Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2014/July
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Edit warring. 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. |
1RR
Hi -- I want to make sure I don't violate whatever our most recent interpretations of our 1RR rules are, so let me double check (though I've re-read the rule).
1. If I add an image to an article, which was never deleted from the article, is that act a revert?
(If the image is subsequently deleted by another editor, and I then restore it, I understand that my restoration would of course be a revert.)
3. If this happens in two different articles, on the same day, is that a 1RR violation? And has the other editor, who reverted my addition of the image in two different articles, violated 1RR?
4. If I:
a) add a sub-title to a section ("Years x-y"); and
b) an editor deletes the title, pointing out that the last paragraph of the newly sub-titled section doesn't belong in the section; and
c) I fix their concern by giving the last paragraph a new sub-title section of its own ("Year z"; while restoring the sub-title "Years x-y") ... is that a revert that would be impermissible?
I'm happy to abide by our rule; I just want to be clear I understand it. Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, this is what it is about:
- 22:30, 3 July 2014 Epeefleche adding stuff to article
- 22:57, 3 July 2014 me, Huldra taking out a part of the stuff which was added (a map)
- 23:22, 3 July 2014 Epeefleche re-adding map.
- Same on Tuqu'. Both articles comes under Wikipedia:ARBPIA sanctions, ie WP:1RR
- Epeefleche has 130.000 edits, and has been here since 2006
- I am trying to explain to him that you cannot add the same controversial material to an article under Wikipedia:ARBPIA sanctions in under 24 hours, without breaking the 1RR rule. Apparently, I´m not getting through. Can someone explain this to him, better than me? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Er, based on that description, neither of you has violated 1RR. The initial edit was not a revert, unless the map had been previously removed. Whether the edits were inappropriate for another reason is open to debate, of course.
- I suppose if Epee's point 4 was on the same article as one of the map disputes it might be considered a breach, per "involving the same or different material". I wouldn't be minded to pursue that, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Tx Nikki. To clarify -- in point 4, there was no map image restoration/revert. The title was input once, for the first time ever (not as a revert). The title was then deleted, for the reason indicated above. The deletion was then reverted, which of course is a revert, but as you've explained it would be I believe the first and only revert on that article. Epeefleche (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I got that, but if the map revert and the title revert were on the same page, that would technically be a breach of 1RR: "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period" (my emphasis), and 1RR basically just replaces the "three" with "one". As I said though, even if they were on the same page, I wouldn't be inclined to send either party to AE. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Right -- just to clarify -- they weren't on the same page. The page that had the title revert didn't have a map revert -- just the initial map addition. Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Good, then there's no violation. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Inserting new, controversial material to the same article twice, in under 24 hours, constitutes a violation, AFAIK. Otherwise anyone could re-add controversial material a 2nd time, and you could not stop them. 1RR is not only about removing stuff, it is also about inserting stuff. Which Epeefleche did. (I which we could get more responses here), Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- He inserted it twice, but reverted it only once, so that's not a 1RR violation. If you want to "stop them", the way to do that is to seek consensus on the article's talk page to remove it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Again, I disagree. Your way of looking at it could allow anyone to put WP:UNDUE, or even garbage, on a page, without giving any a single person the chance to remove it. I regret now that I didn´t bring this straight to the 1RR board; I will do that the next time, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- He inserted it twice, but reverted it only once, so that's not a 1RR violation. If you want to "stop them", the way to do that is to seek consensus on the article's talk page to remove it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Inserting new, controversial material to the same article twice, in under 24 hours, constitutes a violation, AFAIK. Otherwise anyone could re-add controversial material a 2nd time, and you could not stop them. 1RR is not only about removing stuff, it is also about inserting stuff. Which Epeefleche did. (I which we could get more responses here), Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Good, then there's no violation. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Right -- just to clarify -- they weren't on the same page. The page that had the title revert didn't have a map revert -- just the initial map addition. Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I got that, but if the map revert and the title revert were on the same page, that would technically be a breach of 1RR: "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period" (my emphasis), and 1RR basically just replaces the "three" with "one". As I said though, even if they were on the same page, I wouldn't be inclined to send either party to AE. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Tx Nikki. To clarify -- in point 4, there was no map image restoration/revert. The title was input once, for the first time ever (not as a revert). The title was then deleted, for the reason indicated above. The deletion was then reverted, which of course is a revert, but as you've explained it would be I believe the first and only revert on that article. Epeefleche (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Removing mandated tags
Just wanted to ask if there's ever been a discussion on this page, as an addendum to WP:3RRNO to include the removal of Afd notices and other mandated notices. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)