User talk:Passionless/DIF

Codifing what constitues a revert
Hi, I've noticed there are many instances where whether an edit is a revert or not is very murky, so I have begun to codify what is a revert here. I of course need consensus to introduce the codifing officially so I ask that interested editors join me to fill in the question marks in the examples I have written out. Please voice your opinions on what different question marks should be below. Thank you, Passionless   -Talk  04:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am very concerned about this page—obviously "revert" could be better clarified, but listing twenty or so different cases is a clear case of rule creep and will only worsen things in the future. A revert shouldn't be too hard to define: any edit that deliberately removes a previous edit in an attempt to restore the page in question to a different revision. A revert can be partial (removing part of an edit) or full (basically undoing a whole edit). / ƒETCH COMMS  /  04:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I made this page because I have been a victim of the unclarity on multiple occasions and I know I am far from being the only editor being hit with breaking RR unknowingly. I advertised that I wanted help in hopes that many editors and admins would come and we could reach a consensus on reverting even if only some parts of what I laid out gains acceptance I feel it would be beneficial to many. Passionless   -Talk  04:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And it is also clear that many admin differ in how they view reverts, so while some will say you didn't break RR, others will say you did, so when you are brought to WP:EW the outcome is quite random. Passionless   -Talk  04:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's a muddy area. I've been on this project now for years and I still have no idea what people will count as a "revert" or not. I personally feel that an edit should only be considered a revert if it's a revert of content that the user knows is contested, ie if someone has removed content recently and someone else restores it, that's a revert. Gatoclass (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, and that seems to be the policy that editors of the article Itamar killings are going by, but by official policy several editors have broken 1RR in the last week at that article.(And that's if sequential reverts count as one-an unofficial policy) If someone was to bring them to ARBPIA they could get in trouble (depending on the judging admin) even though their edits are generally positive and working towards a higher quality article. Hmmm, I think I just argued against myself-clarification also inhibits positive editing. Passionless   -Talk  22:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have thought on a couple of occasions that I'd finally figured out what a revert was, only to find that a different interpretation was being taken on by admins acting on reports or requests. It is very frustrating that the interpretation taken seems so arbitrary, variable and unspecified. I'd prefer a hardline interpretation, where any modification other than the addition of new material was seen as a revert, no matter such factors as how long text being modified had pre-existed or how close a new meaning was to the old. Personally, I stick to a 1RR limit on any articles, anyway, so the only real risk I run of falling foul of the rule is if I get confused and don't realise that I'm editing an article that I've already edited less than 24 hours before, but other editors would have to be acting very blatantly now before I bothered pointing out to them that they're risking being sanctioned.       ←   ZScarpia  01:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I couldn't support an interpretation like that. Since the imposition of 1RR on I-P pages, I have found it very difficult to do any editing at all, since for almost any edit one has to modify the existing text to a degree in order to integrate the new content appropriately. If the definition of "revert" was reinclusion or deletion of clearly contested content, it would be far easier to determine when a revert has taken place, and the policy would then be appropriately applied to users who are genuinely edit warring, not those who are just trying to improve the article. Gatoclass (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Under my preferred version, an uninterrupted series of reverts by the same editor, no matter how long the period of time the series was performed over, would still count as one revert. For articles under a 1RR restriction, that would mean that an editor could revert away to his or her heart's content until another editor edited the same article, at which point the original editor would have to avoid editing that article again except to add completely new material for a period of 24 hours from their last edit. For articles under a 1RR restriction, I don't think that that'd be a bad thing. For heavily-edited articles, that would mean saving up your modifications for a single session a day. You've mentioned how you would regard reinsertions or deletions under your scheme; how would you regard changes that modify the meaning, subtly or grossly, of existing wording?      ←   ZScarpia  03:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you ZScarpia that sequential edits no matter the amount of time of number of reverts made should always be counted as one, but I also think that if another editor comes and makes a minor edit, like spelling or grammar, that this should not interrupt the fact that the edits are sequential. I also like the idea Gatoclass, that a revert is an edit which reincludes or deletes clearly contested content as this stops edit warring the purpose of RR limits. I think that edits which change the meaning of a sentence should be counted as if the sentence was deleted and new material was added. Though if I was to say delete a sentence in an article, for a good reason no doubt, this would certainly count as a revert of contested content if it was just added this week, but what if that sentence had not been added in a long time, would it still be a revert/contested content? If the time difference was unimportant than all deletions would be reverts as someone had at one time wrote what you are deleting. Passionless   -Talk  04:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That understanding is supported by policy, specifically in Edit warring where it states (last sentence, "third" paragraph), "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." I further believe a reasonable admin will consider an edit by another contributor to a different part of the article, not relating to the point being addressed by the original editor, not to be intervening - this is the only area where there is, in my view, some degree of debate. However, if a contributor saves an edit which undoes a previous edit and then saves further amendments (as in, revert a prior edit to an earlier version and then amend that revert to improve spelling grammer, add references, etc.) it still counts as one revert of the other accounts edit. For the purposes of 1 or 3RR, the subsequent edits are not counted as reverts. I have worked to this basis in 3RR disputes, and hope that this clarifies the point being discussed here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd realised that the consolidation principle is part of current policy, but it is useful to know that, in determining how reverts may be consolidated, admins might disregard an intervening edit by another editor if it's unrelated to those being considered. When you say that it's the only area of debate, presumably you mean over that part of the rule rather than the rule as a whole?
 * A suggestion: instead of thinking in terms of what is a revert or what isn't, which tends to produce complication, perhaps it would be better to produce a simple definition of what a revert is and then think in terms of degree (what makes reverts significant or insignificant, major or minor)?
 *    ←   ZScarpia  13:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You are wasting your time here
This is why. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you might agree, a revert is something that undoes, in whole or in part, previous edits, involving both changes in meaning or wording?
 * For me, if this discussion leads nowhere apart from me feeling that I'm sorting out my perplexity, I'll feel that having participated is worthwhile.
 *    ←   ZScarpia  13:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)