![]() | This page 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 should be considered edit warring when an editor makes an avalanche of controversial edits, sprinkling in some gnome edits. It makes it nearly impossible to work. The BRBGBBBGBBBBGBBBGBBBGBBBBGBBBGBBBGBBBGBBBGBBBGGGGGGGG cycle, when detected (Gs are gnome edits) should be immediately dealt with as edit warring behaviour. It forces others to risk 3RR, or simply throw up their hands and quit. (or try to fix it all in a single edit) Especially when the helpful person attempting to sort out the mess is accused of vandalism because they reverted a few of the gnome edits by accident. I have been a victim of this several times in the past. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Read through the edit history to find it. Let's discuss. Cup o’ Java ( talk • edits) 19:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
As per the enlightening post below, why don't we compromise? I think we can both agree that there are ambiguities in both phrasings, so let's come up with a new phrasing that avoids the faults we're both pointing out in each other's solution. Right now we're stuck in a false dilemma. Compromising will get us out of that and prevent each of us from affirming the disjunct. Cup o’ Java ( talk • edits) 21:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I don't think either version should be there. The idea of breaking the rules by only just obeying the rules is nonsense to start with, akin to getting a speeding ticket for repeatedly driving just below the speed limit. If you think that 4 reverts in 24.1 hours is a violation of 3RR, change the rule from 24 hours to 24.1 hours. It makes no sense to have a rule and then promise to enforce something stronger than the rule. None of this means that one can't edit-war while technically obeying the rules; of course one can, but then some discretion from administrators is required. Zero talk 06:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
If we emphasize this in the policy, it will prevent the unfortunate run-in we had and what started this section. I suggest;
The essential point of revert limits is that a revert undoes someone else's work.
as a modification to the definition so that admins are not tempted to interpret the policy as meaning any modification is a revert. We can discuss including a second sentence above as well.
jps ( talk) 12:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The essential point of revert-limits is that a revert thwarts someone else's intent/efforts/meaning/prose/work. Intent is key. Done in a friendly collaborative spirit this is great; done with a battlefield mentality this is awful. Admins must judge carefully which sort of event happened. Pillar five and pillar four, especially, are applicable.
This still doesn't solve the problem of normal WP:EDITCONSENSUS changes being counted as reverts, since they may partially undo another's work. There is a technical contradiction between WP:EW and WP:EDITCONSENSUS which is overlooked in practice (see TopGun's comment above). The EW article could simply make explicit what is already implicit, which is the eighth exemption,
8. Consensus through editing. Modifying the edits of another in an attempt to find consensus is exempt when the edits are (a) clearly explained or obvious, (b) done cooperatively, and (c) free of warring behavior.
vzaak 18:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
"EDIT WAR: when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.
Don't use edits to fight with other editors –
disagreements should be resolved through discussion."
"COLLABORATION: building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect.
Use edits to collaborate with other editors, mutually improving the encyclopedia.
When disagreements arise about how to improve the encyclopedia,
or about whether a particular change is improving the encyclopedia,
immediately shift to resolving the disagreement through discussion:
do not shift to using edits as a means of fighting (as opposed to collaborating).
TLDR: if everybody is happy, then nobody is edit-warring. "
I tried to address this issue yesterday with the addition of three words, which NE Ent reverted because "simpler is better per wp:creep".
I agree that simplicity is better than instruction creep. However, clarity is better than confusion, and we have seen a bit of confusion about whether manually editing out a person's contribution is really a "revert", because you only undid the contribution without WP:UNDOing it. I don't think that simplicity is a good reason to preserve a confusing statement. What do other people think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I have been reverted by 2 editors on Scotiabank since January 29, 2014. One ditor has reverted my edits four times, and the other once. Talkpage discussions are going nowhere. Should I let it go, or is there another way? I have tried to simplify this so that I can learn from this experience.X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I propose changing "undoes other editors' actions" in the pink definition to "undoes the actions of other editor(s) that someone has indicated in an edit summary or Talk page comment as not wanting undone."
Currently, an admin can block editor A for undoing editor B's action even if B has apparently conceded the point on the Talk page (e.g. B adds a sentence cited to two sources, later concedes that one of the sources is unreliable, A then modifies the sentence so that it only reflects what the one remaining source says). Now one could say that B wouldn't then turn around and try to get A blocked for edit warring, but this doesn't preclude a third party C from trying to get A blocked and both C and an admin failing to notice the relevancy of Talk page developments. An admin can currently also block A for undoing typoes, as "undoes other editors' actions" makes no allowance for whether those "editors' actions" included the addition of typoes which the contributor would presumably not object to seeing corrected. This problem would be resolved by the change I propose: editors would be free to presume no objection absent a stated objection. An added benefit here would be to introduce into this section a requirement to make at least an edit summary comment on one's own part before one tries to get someone else with whom one is edit warring blocked. Currently nowhere in this section, or in its "exemptions" sub-section, is it ever suggested that any kind of discussion is required.
Now I'll grant that the edit war itself can be construed as presumptive of opposition to the content being warred over. Unfortunately, however, this occasionally assumes either too much good faith and/or too much due diligence of both parties. In the latest instance that produced by first block in the eight and a half years I've been editing, editor B had an unfortunate habit of reverting me even when I added material editor B had requested, and editor C was wont to revert me without looking at the content he was reverting. Would someone ever edit war to add back their own typoes? Sadly, yes, simply because many editors do not break down their reversions into individual elements, they just hit "undo" and revert to what was before, warts and all, as opposed to selectively reverting those elements that they continue to disagree with. But wouldn't an admin decline to block editor A in these circumstances if A has been diligent in attempting to engage on the Talk page and in trying different approaches to integrate others' work instead of just diminishing their work? Sadly, we don't always get @Mark_Arsten to investigate an edit warring complaint. We sometimes instead have an admin whose rigidity as been complained about before. I think we accordingly need to adjust the definition here as I suggest so that an editor is not normally blocked if there has never been an expression of opposition anywhere to the specific content the editor is accused of edit warring over.
The change I propose here would introduce the element of will. Is an edit war that isn't a battle of wills with respect to how the content reads the same as an edit war that is? While the former sort of "war" shouldn't normally form the basis of a edit warring complaint, if the one of the parties does not "will" a difference in content but does "will" trying to get his or her counterparty blocked, it might be the basis of a (spurious) complaint. I believe that requiring editors to participate on article Talk pages or, at a minimum, in edit summaries will help to mitigate and resolve edit wars.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 18:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Note that an alternative here would be to add an exemption: "Reverting material the non-reversion of which has never been opposed in an edit summary or on the Talk page." Note that this would not allow someone to say, "his argument was a non-argument in my eyes so I kept reverting him." It doesn't say there has to be a good argument on the other side. It just says there has to be some expression of lack of agreement however irrational and unsupported by evidence that may be. If a party to a dispute can't be bothered to make even that much of a statement in an edit summary, never mind on the article Talk page, I suggest that that party does not have the " clean hands" necessary to seek a block of the other party.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 23:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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 should be considered edit warring when an editor makes an avalanche of controversial edits, sprinkling in some gnome edits. It makes it nearly impossible to work. The BRBGBBBGBBBBGBBBGBBBGBBBBGBBBGBBBGBBBGBBBGBBBGGGGGGGG cycle, when detected (Gs are gnome edits) should be immediately dealt with as edit warring behaviour. It forces others to risk 3RR, or simply throw up their hands and quit. (or try to fix it all in a single edit) Especially when the helpful person attempting to sort out the mess is accused of vandalism because they reverted a few of the gnome edits by accident. I have been a victim of this several times in the past. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Read through the edit history to find it. Let's discuss. Cup o’ Java ( talk • edits) 19:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
As per the enlightening post below, why don't we compromise? I think we can both agree that there are ambiguities in both phrasings, so let's come up with a new phrasing that avoids the faults we're both pointing out in each other's solution. Right now we're stuck in a false dilemma. Compromising will get us out of that and prevent each of us from affirming the disjunct. Cup o’ Java ( talk • edits) 21:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I don't think either version should be there. The idea of breaking the rules by only just obeying the rules is nonsense to start with, akin to getting a speeding ticket for repeatedly driving just below the speed limit. If you think that 4 reverts in 24.1 hours is a violation of 3RR, change the rule from 24 hours to 24.1 hours. It makes no sense to have a rule and then promise to enforce something stronger than the rule. None of this means that one can't edit-war while technically obeying the rules; of course one can, but then some discretion from administrators is required. Zero talk 06:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
If we emphasize this in the policy, it will prevent the unfortunate run-in we had and what started this section. I suggest;
The essential point of revert limits is that a revert undoes someone else's work.
as a modification to the definition so that admins are not tempted to interpret the policy as meaning any modification is a revert. We can discuss including a second sentence above as well.
jps ( talk) 12:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The essential point of revert-limits is that a revert thwarts someone else's intent/efforts/meaning/prose/work. Intent is key. Done in a friendly collaborative spirit this is great; done with a battlefield mentality this is awful. Admins must judge carefully which sort of event happened. Pillar five and pillar four, especially, are applicable.
This still doesn't solve the problem of normal WP:EDITCONSENSUS changes being counted as reverts, since they may partially undo another's work. There is a technical contradiction between WP:EW and WP:EDITCONSENSUS which is overlooked in practice (see TopGun's comment above). The EW article could simply make explicit what is already implicit, which is the eighth exemption,
8. Consensus through editing. Modifying the edits of another in an attempt to find consensus is exempt when the edits are (a) clearly explained or obvious, (b) done cooperatively, and (c) free of warring behavior.
vzaak 18:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
"EDIT WAR: when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.
Don't use edits to fight with other editors –
disagreements should be resolved through discussion."
"COLLABORATION: building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect.
Use edits to collaborate with other editors, mutually improving the encyclopedia.
When disagreements arise about how to improve the encyclopedia,
or about whether a particular change is improving the encyclopedia,
immediately shift to resolving the disagreement through discussion:
do not shift to using edits as a means of fighting (as opposed to collaborating).
TLDR: if everybody is happy, then nobody is edit-warring. "
I tried to address this issue yesterday with the addition of three words, which NE Ent reverted because "simpler is better per wp:creep".
I agree that simplicity is better than instruction creep. However, clarity is better than confusion, and we have seen a bit of confusion about whether manually editing out a person's contribution is really a "revert", because you only undid the contribution without WP:UNDOing it. I don't think that simplicity is a good reason to preserve a confusing statement. What do other people think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I have been reverted by 2 editors on Scotiabank since January 29, 2014. One ditor has reverted my edits four times, and the other once. Talkpage discussions are going nowhere. Should I let it go, or is there another way? I have tried to simplify this so that I can learn from this experience.X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I propose changing "undoes other editors' actions" in the pink definition to "undoes the actions of other editor(s) that someone has indicated in an edit summary or Talk page comment as not wanting undone."
Currently, an admin can block editor A for undoing editor B's action even if B has apparently conceded the point on the Talk page (e.g. B adds a sentence cited to two sources, later concedes that one of the sources is unreliable, A then modifies the sentence so that it only reflects what the one remaining source says). Now one could say that B wouldn't then turn around and try to get A blocked for edit warring, but this doesn't preclude a third party C from trying to get A blocked and both C and an admin failing to notice the relevancy of Talk page developments. An admin can currently also block A for undoing typoes, as "undoes other editors' actions" makes no allowance for whether those "editors' actions" included the addition of typoes which the contributor would presumably not object to seeing corrected. This problem would be resolved by the change I propose: editors would be free to presume no objection absent a stated objection. An added benefit here would be to introduce into this section a requirement to make at least an edit summary comment on one's own part before one tries to get someone else with whom one is edit warring blocked. Currently nowhere in this section, or in its "exemptions" sub-section, is it ever suggested that any kind of discussion is required.
Now I'll grant that the edit war itself can be construed as presumptive of opposition to the content being warred over. Unfortunately, however, this occasionally assumes either too much good faith and/or too much due diligence of both parties. In the latest instance that produced by first block in the eight and a half years I've been editing, editor B had an unfortunate habit of reverting me even when I added material editor B had requested, and editor C was wont to revert me without looking at the content he was reverting. Would someone ever edit war to add back their own typoes? Sadly, yes, simply because many editors do not break down their reversions into individual elements, they just hit "undo" and revert to what was before, warts and all, as opposed to selectively reverting those elements that they continue to disagree with. But wouldn't an admin decline to block editor A in these circumstances if A has been diligent in attempting to engage on the Talk page and in trying different approaches to integrate others' work instead of just diminishing their work? Sadly, we don't always get @Mark_Arsten to investigate an edit warring complaint. We sometimes instead have an admin whose rigidity as been complained about before. I think we accordingly need to adjust the definition here as I suggest so that an editor is not normally blocked if there has never been an expression of opposition anywhere to the specific content the editor is accused of edit warring over.
The change I propose here would introduce the element of will. Is an edit war that isn't a battle of wills with respect to how the content reads the same as an edit war that is? While the former sort of "war" shouldn't normally form the basis of a edit warring complaint, if the one of the parties does not "will" a difference in content but does "will" trying to get his or her counterparty blocked, it might be the basis of a (spurious) complaint. I believe that requiring editors to participate on article Talk pages or, at a minimum, in edit summaries will help to mitigate and resolve edit wars.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 18:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Note that an alternative here would be to add an exemption: "Reverting material the non-reversion of which has never been opposed in an edit summary or on the Talk page." Note that this would not allow someone to say, "his argument was a non-argument in my eyes so I kept reverting him." It doesn't say there has to be a good argument on the other side. It just says there has to be some expression of lack of agreement however irrational and unsupported by evidence that may be. If a party to a dispute can't be bothered to make even that much of a statement in an edit summary, never mind on the article Talk page, I suggest that that party does not have the " clean hands" necessary to seek a block of the other party.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 23:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)