Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2015/June

Turning WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD) into a guideline?
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Village pump (policy). A WP:Permalink to the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Automated detection of edit warring
I'm looking for a more efficient way to resolve edit wars. Does Wikipedia have any bots or tools that can automatically detect edit wars or violations of the three-revert rule? Jarble (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Background
Stickee reverted the following text:

to:

with the summary:

the addition

had been deleted by Quessler giving the following reason:

Arguments
would it be rather important to add to this definition, as follows:

Probably not.

Conclusion
The current version is inferior, it is non-factual and didactic.

Quessler will revert the current version to:

no additional arguments being provided.

Quessler (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't share Quessler's philosophical concerns with whether the wording "rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion" is logically justified, but I do agree that the wording should be removed, though for a different, and more pragmatic, reason. Time and time again as an administrator I deal with editors asking to have edit-warring blocks lifted, on the grounds that while they were repeatedly reverting, they were also discussing on the article's talk page, so it wasn't edit warring. In other words, there are many editors who think that as long as they post one or two comments on the talk page, they are then free to keep on reverting repeatedly, and they are immune to blocking for edit-warring. Further down the page the advice is offered to discuss on the talk page rather than edit-warring, and that is fine, but to include "rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion" in the definition of what "edit warring" means is both unnecessary and, for the reason I have given, unhelpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've certainly encountered the same issue you have. Perhaps the "rather" implies a false dichotomy between reverting and discussing. Would a better wording be "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions,. Editors should try to resolve the disagreement through discussion"? I'm cautious about changing the lead sentence of a core policy which has remained unchanged for 6 years.
 * To Quessler, it is meant to be "didactic/pedagogical". This page is a conduct policy, which describe how an editor is to behave when contributing to this project. Stickee (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that wording would resolve the issue. I might suggest something more along the lines of An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion, repeatedly override each other's contributions. Perhaps it should even read consensus rather than discussion. DonIago (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * DonIago, I like your suggestion about linking to WP:Consensus. Discussion isn't the only way to do that, and the sentence causes problems by making some people think that edit warring during a discussion is okay.  I've made an effort to retain the value and remove the problem.  Perhaps someone else could act like it's a wiki and try to improve it even further?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Transclude
I would like the definition of "revert" to be put in a format that can be transcluded into this policy and anywhere else it is desired. Anyone object to that? (Just to be clear and forthright, one of the places where I may eventually want to transclude it is into Help: Reverting.). If this idea gets anyone upset, just say so nicely, and I'll drop it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How big is this definition going to be? This policy page has a definition in the second paragraph of the lead currently. There's also WP:RV, but that isn't a policy or guideline. Stickee (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It would probably be the same as the one currently in this policy page, and could replace it. In any event, the point is that edits to the definition (whatever they are) will be simultaneously seen at the places where it's transcluded.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your proposal. This sounds like a rehash of the matter above, except now transclusion is involved. If that's the case, I already suggested that you start another WP:RfC on the "definition of a revert" matter and a discussion about it at Help talk:Reverting since Help:Reverting is the page to explain what a revert is, and this one is about edit warring. Flyer22 (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not meant to be a rehash. I just wanted to know if there's any objection to a transclusion.  But I can instead start there, and if they approve of a transclusion then I can come back here and see if people here would be okay with it too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I still don't know what you mean. If you mean that you want that page to use what you consider this page's definition of a revert, which is what we discussed above, it is a rehash. And, as you know, I have nothing more to state to you on that matter...except what I already stated to you about it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If the transclusion contains only the definition of "revert" at Help:Reverting, would there be any objection to transcluding it here? I'm just making this suggestion because someone reminded me about it today at my user talk page.  If it's a problem then we can forget about it, but it seems useful to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If this proposal proceeds, I suggest putting the definition on this page within a section element so that labeled section transclusion can be used from other pages. isaacl (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, except maybe the definition would be at Help:Reverting within a section element, and then labeled section transclusion would be used from here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it is better to have the definition on a policy page. isaacl (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Question About Repeatedly Inserting Slightly Different Unsourced Material
This question arose at WP:ANI. If an editor introduces unsourced material four times in 24 hours, and it is slightly different in wording each time but essentially the same, is that a 3RR violation (as well as being a sourcing violation or original research)? My interpretation is that the trivially different wording amounts to gaming the system and should still count as edit-warring (as well as whatever else). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would say it would be a violation, since a revert means "undoing the actions of other editors". Stickee (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't even need to "game" anything. 3RR is remarkably sweeping, well beyond what most editors believe it says (or believe it should say):  it covers all edits in an article, "whether involving the same or different material".  If you:
 * add someone's name to the lead, and get reverted,
 * add a link to a word in the middle of the article, and get reverted,
 * add a photo in the last section (that has nothing to do with the previous edits), and get reverted,
 * —then any fourth edit that you attempt on that article could be interpreted as a 3RR violation under the "letter of the law". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)