![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It is not clear to me where 3RR applies. The terminology of the "R" action of 3RR seems to be the so-called "broad definition" involving {revert, restore, override} and {contribute, edit} and {war}.
But terminology aside, let us define the "R" action of "3RR" in terms of a critical process that locates 3RR as following WP:BRD such that it is never the case either where disagreement should set in (because of close-minded skepticism) or where contention surrounds the article's content (due to a controversial change).
For simplicity, assume only two highly respectable editors.
The unwanted procession between a bold editor and an open-minded skeptic goes like this:
(0) nothing
(1) a Bold contribution
(A) a mere Revert
(2) a Bold Revert
(B) a Bold Revert
(3) a volatile Revert
(C) a volatile Revert
BRD sets Discussion at 2 or B, after 1 and A, then 3RR sets violations at 3 or C.
Here is the critical thinking: Boldness is encouraged in contributing or Reverting, because Boldness does not necessarily imply disagreement, rather it forcefully inspires one to think harder about a contribution or Reversion at 2 and B. Thus Discussion can delay until boldness-inspired thoughts are done, in other words until the open-mindedness that opportuned is found critically to be close-mindedness. The delay of Discussion sets in until 3 or C. Woo hoo!
The 3RR rule sets in to force Discussion after BRD and after another round of Boldness. If Discussions don't start, volatility starts (in the above logic). So we have the next logical step: if discussions don't start 3RR rule sets in where R is defined in the help page as
any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.
Now despite the terminology stating action R is {administrator action, editor action, involvement, revert edit(s)} where is that 3rd R in the simplified, enumerated process? Is it at 3, or C? Why? Are the disagreeable and contentious states avoided? — Cpiral Cpiral 10:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I have over the last 20 hours or so been editing the Hugo Chávez page. Mainly I have tried to get the article into past tense (reflecting his death). But I also did a little bit of clean-up when I went though part of the article, in the form of removing stuff that I found to be either outdated or superfluous. The article is overtly long and has now been tagged as such (by someone else than me). This, however, made me start thinking about whether I am technically in a 3RR violation, as a result of having removed stuff in more than 3 edits within the 24 hours timeframe. Is there any policy on how to apply 3RR when you are cleaning up an article? There hasn't been any edit war going on, as I am aware of. With regards, Iselilja ( talk) 20:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Its easy to spot 3RR when two editors go back and forth. But what about a single series by a single editor? For example,
Machine-Gun editing When "Editor X" is new to an article and arrives with a truckload of individual edits that through some combination of outright reverting, deleting, modifying, and/or substitution makes (for a random number example) twenty sequential changes to existing text, does that violate 3RR when
Cluster-bomb editing
Lines of distinction
Thanks for comments If you care, there is a matter that inspires this question and I left a note for the other editor, but I am not saying what article it is right here because I seek generic education about 3RR and not some dysfunctional backdoor way to do battle over this particular article. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The present version of the policy includes:
I believe that to be incorrect; 1RR restrictions usually have a stricter definition of revert (e.g., removing text is not automatically considered a revert) or require that the reversions be of the same section or of the same text. Policy pages using the word "often" should be descriptive, rather than perscriptive. 0RR is extremely rare, except what I would call 0mRR; you may not revert reversion of your own edits.
Of course, I haven't checked all the restrictions applied under ArbComm rulings or by community consensus at WP:AN, but I don't recall editing an article which had a "standard" 1RR in some time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Like others in the past, I'd like to see this clarified. See my recent comments here [1] where what I see as a pov reversion wasn't counted as a revert as it was old text - I've linked to a discussion last year about this. Dougweller ( talk) 10:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
At present WP:EW contains no rule on whether to count removal of long-standing text as part of any given series of reverts. Any rule that actually does give guidance is probably not helpful. So I suggest leaving the policy alone for now. I.e. no change. A somewhat-related topic came up on this page in September 2012. We decided at that time that it was usually possible for admins to distinguish normal 'improvement' edits from reverts but this was not susceptible to a rule. This question does come up periodically: people ask if a routine series of improvements will accidentally break 3RR. In cases like that (where the intent is obvious) it is no problem. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It is not clear to me where 3RR applies. The terminology of the "R" action of 3RR seems to be the so-called "broad definition" involving {revert, restore, override} and {contribute, edit} and {war}.
But terminology aside, let us define the "R" action of "3RR" in terms of a critical process that locates 3RR as following WP:BRD such that it is never the case either where disagreement should set in (because of close-minded skepticism) or where contention surrounds the article's content (due to a controversial change).
For simplicity, assume only two highly respectable editors.
The unwanted procession between a bold editor and an open-minded skeptic goes like this:
(0) nothing
(1) a Bold contribution
(A) a mere Revert
(2) a Bold Revert
(B) a Bold Revert
(3) a volatile Revert
(C) a volatile Revert
BRD sets Discussion at 2 or B, after 1 and A, then 3RR sets violations at 3 or C.
Here is the critical thinking: Boldness is encouraged in contributing or Reverting, because Boldness does not necessarily imply disagreement, rather it forcefully inspires one to think harder about a contribution or Reversion at 2 and B. Thus Discussion can delay until boldness-inspired thoughts are done, in other words until the open-mindedness that opportuned is found critically to be close-mindedness. The delay of Discussion sets in until 3 or C. Woo hoo!
The 3RR rule sets in to force Discussion after BRD and after another round of Boldness. If Discussions don't start, volatility starts (in the above logic). So we have the next logical step: if discussions don't start 3RR rule sets in where R is defined in the help page as
any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.
Now despite the terminology stating action R is {administrator action, editor action, involvement, revert edit(s)} where is that 3rd R in the simplified, enumerated process? Is it at 3, or C? Why? Are the disagreeable and contentious states avoided? — Cpiral Cpiral 10:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I have over the last 20 hours or so been editing the Hugo Chávez page. Mainly I have tried to get the article into past tense (reflecting his death). But I also did a little bit of clean-up when I went though part of the article, in the form of removing stuff that I found to be either outdated or superfluous. The article is overtly long and has now been tagged as such (by someone else than me). This, however, made me start thinking about whether I am technically in a 3RR violation, as a result of having removed stuff in more than 3 edits within the 24 hours timeframe. Is there any policy on how to apply 3RR when you are cleaning up an article? There hasn't been any edit war going on, as I am aware of. With regards, Iselilja ( talk) 20:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Its easy to spot 3RR when two editors go back and forth. But what about a single series by a single editor? For example,
Machine-Gun editing When "Editor X" is new to an article and arrives with a truckload of individual edits that through some combination of outright reverting, deleting, modifying, and/or substitution makes (for a random number example) twenty sequential changes to existing text, does that violate 3RR when
Cluster-bomb editing
Lines of distinction
Thanks for comments If you care, there is a matter that inspires this question and I left a note for the other editor, but I am not saying what article it is right here because I seek generic education about 3RR and not some dysfunctional backdoor way to do battle over this particular article. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The present version of the policy includes:
I believe that to be incorrect; 1RR restrictions usually have a stricter definition of revert (e.g., removing text is not automatically considered a revert) or require that the reversions be of the same section or of the same text. Policy pages using the word "often" should be descriptive, rather than perscriptive. 0RR is extremely rare, except what I would call 0mRR; you may not revert reversion of your own edits.
Of course, I haven't checked all the restrictions applied under ArbComm rulings or by community consensus at WP:AN, but I don't recall editing an article which had a "standard" 1RR in some time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Like others in the past, I'd like to see this clarified. See my recent comments here [1] where what I see as a pov reversion wasn't counted as a revert as it was old text - I've linked to a discussion last year about this. Dougweller ( talk) 10:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
At present WP:EW contains no rule on whether to count removal of long-standing text as part of any given series of reverts. Any rule that actually does give guidance is probably not helpful. So I suggest leaving the policy alone for now. I.e. no change. A somewhat-related topic came up on this page in September 2012. We decided at that time that it was usually possible for admins to distinguish normal 'improvement' edits from reverts but this was not susceptible to a rule. This question does come up periodically: people ask if a routine series of improvements will accidentally break 3RR. In cases like that (where the intent is obvious) it is no problem. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)