Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2017/May

Is lowering the revert-rule threshold a perennial proposal?

I'm sure there are many editors who think 3RR is too lenient 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 WP:Perennial proposals or its talk page, which is somewhat less active than this one.

Any suggestions on where I should look for such discussion? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Override -> overwrite

I boldly changed the lede of this policy just now, replacing the word "override" (wikilinked to Wikipedia:Reverting) 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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 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. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That's okay, 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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 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.- MrX 18:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think negate is the word we're looking for (sense 2). ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Consensus clause

Now that my effort at WP:CON were reverted, I suggest on adding to WP:1RR the following descriptive explanation:

In certain instances for articles falling under 1RR, the consensus clause may be invoked by admins. Under this clause, editors must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question. (Example: Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump)

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 ARBPIA3 motion. El_C 18:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Since this is an ArbCom decision, I think you need to bring this to the ArbCom.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

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 Sean Hannity and the bad decision to lock the article because of it.- MrX 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. El_C 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. El_C 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 Donald Trump.- MrX 18:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. CR Example from right now. El_C 18:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @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 Wikipedia:Consensus required 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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. El_C 18:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's leave it as a redlink for now, please. El_C 18:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Any suggestions on what it should say, beyond or supplanting my draft above? El_C 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.- MrX 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 Greg Gianforte but I don't think anyone noticed or cared. El_C 20:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Exemptions. So we're only talking about seemingly plausible edits by editors in good standing.
• In normal cases after maxing out WP:3RR 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 more than three reverts more than one revert 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. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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! @El C: do you have further thoughts following Rob's helpful clarification ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I have created WP:CRP (for Consensus required provision)—let me know if my phrasing make sense to you in the context of what Rob had said. El_C 22:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I enjoy your sense of humor, El_C.- MrX 00:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

So long as you're laughing with me! El_C 05:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course!- MrX 11:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)