Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2011/September

Adding missing edit summaries into list "What edit warring is"

 * I was blocked by providing following reasoning: "I see multiple attempts to add contentious content to [article page] without any attempt to explain your edits in edit summaries. That is edit warring." As I was blocked w/o any notice, I do suggest that into WP:EW will be added text "Adding content without explanation in edit summaries is considered edit warring and will cause immediate 7d block without further notice" so that this criterion will become fully objective and editors might avoid falling into the trap of being blocked for 7d if they would unwillingly break it just because it is not stated anywhere.--Stephfo (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a rather disingenuous post. You have multiple warnings for edit warring on your talk page and have been blocked twice for 3R infractions. Your talk page access was even revoked due to your incessant wikilawyering and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT unblock requests. If after an inordinate amount of warnings, blocks, and clear explanations you still do not understand what is considered edit warring on Wikipedia, than perhaps your energies would best be expended elsewhere. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I guarantee that it is ingenuous post. I do not want to go into the details of my block here to avoid bothering others by what is not pivotal in relation to declaring missing edit summaries as edit warring (I can however do it at your talk page if you are interested; e.g. I'm sure I did not perform any edit warring after being warned as I demonstrably restricted myself from that time on to talk page discussion; also cf. "Decline reason:I never mentioned 3RR" w/ "have been blocked twice for 3R infractions"), but from perspective of statement "blocks will not usually be allowed to become a source of conflict; rather, consensus will be sought, by means of a fair and objective examination of the matter and of any policies alleged to have been breached". I believe declaring missing edit summary either is objectively edit warring or it is not. I do not see any other alternative like "it depends on wish of particular administrator" as such approach is clearly not objective policy.--Stephfo (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether disingenuous or some very odd sort of misunderstanding, it is a total misrepresentation to interpret the quote given as meaning that "adding content without explanation in edit summaries is considered edit warring", and anyone who really thinks that has some sort of serious problems with understanding how Wikipedia works. It is also a gross misrepresentation to claim that no objection has been raised here to the suggestion of making that ridiculous edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, then I apologize for misunderstanding, but still referring to your statement "a gross misrepresentation to claim that no objection has been raised", may you pls. be explicit and state what exactly that raised objection is? Thanks a lot.--Stephfo (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you not read Ponyo's post? 80.168.172.162 (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Make explicit that tags count under 3RR
I got burned by this. Someone told me tags could only be removed by consensus. I checked the policy and it didn't say anything. So I decided to test it out and I got a block. My personal feelings aside, it would be good to have it stated in the policy that tags do indeed fall under the 3RR. Brmull (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a shield to hide behind when edit warring. Whether it is tags or article content makes no difference. The idea behind this policy is that we should not fight about these things through aggressive editing but rather discuss them rationally on the talk page. That is what was apparently not clear to you. Hopefully it is now. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I now understand the policy. My point is that would be good to have it stated explicitly in the policy that tags do indeed fall under the 3RR, since this is not obvious to everyone. Brmull (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's not already clear. The policy defines a revert as "any edit[...] that reverses the actions of other editors" (emphasis added). "Any" is one of the clearest ways we could possibly say it. It then goes on to list exemptions, and tags are not among them. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy wording is really in need of improvement because really almost any edit to an existing article could be also called a revert. The distinction is pretty much arbitrary when it isn't a clear back and forth of same wording being added and removed. If I wrote "Hot dogs go well with mustard", and another editor changes it to "The taste of hot dogs is complimented by mustard", and the first editor changes it to "The flavor of hot dogs is enhanced by mustard", has a revert taken place? What if the editor had changed it instead to "The taste of hot dogs is complimented by mustard as well as relish"?  Its a weird and arbitrary rule, and although its clear in some cases, in others it doesn't even make sense in light of our shared goal to improve content. -- Avanu (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy states: " 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 wasn't clear to me--and if you search back through the archives there have been others--that placing a tag is an "edit". Adding the sentence, "This includes placing or removing tags" would prevent any confusion. Brmull (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't see how one could think adding a tag is not an edit. If you have to click the "edit" button or link to do it, it's an edit. I already think this policy is highly wordy; I'm not keen on making it any wordier, especially because I think it's a slippery slope to defining everything that counts ("this includes placing or removing tags, spellchecking, removing POV, edits in accordance with consensus etc.). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several reasons why a reasonable person might think placing a tag is not edit warring, not least because the Template:POV says "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." If you're worried about a slippery slope, why not just add what you said, "If you have to click the edit button or link to do it, it's an edit." Brmull (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

3RR Redundancy
I think the explanation of 3RR is excessive. It outlines 3RR clearly at the head of the article, then just a bit down is a big highlighted section that goes over the same thing verbatim or near-verbatim. I understand the need for emphasis, but that's already accomplished by the big neon green bubble. Highlighting something important is fine, but stating twice in two different parts is insulting of the person who got the point the first time and doesn't need to have the same thing drilled in. I don't want to make any chances because of the delicate nature of the material, and the recursive nightmare that could ensue, so I'll just state my opinion and see if anyone agrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squish7 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)