| Revision as of 06:23, 1 June 2017 editHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,389 edits →For 3/1/0RR, is it "one revert" to revert one edit, or to make one edit that counts as a reversion?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:06, 29 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,161 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 16: | Line 19: | ||
| {{nowrap|'''2015''': {{Archives by months|2015}}}} | {{nowrap|'''2015''': {{Archives by months|2015}}}} | ||
| {{nowrap|'''2016''': {{Archives by months|2016}}}} | {{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 22: | Line 33: | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| '''{{ |
'''{{cot|Archives of Talk:Three-revert rule Aug 2004 - Nov 2010}}''' | ||
| # ] | # ] | ||
| # ] | # ] | ||
| Line 31: | Line 42: | ||
| # ] | # ] | ||
| # ] | # ] | ||
| {{ |
{{cob}} | ||
| ''']''' | ''']''' | ||
| # ] | # ] | ||
| Line 38: | Line 49: | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == Additional clarification should be added to the article == | |||
| == Is lowering the revert-rule threshold a perennial proposal? == | |||
| I'm sure there are many editors who think ] and want the basic revert rule lowered to 1RR or 2RR, but I can't seem to find any substantial discussion about this. | |||
| I assume it's a "perennial" proposal in the sense that any such proposal was rejected long ago and consensus has not changed since. (The obvious reason is that a more stringent revert rule would consume more administrator time for enforcement.) However, I can't seem to find any mention of it on ] or its talk page, which is somewhat less active than this one. | |||
| Any suggestions on where I should look for such discussion? --] (]) 18:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :I've brought it up before but not as its own proposal, probably in response to something at AN or ArbCom. You could try a search there for "1RR" and see if you can find what you're looking for, or if I can remember where that was I'll post a link. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Override -> overwrite == | |||
| I ] changed the lede of this policy just now, replacing the word "override" (wikilinked to ]) with "overwrite" (same wikilink). I think that this better reflects the intent of the policy. Most editors can't technically "override" a contribution (which I interpret to mean making a contribution become cancelled or invisible, similar to revision deletion). However editors ''can'' "overwrite" a contribution (which I interpret to mean replacing the content of a contribution with content which causes the contributed content to be undone, a "revert" technically or just manually removing the content), which is what the policy is meant to forbid. I know what I'm putting here right now is a lot of words for what's probably a small change, but in the interest of explaining cosmetic changes to policy (which might also change its meaning somewhat in ways I haven't anticipated) I'm leaving this lengthy note. I also don't want to start an edit war on the edit warring policy. Cheers. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't like either override or overwrite. I'd opt for something simpler and more accurate: change. However, it's been override for a very long time, and I don't really agree with your interpretation of the word override. That said, I'm not going to override/overwrite your change. :-) --] (]) 17:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's okay, {{ul|MrX}} overrode/overwrote/reverted it. Per the hidden note, I would prefer this not be changed to "revert", but I'm fine with leaving it how it's been stable. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::The reason I don't think "overwrite" is accurate is because a revert can consist of removing material without replacing it. "Override" seems reasonably clear and accurate to my ears, but I suppose it could be replaced with "negate" or something similar.- ]] 18:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think is the word we're looking for (sense 2). ―] ] 18:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ==Consensus clause== | |||
| Now that my effort at ] were reverted, I suggest on adding to ] the following descriptive explanation: | |||
| <blockquote>In certain instances for articles falling under 1RR, the <u>consensus clause</u> may be invoked by admins. Under this clause, editors ''must not reinstate any challenged (via ]) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question.'' (Example: ])</blockquote> | |||
| It's time we acknowledge that the consensus provision exists and that admins seem to invoke it at their discretion at articles falling under 1RR restriction. That's just the reality of the situation. I submit that, at the very least, it should be mentioned ''somewhere'' and phrased ''somehow''. There's a general state of confusion by editors regarding this provision, and it's time there'd be something, anything, about it short of the confusing ] motion. ] 18:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Since this is an ArbCom decision, I think you need to bring this to the ArbCom.] (]) 18:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| The following is my perspective. | |||
| :I would be opposed to adding that to this policy. It does not have community consensus. Neither Arbcom nor admins can establish policy in this way. Also, it's a not a particularly great idea anyway. I gives an advantage in content disputes to editors (including socks, meats, SPAs, and reddit summoned IPs) who simply want to remove content to whitewash articles. See recent edit history at ] and the bad decision to lock the article because of it.- ]] 18:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fact is, we have a rogue policy out there. If that's not a concern. Fine. It will continue being invoked —and enforced— by admins whenever they feel like. ] 18:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::It just means I have to explain multiple times "no, this article only falls under 1RR, not the consensus rule because no admin has deemed it so." But okay, it takes 30 seconds to write out. ] 18:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::I understand your valid concerns, but I think we need to address whether this rogue policy (which is actually only a rogue DS restriction) is a benefit to the editing environment. Only then should it be added to a policy page. In fact, I thought it was starting to fall into disuse after the issues it created at ].- ]] 18:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not at all. ''''. ] 18:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ec}} {{re|El_C}} "Consensus required" is a sanction separate from 1RR. It is often added in combination with 1RR, but it would confuse things to include it in 1RR itself. I'd recommend creating ] as an essay/information page and just linking that from the "See also" section, if anything. You are correct that no policy explicitly mentions or allows "consensus required", which is why it is only present in discretionary/general sanctions areas, where admins can be as creative with sanctions as they determine to be necessary to handle the disruption. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 18:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sounds like a good solution. So let's do it. I just notice the confusion of editors regarding it and I have nowhere to send them for an explanation. ] 18:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Let's leave it as a redlink for now, please. ] 18:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Any suggestions on what it should say, beyond or supplanting my draft above? ] 18:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I agree, a linked essay would be a good way of handling this. As to what it should say, I think the admins who have imposed the restriction would be the best position to help. As I hinted before, I'm not convinced that it is necessary or beneficial.- ]] 18:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You're not the one who is asked to explain what it is. Mind you, I added it to ] but I don't think anyone noticed or cared. ] 20:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| I'm not defending the exact words but I like the concept. Opposition is misguided in my opinion and here's why. | |||
| :* We're not talking about the obviously flawed edits outlined my MrX above. We're not talking about those because that sort of thing is already covered by ]. So we're only talking about seemingly plausible edits by editors in good standing. | |||
| :* In normal cases after maxing out ] everyone knows that consensus is required before making a fourth revert. | |||
| :* Many of us falsely believe that no consensus is required for Revert-01, Revert-02, Revert-03, but some of us correctly understand that the first salvo of an edit war takes place when the first un-discussed re-revert is fired. | |||
| :* I just described how the 3RR policy works; and the text of the 1RR policy states that it works exactly like 3RR except some words are substituted. Here is that text with the words substiuted via mark up | |||
| ::::''An editor must not perform <del>more than three reverts </del><ins>more than one revert</ins> on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.'' | |||
| :* This language does not explicitly say "an additional revert is allowed if there is consensus" but.... geez la weeez.... that's obvious. | |||
| IN SUM, I think the propose restatement of 1RR is vastly superior than the existing text because it is concise, clear, makes explicit something that is now implicit, and finally keeps us from pretending that "consensus required" is an added on, rather than inherent, part of the policy. This last part bears repeating. When we cast "consensus required" as an added on requirement (as opposed to a courteous reminder) it falsely gives the impressin that consensus can go F*k itself the rest of the time. I think we agree that's a bad impression to convey. ] (]) 20:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|NewsAndEventsGuy}} I believe you misunderstand. The typical "consensus required" says you must not re-revert ''indefinitely'' until you have consensus. It is not a simple reword of 1RR. It is a meaningfully different sanction. We apply it sometimes in areas under general or discretionary sanctions when disruption gets out-of-control and difficult to handle even after 1RR is imposed. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 20:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah yes, thank you! I had overlooked the fact that WP:1RR contains a time factor, and the proposed addition omits one. Thank you for pointing this out! {{Ping|El_C}} do you have further thoughts following Rob's helpful clarification ? ] (]) 22:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have created ] (for Consensus required provision)—let me know if my phrasing make sense to you in the context of what Rob had said. ] 22:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I enjoy your sense of humor, {{U|El_C}}.- ]] 00:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So long as you're laughing ''with'' me! ] 05:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Of course!- ]] 11:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Consider the following situation (this is intended as a hypothetical). User A adds a section to the talk page of an article stating they intend to add a section to the article. User B knows about the talk page section but does not respond (consider in this hypothethical that User B was pinged or somehow otherwise knows). User A adds the section to the article. User B deletes it. User A reverts. User B reverts again. User A reverts a second time. User B then reverts again. User A then makes a new addition to the talk page section, pinging User B again. All in all, User A reverted twice, and then disengaged from the act of reverting, and resorted to dialogue and waiting. | |||
| == For 3/1/0RR, is it "one revert" to revert one edit, or to make one edit that counts as a reversion? == | |||
| It is my understanding that the administrator community considers the act of User A to be "edit warring" (we accept this term for the sake of argument), in spite of (a) attempting to engage in consensus discussion prior to the "edit war", and (b) disengaging from the "edit war" after it became apparent that it was in fact, or was going to be an edit war should User A continue. Not only that, but the administrator community seems to believe that this justifies a 7-day block, even on a new user. | |||
| If one editor makes a bunch of small edits and I revert them all at once, have I made one revert or a bunch? What if one editor makes a bunch of small edits in fairly quick succession and I revert them all individually? | |||
| In my personal opinion, I disagree with that, and I think that the language of the rules on blocking (]) supports my position. Lets say I'm right. The article here should be edited so that the administrator team knows not to block User A in the above situation. Lets say I'm wrong. We should still be able to see how User A could have read this article, and believed reasonably that what they were doing did not constitute an edit war, and the article should be clarified so that editors do not mistakenly 'violate' this rule and be subjected to a 7-day block over a good faith mistake. | |||
| I ask because a few days ago I made a four small edits to an article that may or may not have been reverts of someone else's edits (I don't know) and was shortly thereafter reverted, but each of my small edits was individually reverted. I didn't do it with the intention of wiki-lawyering and saying that whoever reverted me had violated 3RR, but more recently the tables have turned and I find myself inclined to undo a bunch of small edits made by one editor, and if anyone ''did'' want to wiki-lawyer it would be a lot easier for them since I'm under 1RR. | |||
| Again, this is just my opinion. Thank you. | |||
| In theory, if making four edits whose summaries began "Undid revision XXXXXXXXX by Hijiri88 (talk)" in four minutes was a 3RR-violation, then making one edit that had the same effect would be the same, wouldn't it? | |||
| ] ( |
] (]) 08:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :In the situation you've outlined, I'd say that neither A nor B is in the right because they're both reverting each other. That one of them started a Talk page section doesn't mean anything if they then engage in reverting. Put another way, the act of starting a Talk page section doesn't give an editor the right to keep reverting someone who isn't engaging on the Talk page. ] (]) 08:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| (By the way: I already know the best solution for my situation would be to stay the heck away from the kind of article where almost every new edit gets auto-reverted. I am fairly certain if I didn't clarify this the first response would be from someone who checked my contribs, figured out exactly what article it was, and offered me advice based on that. If I wanted advice for my specific situation I would have named the article and posted on a noticeboard rather than the policy talk page. ] (<small>]]</small>) 05:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC) ) | |||
| :Undoing consecutive edits count as one revert (but some admins, indeed, may not always catch that), even if they're undone individually. ] 06:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :For non-consecutive edits though, you can revert the whole thing (all the edits) in one fell swoop; or in parts. And if someone else edits while you're reverting those parts (turning your reverts non-consecutive), those may be seen as individual reverts, as well. ] 06:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::By "you can revert the whole thing (all the edits) in one fell swoop", do you mean "This is allowed, as the fell swoop would still be considered one big revert"? Or "You ''could'' but it would technically qualify as more than one revert, so you should be careful"? ] (<small>]]</small>) 06:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:06, 29 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edit warring page. |
|
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
 | This is not the page to report edit warring or 3RR violations. Please instead create a report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. |
 | See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages. |
 | The contents of the Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule page were merged into Misplaced Pages:Edit warring. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 Archives | ||
|
2012: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2024: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Archived polls for Three-revert rule
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Additional clarification should be added to the article
The following is my perspective.
Consider the following situation (this is intended as a hypothetical). User A adds a section to the talk page of an article stating they intend to add a section to the article. User B knows about the talk page section but does not respond (consider in this hypothethical that User B was pinged or somehow otherwise knows). User A adds the section to the article. User B deletes it. User A reverts. User B reverts again. User A reverts a second time. User B then reverts again. User A then makes a new addition to the talk page section, pinging User B again. All in all, User A reverted twice, and then disengaged from the act of reverting, and resorted to dialogue and waiting.
It is my understanding that the administrator community considers the act of User A to be "edit warring" (we accept this term for the sake of argument), in spite of (a) attempting to engage in consensus discussion prior to the "edit war", and (b) disengaging from the "edit war" after it became apparent that it was in fact, or was going to be an edit war should User A continue. Not only that, but the administrator community seems to believe that this justifies a 7-day block, even on a new user.
In my personal opinion, I disagree with that, and I think that the language of the rules on blocking (WP:BLOCK) supports my position. Lets say I'm right. The article here should be edited so that the administrator team knows not to block User A in the above situation. Lets say I'm wrong. We should still be able to see how User A could have read this article, and believed reasonably that what they were doing did not constitute an edit war, and the article should be clarified so that editors do not mistakenly 'violate' this rule and be subjected to a 7-day block over a good faith mistake.
Again, this is just my opinion. Thank you.
Isonomia01 (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- In the situation you've outlined, I'd say that neither A nor B is in the right because they're both reverting each other. That one of them started a Talk page section doesn't mean anything if they then engage in reverting. Put another way, the act of starting a Talk page section doesn't give an editor the right to keep reverting someone who isn't engaging on the Talk page. DonIago (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)