Misplaced Pages

• it is edit-revert-discuss-edit-revert-discuss....

and you keep going that way until you finally figure out how to get back to

• edit-edit-edit... (the wiki way)

Does that make sense so far?

As to your question? I think a "good faith revert to the status quo" is an oxymoron. If I catch you doing it once, I will Explain Politely as to how and why that is the case, as per WP:AGF. The second time? I will Eat Your Guts For Lunch. (With extra helpings of salad and fries, yum!) }:-D --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Emphasis and wording

I've reworked some recent edits about 3RR, but felt obligated to revert some of the changes. The problem is the wording slightly emphasizes a sense of "upper limit" or "parallel standard" or lost nuance, and in the case of 3RR those are crucial and were the subject of considerable review and concern in the recent update to the policy (see talk page archive).

I've tried to incorporate those edits that were good, and some were, but a part of the wording just doesn't work for me. It seemed to weaken the concept of "edit warring policy, of which 3RR is a point of action if none is already taken" rather than the less desirable "edit warring policy, of which 3RR is the main indicator". We want the policy to very firmly feel like the first, not the second. Wordings such as "you can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't breach 3RR" may accidentally imply the opposite.

This is how EW relates to 3RR, and the sense WP:EW tries to convey:

1. You can be blocked for edit warring, period. 2. Everything about 3RR is completely secondary to that, and merely expands on it for convenience."

In other words, the "feel" of the policy is ideally that admins act on edit warring primarily, and that 3RR is merely a point within that where admin patience runs out if it hasn't been addressed already, or users can ask for a forceful cessation if they haven't already.

diff diff

FT2  23:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ... "even if" I don't think implies the opposite generally ought to be true, but that it is widely believed to be true. I understand that you are trying to "dispel" this of course, but the effect here will be neutral. And it is in practice true that editors can do a lot of non-3RR edit-warring but that they rarely get away with 3rr, as the rule is well known, lacks the conceptual malleability of the EW policy that recently annexed it, and opponents follow their incentive to report. This page is really to keep the policy as a realistic reflection of practice rather than an ideologized prescriptive essay. Misplaced Pages may be like a panopticon, but it is so large that administrators can only look at a small number of cells at one moment, and everyone knows this; so the page should be a bit more realistic if it is to reflect practice. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be cruelly ironic to edit war on this of all pages, so I figured to bring it here for discussion :-) I'm done with that block of editing, do you want to have a go and see what you can improve, what you like, what you don't, and what you can't live with? FT2  01:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost all the editing was copy-editing and minor wordage tweaks , so I don't see any edit-war emerging. :)I don't really have a problem with much that's been added, and the he point you raised above isn't major. But as a semi-tangential point I don't particularly like the balance in this page between ideology and realism. With the page's current ideological slant, we raise admin zeal on the matter. In doing so we risk terrorising good editors into avoiding dealing with problematic content when there are experienced problematic content-contributors behind them. The page's vision of the editor is too simplified, and unrealistic. A large proportion of edit-warring takes place when one party desires page content to be a certain way, and strategises on how to achieve this desire. They do so based on their knowledge of wikipedia culture, its practices, editorial values and demographics. So, for example, seeking a third opinion is often in reality seeking the opinion of those known to be favourable , and those that do so most successfully are able to exploit EW in order to discredit and punish their opponents, and thereby gain dominance in the dispute. We rely that such things will be resolved by outside intervention, but certain areas are too specialised and good editors in such areas are unable to draw on this community support. And so on... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A good point. "Hmm". So okay, we've said edit warring isn't okay. However we haven't in fact provided a realistic description of practical measures (more just an overly-idealized and slightly unhelpful one), because in reality many of these wars are specialized or messy, or the abuse is more significant (gaming the dispute resolution system etc).

Is that roughly your meaning? If so, further thoughts? FT2  02:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, yep. I always have further thoughts of course ... on what in particular? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible flow edit

Is this wording any better? (Minor flow edit)

• EXISTING
  "A reverting editor is intentionally reversing changes by another editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), and throwing away their edit rather than improving upon it or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion. Therefore..."

• PROPOSED
  "A reverting editor is throwing away changes by another editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), rather than improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion. Therefore..."

FT2  12:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

I think it was a mistake to merge the Misplaced Pages:three-revert rule into this page and would like to undo that merge. If the three-revert rule policy (3RR) had developed as this policy has developed, (incrementally), then I could see some justification for it, but the 3RR was created with wide consultation resulting in the Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule enforcement. I do not see that there was sufficient agreement on the talk page to claim that the consensus had changed from that initial survey that authorised 3RR.

My major problem with the merge is that as an administrator I would hesitate to make an administrative judgment based on this page if it involves the behavior of an editor who is editing a page which I too have recently edited, as it could be seen as unfair. But 3RR rule is different because apart from some very limited cases it is a procedural rule, for which no administrative judgment is needed.

I am about to warn an editor that they are in breach of restrictions placed on them by another administrator in an "Arbitration Enforcement" case. They have breached the 1 reversal a week placed upon them by reverting the edits by two different editors. I went to the 3RR page to quote the wording and was very surprised to see that it was now a redirect. As the warning is about a page that I am actively editing, I may then get involved in a dispute about administrative judgment with that editor as (s)he may argue that I am being biased, something which would not happen with the 3RR page as it is clearly a procedural page. --PBS (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's an AE issue, and specifically this case... why would you resort to 3R instead of linking to the 1R motion in the original case?... --Izno (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. --PBS (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The wording is the same, and you can still link to the shortcut WP:3RR, which goes to WP:EW#The Three revert rule. I fail to see how more administrative judgement has come into this in respective of an explicit breach of the 3RR; it's just clearer that avoiding edit warring is more than just not breaching 3RR. The real issue here is that you're in a position where someone is able to accuse you of having a COI. Let someone else handle the sanction. No wait, you're just giving them a warning. What's the problem here? Quote the rule and move on. Rd232 15:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes edit warring is more than a breach of 3RR, the differences is that what edit warring is in general is a judgment call while 3RR is usually procedural. Given the difference, I do not think you have not addressed the issue that there was no clear consensus for the removal of the 3RR page which was (unusually for Misplaced Pages) set up with a clear mandate from over 100 editors. --PBS (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The closer of the discussion, Tiptoety, believed there was in fact consensus for the merge, though you aren't the first to dispute that call (it does seem to me to have kind of fallen in that ambiguous crack). I disagree with your statement that edit warring is a judgment call while 3RR is procedural, though. I think it's a serious error to view 3RR blocks as purely procedural; rather, all types of edit warring blocks need to be judgment calls, otherwise it just encourages gaming of the rules. In fact, if the two separate pages cause 3RR to be viewed as procedural, that would seem to me to be one of the strongest arguments in favour of the merge, not against it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We as a community have allowed administrators more and more discretion in making decisions over what is and is not edit warring and I am not at all sure that this is necessarily a good idea, because it leads to a situation where there is a failure in natural justice. This is because of the built in constraints (policies against wheel wars) and traditional restraints that discourage other administrators from overturning decisions, or at least always lean a long way to support the initial decision. -- Before the introduction of 3RR, administrators were much more constrained over blocks for edit warring, which is why 3RR was introduced, and I think that the two polices should be kept separate, as blocking by administrator's discretion is different from blocking for a breach of 3RR. By the way I am not suggesting that we set up a formal appeals procedure, because it is instruction creep (and we are here creating a better encyclopedia not getting bogged down in procedural details), but if that is not to happen, I think administrators need to restrain from blocking troublesome editors in all but the most blatant cases, because without that then we do need a more formal process.

The fact that I am not the only one who has questioned the decision to combine the two shows that it is not clear cut. I do not know anyone who questioned the original decision (because it is a clear cut decision), so I do not see how it is possible to claim that there was a clear consensus to combine the two, and if there was not a clear consensus, then we should err on the side of no change and keep the page separate as there was such a clear cut consensus for the creation of the page in the first place. --PBS (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The vote you refer to (Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule enforcement) was to create a rule, which certainly still exists and will continue to exist - not to create a page. I'm not suggesting you're simply confusing form and function, but still I'm not really seeing your point. Admins had discretion to block for edit warring not violating 3RR before - that was very clear on both WP:EW and WP:3RR. Nothing about the content of the rules has changed. Rd232 10:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. And also note, administrators have always had -- and are expected to have -- discretion over how to handle disruptive behavior. The decision whether to call something an "edit war" or not, isn't important. The decision to call a halt to it and ensure users do something more productive is important. FT2  13:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was to create a rule, but given the method by which the procedure was developed to handle that rule, and the universal acceptance of the rule, it is better if that rule has its own page (as has been the case for over four and a half years). I do not see from the conversation that took place that there was agreement for the page to be made a redirect and usually if there is not a clear consensus, the default is not to change something. For someone like myself who has been around here longer than the rule, I understand the reasons for combining that page with this one, but for those who are not aware of the history behind the rule having it as a separate page highlights that it was arrived at by a very different process from the rest of this page.

I think I have already explained my concerns with this page and the problems of discretion and disruptive behavior. FT2 I am not sure from your last posting that you read them. --PBS (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The people who oppose this should have stood up against it at the time when there was the opportunity. I myself made appropriate attempts to resist this change after it occurred, but I received no active support, indicating that the consensus which didn't exist in the poll existed in practical terms. It's merged now ... the proponents won, so it's time to move on. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rename from "Edit war" to "Edit warring"

Would anyone object to renaming this page to Misplaced Pages:Edit warring? So the title more clearly refers to the behavior?

FT2  13:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, that feels right. Rd232 14:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. That's what the page is about. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Update - should it be Misplaced Pages:No edit warring, in line with other undesirable conduct (eg, Please do not bite the newcomers and No original research)?

FT2  11:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably. Rd232 12:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. That would eliminate the feeling that we expect it or condone it.  GARDEN  15:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a feeling we expect or condone edit warring? I support either change; someone be bold with it. Tan | 39 15:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I support the rename to "Edit warring". I don't prefer "No edit warring". There are plenty of other pages that describe undesirable conduct, such as canvassing, disruptive editing, gaming the system, etc. If you feel uniformity amongst these guidelines/policies is required, we would have to rename all of those too. I'm indifferent to this lack of uniformity though.--Atlan (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, but I imagine it could be argued by that kind of person (it strikes me as common by the current name anyway, but I wouldn't say condoned). The new name would completely eliminate that feeling.  GARDEN  15:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Either WP:Edit warring or WP:No edit warring seem fine to me. However, as pointed out, there are other policies/guidelines (i.e., WP:Sock puppetry) about things we don't want people to do that aren't entitled "don't" or "no". Anyone who doesn't get the point that we're AGAINST edit warring after reading the page probably wouldn't be swayed because "no" was in the title. Vicenarian 15:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• I support a rename to WP:No edit warring for all of the reasons mentioned above that were in support of it. I prefer it over WP:Edit warring, because it "would eliminate the feeling that we expect it or condone it" (as said perfectly by Garden). hmwitht 19:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• I support WP:Edit warring, sure. But I don't like WP:No edit warring. The reason is because WP:NEW is somewhat ambiguous and currently associated with starting a new page, but WP:EW properly conveys distaste. -- Atama 05:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC at WP:Civil

A request for comment at WP:Civil also has relevance for WP:EW, namely abuse of the one-line Edit Summary could be construed as a an element of edit warring. Please take a look and comment. Brews ohare (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP exemptions

It has been reasonably pointed out that the wording on BLP versus on 3RR does not match. I tried to change it there to match here but got reverted . In general I think most people agree that 3RR applies to content disputes on the articles which are BLPs but perhaps not to personal info, defamation etc. Most BLP articles have plenty of material which is not itself strictly BLP. This policy is worded in the fashion I just described but the BLP one more or less implies as written that any content on a BLP article is exempted and 3RR does not apply to any content whatsoever on a BLP article to which any good faith editor objects (i.e. no content in a BLP article is subject to 3RR). Anyone else agree with this analysis? --BozMo talk 19:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't read it as meaning that, though it would be good to tighten up the wording and make it the same in the two places.--Kotniski (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bright line rule not so bright

I'm sure that the author of the three-revert rule would like to flatter himself into thinking it is a bright line (after all, who doesn't think their own creations are the best thing since sliced bread) but it appears to me that Misplaced Pages is merely calling it a bright line, so that, if someone does try to loophole their way around it, the Misplaced Pages staff can just say "Dude, there's no wiggle room here; you're flat out wrong," when, in fact, I can prove (emphasis on that last word) that the three-revert rule is quite a fine line, by pointing out at least TWO ambiguities in the rule.

1. If two people do a total of three reverts on each other (example, A makes an edit, B reverts it, A reverts it back, and B reverts it a third time), is that a breach of the 3RR? 2. Is the first edit that would, later, get reverted, considered the first step in the 3RR? For example, if A makes and edit, is that revert #1? So, if B reverts it, is that revert #2, and if A reverts it back, that's revert #3?

As you can see, calling this a "bright line rule" is merely self-flattering appraisal. Just because the author of a rule claims it to be a bright-line doesn't actually make it a bright line.75.88.53.84 (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer to both questions is quite clearly "no", so those particular situations don't represent ambiguities. (There are ambiguities, of course, such as which edits constitute reverts, what constitutes a valid exception to the rule, etc. - and the whole concept of a rule like this is anti-wiki since we don't do rules, but people seem unable to do without it.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A's first edit isn't a revert. So by the letter of the bright line, if A and B each use 3 reverts, the edit stands. But this is one of the reasons WP:3RR was merged into WP:edit warring - because avoiding edit warring is about more than just sticking to the letter of 3RR, it's also about sticking to the spirit of not edit warring. Rd232 14:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So, is it a total of six reverts, and a total of seven edits?Wikieditor1988 (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

yes. Rd232 09:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Four-revert rule

Shouldn't the three-revert rule be called the four-revert rule? The current name sounds like it's three strikes and you're out. Four-revert rule would make more sense because four-reverts are a no-no. It's four strikes and you're out. 128.104.truth (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the name, it should be "reversion" rather than "revert" in any case. "Revert" is the verb. Weedier Mickey (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

When is a revert not a revert, please add puchline

A dispute has arisen as to what constitutes a revert ], ]. this revolves around whether or not this ] constitutes a revert. It is my understanding a revert has to be an act that undoes or reverses the actions of another edd, not an act that alters or rewords what he has written. Am I correct in this or what this a revert? Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd also be interested in more explication of what exactly constitutes a reversion. (If it has throughly been discussed in the archives, and someone has a pointer, than would be fine.) I thought the wording was clear enough, but I've seem an editor interpret it very differently than I would. I looked at the edit noted above, and I wouldn't call that a revert, although I could understand why someone might. The ones I've seen are even more puzzling. My understanding:

1. If Editor A writes "All X are Y" and Editor B reverts to the prior version, thereby removing the phrase, I think we all understand it is a revert.
2. If Editor A writes "All X are Y" and editor B edits to produce "All X are not Y", I think that is also called a reversion. At one time, I thought revert literally meant revert, i.e. reverting to a prior version, but the wording seems clear enough to cover this example.
3. Suppose Editor A writes "All X are Y" and editor B attempts to improve the wording with the edit to ""All X are Y, except when Z exists". I see this as a little muddier. If editor B has a reliable source backing the edit, but editor A has a source challenging the edit, both should retire to the talk page to establish consensus. However, was the edit a revert? Does the answer depend on what the consensus regarding the proposed change? I would hope not. I'm presently unclear whether this would constitute a reversion, but this is merely warmup to my real question.
4. Suppose Editor A writes "All X are Y" and editor B edits to produce "All X are Y. However, X are scarce recently". I don't see this as a revert but as a good faith effort to improve the article.

You might accept my reasoning, yet disagree that my analogy is valid to the following situation: this edit added material and a cite, and did not remove or contradict anything existing in the article (IMO). I'll emphasize that the substance of whether the material should be added belongs on that talk page. I'm ambivalent - the cite wasn't well-formed, so I haven't even reached an opinion whether the edit is a good one. I'm posting here simply to discern whether editing to add material is an example of a reversion. Per User:Rd232's comment two sections above, I think not, but the editor in question and others have been warned for 3RR in what I think is a misunderstanding of the definition of reversion. Is my understanding flawed?

OK, I now see that the first edit was not counted as a reversion, but a baseline. So the specific instance cited is not an issue, but the general issue of whether edits that add material are reversions is still a question. I assume not.--SPhilbrickT 20:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

3rr no longer a rule?

3rr is no longer enforced, apparently - as the noticeboard is backloged for what appears to be about 15 hours at this point - and reports are mostly closed with "stale." Is it no longer an operative rule? Hipocrite (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Signpost Policy Report

A summary of your comments on our WP:Edit warring policy will be featured in the Policy Report 8 days from now in the Signpost. If it helps, monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009. All responses are welcome.

A paradox of modern democracies is that voters generally have a low opinion of national politicians, but tend to trust and re-elect their own representatives. I think the same thing goes on with policy pages ... some people distrust policy pages in general but like the pages that they're working on. That's the point of the weekly Policy Report, to let people look at policy pages through the eyes of the people who work on the page.

To get an idea of what kinds of questions and answers the community is interested in, see the archives of this talk page or the previous surveys at WT:SOCK#Interview for Signpost, WT:CIVILITY#Policy Report for Signpost and WT:U#Signpost Policy Report. Answering any of these questions would work: Can you summarize the page? How has the page changed this year? Did the changes involve some compromising or negotiation? Would the page work better if it were shorter (or longer)? Is this page "enforced" in some useful and consistent way? Was this page shaped more by people's reactions to day-to-day issues or by exceptional cases, for instance at ArbCom? Does the policy document reality, or present ideal goals for conduct, or something in between? Does this material contradict or overlap other policies or guidelines? - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. No replies so far, so I'll start leaving messages on talk pages. The "action" this year was in June, July and August, it's been pretty quiet since then, so I'm working from the back end of the last version of the talk page from August. - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

3rr exceptions outside of articles

Why is there no exceptions for removal of talk page discussions that devolved into personal attacks and outing? That is ridiculous. Editors that are being attacked on talk pages should not have to put up with that. Miami33139 (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)