Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2010/December

Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), .....
WP:admin sez " Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist." Anybody question this ? Nucleophilic (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reinserted in different place. Do not see why admins should not be reminded of their obligations in this context. If reverting, please explain why in more detail. Nucleophilic (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

0RR = nonsensical?
The definition of a revert given here is A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. Any disputable but not outright bad addition (not vandalism etc.) would be undeletable under 0RR; oddly enough there's not even an exception for talk page consensus, presumable because of the bright-line intent of this page. So, I propose removing the 0RR example from the policy as ill-defined; it's not explained at all what it could possibly mean, and is nonsensical as a particular case of the general definition. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Further comment. I tried to find some ArbCom case or AN(I) discussion where the 0RR rule has been imposed as sanction by searching what links to the shortcut . There are a couple of examples where specific editors have been placed under 0RR for a specific page by individual administrators e.g. 1, 2, but I wasn't able to find a case where it was adopted by consensus. So, it appears it's largely a solution looking for a problem; presumably one could topic ban the editor from that particular page as well, or ban him from adding or removing a certain type of material; see for example ANI. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

<In general, this is a standing unsettled ambiguity among admins' interpretations, and 0RR is just the case that makes it plain. In a recent case a block was issued for four edits within 24 hours because the first was considered a revert rather than a bold, in that it continued an attempt to address an open disagreement; other admins' behavior suggests this would not be counted. It is possible that may address this by explaining when the first edit should or should not be counted a revert. But at any rate it needs addressing to mitigate pedantry, gaming, and odious comparisons. JJB 16:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 0RR is a severe restriction, and it is seldom used. You will find '0RR' mentioned twice in WP:RESTRICT right now. In my opinion both these uses of 0RR make sense, and experience will tell whether its use should continue in the future. I don't perceive that 0RR is nonsensical. A person who is under 0RR on a certain article is allowed to add brand-new material; that's all. If he wants anything removed, he needs to ask on the talk page for someone else to do it. EdJohnston (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the consensus of administrators at WP:AE seems to be that 0RR allows the removal of material: "[...] if the article was 0RR would any removal of any text be permitted? I think the common sense answer has to be 'yes' [...] PhilKnight 23:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)" So, it doesn't even impose the restriction you think it does. Ergo, nonsensical. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Remeber that certain types of reverts, such as reverting vandalism, are never counted toward x-revert rules. Could it be to that what was referred? --Bsherr (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Phil was pretty clear that any type of removal is okay by the AE version of 0RR. This is what happens when a jargony remedy is not clearly spelled out somewhere. By the way, the consensus at AE is that deleting the same material twice in 24hrs does not break 1RR either, because the first deletion is not considered a revert (in whole or in part) of other editor(s) work, but merely a bold edit. Their argument for this interpretation of 1RR could be termed "argumentum ad 0RR"; they say that precisely because 0RR allows removal of any material once (according to them), then removing the same material twice does not break 1RR and so forth. Clearly this policy and AE practice need to be reconciled somehow. Either the definition of a revert in this policy is simply wrong, or the "unwritten" but consensus AE interpretation of 0RR is wrong. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole discussion is about a strange way of counting rather than a principle. WP:BRD suggests to me that where a bold editor makes a change (adding or subtracting) to a previously fairly stable article and another editor objects to that change then reverts, the discussion ought to take place leaving the original form of the article until there is a proper attempt to reach consensus.  It should not matter whether there is one or three revert cycles before the discussion takes place.  Nor should the counting system give preference to an overly bold editor. 0RR is certainly odd if it allows bold editors to do what they want without response in the article, but 1RR and 3RR should not do so either.--Rumping (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. As it may seem odd that I proposed two diverging solutions, let me echo your concern that having a clearly spelled out rule is more important than the details of the rule. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternative proposal
If the consensus at WP:AE enjoys larger consensus here, then I propose the following addition to the definition of revert (the green box): If the bulk of the edits undone occurred more than 24 hours before their (partial) undoing, then the action of undoing them does not constitute a revert for the purpose of this policy. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Changed "24hrs" to "24 hours".) This sounds like it would address my concern above on first glance, although I look forward to others picking it apart. The first edit in the set should not be limited to being a totally-new insertion ONLY, and this is especially appropriate under 0RR, but no less necessary under 3RR. For the first edit in any 24-hour period, a partial rephrase of a prior insertion should probably not count as a revert, and a reasoned deletion (not a summary that baldly asserts nothing more than "OR", e.g.) should potentially not count as one, as those are both discussion-starters rather than the attitude of warring. So some such phrasing referring to the coolness of the text reverted may well be useful, if it doesn't become a "zone added to zone". JJB 16:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. This is something that one has to decide based on the totality of circumstances. The age of the edit undone, the intent of the editor undoing the edit, the relevant history on the article are all factors that need to be taken into account. T. Canens (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with adding your wording to the policy, if this is the consensus. Currently the policy wording (green box) is much stricter, which seems to be generating more reports than are actionable, and doesn't make sense in the 0RR case. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a cooldown of 24 hours is too short. It's still very close to the 3RR cycle and edit warriors would just use it to get a freebie. Wait a few more hours and the text you were edit warring over yesterday becomes "cold" and you "bold" it away.
 * I'd make it a week. Otherwise this is a good suggestion. There is a lot of unclarity regarding this issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. A week is more like it. Thanks for highlighting this Tijfo. Anthony (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)