrects the error, and this cycle continues, with a post on the article's talk page pointing to an already-established ] (satisfying the ]), are both users still faulted with the edit war, or is it only the user who reverts the corrections (e.g. "Noon" → "12:00 pm")? ]<sup>]</sup> 01:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== What is not edit warring == |
|
|
|
|
|
I recently encountered a situation where I asked people to stop edit warring. It was mentioned that NPOV was being violated and suggested that this justified the reverting. |
|
|
|
|
|
The policy does say "'''Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring'''" but only gives BLP as an example. The specific 3RR exemptions also only mention BLP. |
|
|
|
|
|
Is it considered edit warring if you consider a revert to be correcting a violation of NPOV or other overriding policies? Could this be clarified in the wording? |
|
|
|
|
|
My personal opinion is the BLP is a bright a clear line whereas NPOV requires a certain level of interpretation and should not be exempt. ] 02:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Granted - a lot of NPOV is open to interpretation and the situation could get fairly snarly, pretty quickly. However, the recent situation that you're referring to is one of the clearer cases of NPOV and I would be opposed to any block towards any individual other than that specific POV pusher. I think there should be some grey area to allow us lowly editors leeway to keep an article at a stable version until someone with a mop is able to come along and either protect the page or institute the appropriate block(s) - and that can sometimes be hours. <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 03:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*I appreciate Chillum bringing this up. I was one of the warring parties here (in ]), bringing up the POV character of some edits not so much as an excuse for breaking 3R but rather as an explanation for why I was willing to go to 3 (but not past it). On the one hand, allowing more leeway (forget that I'm an admin engaged in unseemly edit warring) seems reasonable but can easily get out of hand (explaining an NPOV violation is rarely as straightforward as explaining/claiming BLP violation), but by the same token, I do feel that we're hamstringing admins by overplaying involvement and stressing such things as "don't revert to the right version". Tough call. Oh, Chillum, thanks for not blocking me. ] (]) 03:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:* I am happy I did not, I would be eating trout for dinner! ] 03:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::*I'm tired of hearing about trout on Misplaced Pages as if it's a bad thing. It's one of my very favorite fish, and if you don't want to eat it for dinner, {{U|Chillum}}, I'd be happy to. Did you get carried away, {{U|Drmies}}? I actually watched the drama unfold but decided there were too many cooks in the kitchen for me to be of any real help. The only thing I would add to {{U|EdJohnston|Ed}}'s comment below is that context is everything, and the use of discretion, particularly in a situation where one editor has breached 3RR and one has not (although has arguably edit-warred), is not easy to predict and will vary from admin to admin. As Ed says, better to be cautious.--] (]) 04:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*Trout is indeed a delicious fish. I hope you enjoyed the show more than I enjoyed playing my part in it. ] (]) 04:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::*That wouldn't be hard, but, no, I actually thought the other editor was way out of line, not just for the edit warring, but for the attitude. Not sure how to characterize it, a rather strange blend of pugnacious, repetitive, and whiny.--] (]) 05:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::*:And you saw that I was not the only one reverting that edit. That's a big thing too, for me: editing against consensus. BTW, I fully understand that it does not make me look ''good'' in the eyes of many observers, but sometimes one has bigger fish to fry, and the history of that article proves that neutrality is a huge issue here. The editor/admin wishing to enforce the second of our five pillars runs into stuff like ], which is a hatchet job. ] (]) 14:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''NPOV not exempt''' Someone wanted to add inappropriate text to an article, and another editor wanted to remove it. That's a rather normal day at the office and is what WP:EW is intended to limit. It's only in egregious cases (like clear BLP violations) that an exemption applies, and even that is dubious as some clueless admins react to edit wars instinctively so a BLP-reverter could end up with a short-lived block. ] (]) 03:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*If someone is making ridiculous changes to an article (but changes which are not vandalism or BLP) and Editor B reverts him, the average admin will probably hesitate before blocking Editor B. But Editor B is not protected by ] and should be cautious. If the matter is reported at AN3 some combination of protection, informal mediation or helpful lectures are likely to occur. ] (]) 04:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The 3RR exemptions are not only focused on WP:BLP violations, and note that what is a WP:BLP violation can at times be debatable...so it might be best to take the matter to the ]. ] (]) 06:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit warring and advanced permissions == |
|
|
|
|
|
I recently added the following: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>The policy applies to ''all'' users no matter what level of permissions they may have. Administrators are especially cautioned to avoid participating in edit wars as it may give the impression that they are attempting to gain an advantage. Furthermore, no administrator should attempt to close a 3RR report if they are in any way ] in the relevant dispute.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
It was reverted by Bbb23 with the edit summary "where does this come from?" I am not quite sure how to respond to such a question. Is the information I added incorrect? ] (]) 04:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It seems to unduly focus on admins when existing policy already covers all of this. Nowhere is there an implication that admins are immune and existing admin policy and edit warring policy as they are already treat admins equally. What is the problem this is trying to solve? ] 04:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Where does policy cover this? I think I am addressing a missing part of the policy. ] (]) 04:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It really does seem UNDUE. The first six words of the first sentence alone would be sufficient. If there are admins abusing their status by edit warring, that's an issue for ]. The ] section is sufficient here. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 04:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::] If there are admins abusing their status by edit warring, will other admins on the admin board be able to handle it? I think experience shows that it won't happen. For more information on this topic, please review the ] ] (]) 04:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::What does this argument have to do with including redundant wording in the policy? If there is a conspiracy more words won't help, you would need a revolution. ] 04:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The argument addresses EvergreenFir's claim that reporting admins at ANI is all that is needed. I don't think many admins are ever taken to task for edit warring. I hardly think that addressing a known social problem is a "conspiracy". This is how social groups work, and modifying the policy to address this problem is a Good Thing; sweeping it under the rug is not. ] (]) 04:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:From ]: "'''Administrators are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policies'''", "'''editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved'''" |
|
|
|
|
|
:I will also argue that edit warring is not an administrative action unless the page is fully protected. This text from ] covers this: "'''Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus'''". |
|
|
|
|
|
:If the page is not protected edit warring should be dealt with as a problem with an editor. Admin issues should deal with use of admin tools. General behavior unbecoming an admin is already covered, we don't need a special reminder in each policy. ] 04:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::We are talking completely past each other. I'm not talking about the discussion of this issue in other policies. I'm talking about the discussion of these issues in ''this'' policy. As you may or may not be aware, our policies and guidelines very often cross-reference each other and discuss the policies as a whole, in the context of each specific rule. If you need examples of how all the policies and guidelines interact, I'm willing to give them to you, but I'm assuming you know this already. Now, to address your points above: |
|
|
::#The text in question does not concern edit warring as an admin action, nor does it say ''anything'' about protection. It says that because certain editors possess advanced permissions, they are especially cautioned not to edit war, as doing do could make them look like they are abusing their permissions, as edit warring often involves placing templates and warnings that include the threat to block. That is to say, while they may not be using their tools, their position as an admin could be misused or perceived as exceeding their authority, because edit warring is '''enforced by admins themselves''' and often involves the threat to block. |
|
|
::#This does not concern the abuse of admin tools. This concerns the abuse of edit warring by administrators. That is to say, very rarely are admins ever blocked for edit warring, and the community believes that admins are protected by other admins, giving the appearance that the rules don't apply to them. The proposed text directly addresses this idea. Further, the added text discusses the potential for involved admins to participate in and close 3RR reports, and addresses it directly, specifically recommending against it. |
|
|
::Please note, neither point 1 nor point 2 appear in any other policy, and while other policies may discuss admin conduct or acting involved in disputes, this particular content concerns the appearance of admins in edit warring disputes, and the potential involved aspects of blocking edit warriors while also edit warring themselves, as well as the potential involvement of their 3RR closures on the edit warring noticeboard. All of this content is highly applicable to this policy and has a sound basis for inclusion. ] (]) 04:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The policy covers it because the policy covers it. Admins are editors first. Only the exemptions at ] exist (i.e., Admins are no more exempt than anyone else). However, having a mop should not hamstring an admin. As a community, we do (of course) expect that admins will be an example of how-to-be-an-editor, but that RFA didn't add restrictions or caveats to their editing either. --] (]) 04:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::No, that is not what my proposed text addresses. It addresses the ''appearance'' of edit warring by admins, not the abuse of tools. It also addresses the involvement of admins on the 3RR board. To repeat, admins involved in edit warring (not falling under any exemptions) have the appearance of a conflict of interest in several ways. First, admins are not supposed to edit war, yet many do and are not sanctioned for it (see the Blue Code linked above). Second, admins enforce edit warring with sanctions, placing their actions in a dual light, i.e. COI (and unlikely to be enforced due to the Blue Code). Third, editors are often threatened by admins in edit wars, which places their position of trust in a context of abuse. Fourth, involved admins may close 3RR disputes on the noticeboard, making them conflict with accepted norms. The proposed text up above addresses all of these problems. ] (]) 04:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry but I think it is redundant policy creep. Any such issues can be dealt with using existing policy. Is there a specific incident you are worried about that policy is failing to cover? ] 04:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:] I already addressed your point about "redundancy". I showed that 1) in practice, our policies integrate and cross-reference other policies ''in the context'' of the policy under discussion. For example, our policy on ] refers to ''all'' of our major policies and guidelines and shows how they work within the context of NPOV. This is not "redundant policy creep", this is how policy works. No policy exists independently of any other policy. 2) I've addressed that the issues ''cannot'' be dealt with using ANI or any other admin-centric solution, as admins are unwilling to take other admins to task. 3) The proposed text addresses edit warring by admins and their involvement on No policy exists independently of any other policythe 3RR board directly, and shines light on the problem in a timely, relevant manner, which is helpful to the community at large. "Admins don't like it" isn't a valid argument. ] (]) 05:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have read your arguments and I remain unconvinced of your point of view. "'''"Admins don't like it" isn't a valid argument'''" is a straw man argument, nobody has suggested that and it is sophistry at its worst. |
|
|
|
|
|
Again what is this problem with admins at the 3RR board that you want to shine a light on? What incident are you referring to? Use diffs to shine a light on problems. |
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't like how admins handle issues this change to policy will change nothing. If you think there is a conspiracy you might try arbcom. |
|
|
|
|
|
You say "No policy exists independently of any other policy". Yes that means that the text in ] that says admins need to follow policy applies to ], this supports my position not yours. ] 05:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:You have not addressed my arguments. You addressed your own straw man, arguing that "edit warring is not an administrative action" and that protection was a valid exemption, when I never proposed edit warring was an admin action and I never addressed the exemption of protection. What I have said is that "the policy applies to ''all'' users no matter what level of permissions they may have. Administrators are especially cautioned to avoid participating in edit wars as it may give the impression that they are attempting to gain an advantage. Furthermore, no administrator should attempt to close a 3RR report if they are in any way involved in the relevant dispute." You've never once addressed why is it not acceptable to add it to this policy. Finally, you close with ''another'' straw man (as if that wasn't enough already!) saying, "If you don't like how admins handle issues this change to policy will change nothing". Actually, this policy modification will change everything. It will make it clear to admins that their edit warring won't be tolerated by the community. I don't have to be an admin to make this observation, and I certainly don't have to be an admin to put up with it. This policy addition puts a line in the sand and says "admins can't do this", and that needs to be said, because they ''are'' doing it, and there is no enforcement to prevent it because admins are unwilling to propose sanctions on their own. Therefore, the argument for making this change is supported and needed, and required to ''enforce'' fairness for all, regardless of advanced permissions. Admins must be told that the community will not put up with it anymore. ] (]) 05:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think you are not hearing what I and others are saying because you don't like it. Regardless you have not gained consensus and are not likely to. I see no point in carrying on. ] 05:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::What have you said? You changed the subject, argued for things that were never said or stated, and tried to undermine my argument by distracting from it. I don't like ''that'', of course. ] (]) 07:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Consider it this way: you made a ] edit that was reverted as part of ]. While discussion has just begun, there's clearly no consensus yet as to whether or not your edit should be kept, modified, or rejected. There's no need for throwing around alphabet soup and getting flustered about what-ifs. It's clear from ] that they cannot abuse their powers and there are mechanisms in place to deal with it when it occurs. This talk page and the EW page are ] are ]. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 05:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:This is apparently related to Viriditas's recent block by {{U|Spartaz}} for edits on ] found ]. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 05:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I agree. I also think this is not an appropriate place to seek satisfaction. Tough cases make for bad law. If you think policy is being ignored or circumvented then go to ANI, if you think the admins there are conspiring to protect each other then go to arbcom. Please don't seek a solution by altering policies. ] 05:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I don't agree. This has nothing to do with the circumstances of my recent block, and I note yet another attempt to distract and change the subject by attacking the messenger. Anyone can look through the noticeboard archives and see the pattern of sanctions on admins who edit war. It's close to zero. Yes, a few have been brought to arbcom and had their permissions removed, but it's unlikely that the final straw had anything to do with edit warring. No, this modification was made because I observed at least one admin had been edit warring without sanction on two different articles within the last week. And other admins had repeatedly dismissed the edit warring by this admin without another thought. Meanwhile, at least two articles had been disrupted, along with multiple users. In any case, it's very clear that admins cannot police themselves, so we are left to modifying the policies to make it very clear that edit warring by admins is not acceptable. Unsurprisingly, this modification was reverted without reason by an admin. I am not seeking satisfaction of any kind. I am seeking to hold admins accountable to the policies and guidelines that bind all editors, regardless of permissions. Please stop changing this discussion by constructing frayed straw men, by making trivial objections, and by attacking the messenger. Please address and discuss only the ideas in this proposal. If you can't do that, I'll formalize the RfC with the help of other editors and advertise it to a wider community. Admins cannot be allowed to exempt themselves from sitewide policies, and it's clear that admins can't patrol and sanction other admins effectively. ] (]) 07:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Misplaced Pages:Edit warring|answered=Yes}} |
|
Why is this controversial if other policy and guidelines support it as some suggest. It does seem to be relevant and in some ways important to note for clarity? I don't get it. Why would that not be considered an improvement here?--] (]) 07:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] (]) 03:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
* was invited to this discussion by Viriditas. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 07:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* {{Not done}} It's not clear in the slightest what edits you'd like made. ] (]) 03:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
Can we please do this without canvasing? ] 07:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
Not done It's not clear in the slightest what edits you'd like made. Departure– (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)