Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2011/January

3-RR
In "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. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."

Surprisingly there seems to be a bit of misunderstanding about what editing means. I quote in full the introduction to the Wikipedia article (bold is mine).

Editing is the process of selecting and preparing language, images, sound, video, or film through processes of correction, condensation, organization, and other modifications in various media. A person who edits is called an editor. In a sense, the editing process originates with the idea for the work itself and continues in the relationship between the author and the editor. Editing is, therefore, also a practice that includes creative skills, human relations, and a precise set of methods.

Reverting on the other hand is not a practice that includes creative skills, human relations, and a precise set of methods, but simply a return to status quo, and therefore can not be identified as editing as such. Moreover, edit warring occurs when human relations are entirely removed from the equation of 'editing', and are replaced with 'administrative actions' which seem to be mostly about a 'power trip' and not employment of skills in interactive relationships. Hence, the prolific arbitation issues Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But in the context of Wikipedia (or wikis generally), "an edit" is understood to mean any change made to a page - I suppose it's covered by "other modifications" in the definition you quote above. Since this is the established terminology I don't see that we would solve any problems by trying to change it.--Kotniski (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its absolute bonkers. If revert=edit, or anything, then there can be almost 0 editing if anyone at any time chooses to revert. And editing doesn't work in word-at-a-time. This means that 'controversial' subjects will eventually fall to whoever lasts out longer, and not to quality editing. So, while I think of myself capable of substantially improving articles that badly need it, I will do nothing and write articles that will get perhaps 10 visits a year because at least there I am unhindered from doing real writing. Way to go Wikipedia! Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All 3-RR does is put a solid limit on the number of reverts someone can make per day. Note that it is not a license.  So, for example, if you add something that you believe is valuable to an article, this does not mean that another editor can arbitrarily remove the info up to 3 times per day.  Instead, what is supposed to happen, ideally, is that if you add some info, then someone else thinks it doesn't belong and reverts it, you're supposed to go onto the articles talk page and discuss the info that you think should be added.  This cycle is called Bold, Revert, Discuss, and is a standard (although not the only) way of editing articles.  Note, though, that just because you do add something in good faith does not mean it will stay in--there are numerous policies and guidelines that govern editing at Wikipedia that may mean that the person reverting is correct in doing so.  But what that other editor is not allowed to do is just revert willy-nilly--there needs to be reasons for adding things, and there needs to be reasons for removing.  Any time you find yourself regularly being reverted, go to the talk page and start discussion. If that discussion doesn't get anywhere, go to some stage of dispute resolution (Third Opinion, Request for Comment, etc.).  Is there a particular article where you've been experiencing problems? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What you describe is pure fantasy.
 * However, I am not here to waste time on arbitration procedures. I want to write, and I think I do it in good faith as you say. This is what Wikipedia is for, not to teach people how to become Wikipedia lawyers. My time is limited, and Wikipedia contributions should be enjoyable to encourage that participation, not a trial, literally.
 * I had done what you suggested, and it led to effective halt to any editing although the article is garbage, and I'm reflecting only the stylistic, structural and content presentation aspects of it and not even the veracity of claims or accuracy of the material or adequacy of the sources on which it is based. And, the article accuses an entire country of a crime against humanity, so not a trivial matter.
 * It seems to me the WP:BRD|Bold, Revert, Discuss should read WP:BDR|Bold, Discuss, Revert, or maybe WP:DBR|Discuss, Bold, Revert, with the hope that the last wouldn't actually be used given the discussion.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, BRD is prety well ingrained for many editors (although I admit they fail to understand that BRD itself says it can't be used in all cases). In any event, though, I don't really understand what you're asking for.  It sounds like you're implying that people should be able to add whatever they want, and that, by definition, that which is added is valuable and people need to obtain a strong consensus to take it out.  While you may be acting in good faith, many many editors do not.  It would, for example, allow ethnic/nationalist POV pushers add any information to articles they wanted ("My ethnic group invented everything good in the world, and groups that fight us are disgusting sub-humans,"), and the onus would suddenly be on everyone else to take the info out.  Plus, it wouldn't even solve what you want it to solve, because if you add something that you think goes in the article, under your system, someone else could add in the exact opposite info, and you'd still have no easy way to make the article read the way you think it should.   I don't understand how we could identify you, specifically, as deserving to have your edits stay in articles, while other editors have to go through some sort of process to modify the articles.
 * Also, you say that you don't have time for arbitration...well, the fact is that some issues on Wikipedia are going to result extremely long, painful processes. I mean, if editing in say, Israeli-Palestinian issues was smooth and uncontroversial, I would actually think something is wrong with the process, not right.  If you're not interested in being involved in those discussions, then, yes, you're right, that part of Wikipedia is not right for you.  And, really, there's nothing wrong with that.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are quite wrong. It shouldn't matter what the subject of the article is. The editing standards should be robust enough to prevent cause the effect you describe as being 'normal' (I mean, if editing in say, Israeli-Palestinian issues was smooth and uncontroversial, I would actually think something is wrong with the process, not right.) I INITIATED the discussions, but few chose to participate and I was reverted by an editor that made no effort at discussion. Why should I have to go through the dispute resolution (Third Opinion, Request for Comment every time a new editor appears and chooses to revert because he/she 'feels' my editing is wrong? And, I have to wait 24 hours before I can revert, and then there is an immediate claim of edit-warring (Orwell would have loved Wikipedia) And, for this reason the whole 3RR/1RR rule is a faulty conception, serving to defend people that DO NOT contribute content but just use the application software! Koakhtzvigad (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Open proxies reverts not subject to 3rr?
I note that there does not currently exist a 3rr exception list for reverting edits made from open proxies. Since editing from open proxies is forbidden, should this also not be one of the exceptions to 3rr? Would anyone object if I added open proxies to the 3rr exceptions? Sailsbystars (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Editing on an open proxy is normally forbidden, because the editor is normally a block-evading, vandalising sock. I believe there are occasional circumstances where an editor can obtain permission to use an open proxy, also it requires some technical knowledge to spot 'em.  See what others think. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unclear that is wise to add open proxy edits to the list of 3RR exceptions. The policy on proxies allows them to be employed by legitimate users, with the proviso that the IP can be blocked at any time: "Open or anonymising proxies, including Tor, may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked."So the mere fact that an edit was made through a proxy should not imply that it is revertible by anyone without penalty. In specific cases, there may be other abuse going on that would justify the reverts. For example, this could be a banned user evading a block, and there is already a 3RR exception that allows reverting such a user. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's kinda why I wanted to get input before I made the change, and also clarify the policy in general. I've occasionally found open proxies making helpful edits when going through the open proxy detection logs and it wasn't clear to me if the edits could be summarily reverted or not.  It appears that the answer is they can often be reverted for reasons other than being open proxies, but not solely because they are open proxies.  So leaving as-is is probably the best option.  Thanks for the comments! Sailsbystars (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)