Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2012/February

How long does an edit stay in place before its removal is not a revert?

Here's the scenario. A template is added to a page. A month goes by, with the page receiving several edits. Someone then removes the template. Are they reverting or just editing? What if this is part of a general disputed removal of the template across several pages? (editor does not like template). In general, how long is it before an addition's removal is no longer considered a revert? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no time limit. Any edit which completely undoes another edit (or series of edits) and has no other effects is a revert. —EncMstr (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it a revert in the sense of BRD? i.e. Is undoing that removal the "revert", or should discussion follow the removal itself? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not how admins construe a revert. Deleting stuff added a while back is merely a "bold edit" at WP:AE these days. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the policy states 24-hours:

“ The 3RR rule says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. ”

It seems HIGHLY likely that there is a time limit of 24 hours. (since the policy spells that out) Obviously, one could engage in a very slow-paced re-revert thing, but to me the whole idea is about whether people support their changes in Wikipedia with evidence or simply make the changes.

In the past few days, I have seen people simply change something with hardly any justification, just a passing word or two.

So the question is..... if something is inaccurate, wrong, libelous, etc.... as a BOLD, proactive, Wikipedia editor, do you wait and let the bad stay for some nebulous period of time, or just fix it once the 24-hours is up? (along with appropriate explanation/justification and consensus to the degree you can get it, 7 days seems a bit long especially in a contentious or noteworthy article)

...And don't administrators have a duty (with great power comes great responsibility) to make a consistent set of decisions that don't unfairly tread on others? -- Avanu (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Article needs to specify how old edit must be to be considered NOT a revert

I think this question is relevant here, and the above doesn't answer it for me. Since following don't seem definitive: There is no time limit. Any edit which completely undoes another edit (or series of edits) and has no other effects is a revert. (which was what I used to think) vs. Deleting stuff added a while back is merely a "bold edit" at WP:AE these days. Avanu seems to address issue of something is bold if it's not contested; it's a revert if it's deleting, say, positive or neutral info in a BLP while leaving in criticism, the issue I'm having.

The policy reads: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.

This really has to be made more clear in this policy. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of revert definition

Seeing no response, I'll just go with what seems like the reality of the "bright line" and people can tweak it. No response must mean everyone agrees?? :-) Proposal in bold.

There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, especially a more recent edit and/or one that is likely to be challenged. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.
[Added later: see new proposal below.]

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps another way to go about it is to change

A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.

to

A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no related intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.

Thus, an editor who changes four different parts of an article, which happen to have been contributed by the same editor in the distant past, does not become a 3RR violation just because the edits are separated by edits by other editors, who are editing unrelated parts of the article. The problem with this formulation is that administrators would have to figure out if the intervening edits are related or not. That's easy if it's just updating the article name in a non-English Wikipedia, but sometimes it could be hard for a non-specialist to tell. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What matters is not so much who made an edit as whether are recent and/likely to be challenged. You could have three reverts of old material that all eliminate properly sourced positive information in a BLP, for example, that could be problematic. As opposed to same three reverts if they eliminated poorly sourced material, replaced poor refs with better refs, etc. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Coming back a month later and looking at it again, let me strike the proposal above, and propose the simpler, clear language be added to the two different ways 3rr is defined - including the new wording (in bold):

Collapse my proposal affected by intervening edits

From the current lead: The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Change to: The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. This includes reverts in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and especially involving more recent edits. From the current blue box: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Change to: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time, and especially involving more recent edits —counts as a revert. Since this continues to be a source of contention in some articles and the proposal has been hanging around a while without naysayers, I'll do this fairly soon if no one objects. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarify definition of "revert" proposal

Because some people still insist only reverts of "new" or "recent" material is a real revert and one is making "false charges" if one complains about reverts of long-standing material, I think this needs to be made clear: Current wording: A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. Proposed wording: A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, especially actions done recently or likely to be controversial. If there is again no comment, I'll assume in a couple days that people support this :-) Thanks!!

Thee misunderstanding about revert meaning only any change to any edit done within 24 hours has been resolved below. As as well as the necessity for greater leeway for admins to decide what is or isn't an edit-war related revert. However, in passing in an old archive I did see one editor complaining about reverts on the page repeatedly defining it as "reversions in content disputes." I don't know if that was past language or a personal interpretation. I guess disputes over WP:RS or grammar or COIs could be other less content related disputes. Just indulging in more contemplation of this fascinating topic! CarolMooreDC 18:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This proposal should be rejected.

The context of Carolmooredc's request was her attempt to ping a user with a '1RR' despite the fact that the user hadn't actually violated '1RR'. Context here. You'll note that Carolmooredc asserts in this paragraph a definition of 'revert' which is of her own making, is not Wikipedia policy, and is intended to greatly broaden the scope of WP:3RR and WP:1RR. I strongly caution Carolmooredc not to interpret silence as assent, and I strongly encourage wide consideration of what it is Carolmooredc is apparently trying to do, which is to create a Wikilawyering bonanza. Goodwinsands (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering it is you are trying to condemn me for our disagreements on what this policy means, you are not exactly a neutral party in this discussion. Also, obviously if I make the change and people finally get around to noticing it, they can revert it then and then maybe they'll discuss it here. I'm just trying to get the debate going before I make the change. Also note that stalking me and commenting on questions I ask on various policy pages is really problematic. CarolMooreDC 17:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a bad proposal not only because of what you plainly intend to use it for (visit my talk page for information about her on-going campaign of harassment against me), but because it would turn '3RR' into a completely unenforceable rule. At the moment it is pretty easy to determine what does and doesn't constitute a revert. Extending the period of a revert beyond 24 hours would mean that every single '3RR' discussion would become Adventures in Forensic Archaeology. "Is this year-old change really a revert, is it a revert of this two-year-old change hundreds of edits back, did that revert this seven-year-old change thousands of edits previously?" This is a one-way ticket to rendering '3RR' absolutely useless and unenforceable, while becoming a molasses-filled haven for wikilawyers.

It's of course not stalking for me to keep current on the status of a rule which you have at least once used as the basis of an utterly baseless trip to the noticeboards in an attempt to get someone you disagree with -- me -- sanctioned. That attempt failed. Your response is to try to rewrite the rule so it would go your way the next time.

With that, I'm done here. Goodwinsands (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that it's only a revert if you change something that has been changed beyond 24 hours. If that IS true I would just like to see it in writing on this policy page. All I'm looking for is clarity, as were others in earlier discussions in this thread. I'll be glad to put in "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor which have been made beyond the last 24 hours." If people leave it, it must be right. CarolMooreDC 17:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No, a revert means undoing the actions of another editor within the last 24 hours. And there must be three such reverts within a 24-hour period for '3RR' to apply. Anything less than that is an invitation to wikilawyer chaos, as described above. Goodwinsands (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we can see what Carol means, though. If the actions being reverted are supposed to have been within the last 24 hours, then the policy should say so. If not, it should clarify that it doesn't.--Kotniski (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing on need for clarification. But too clarify :-) We're talking about beyond 24 hours. So if someone adds something at 12:01 am on Nov 16 and someone else reverts it on 12:02 November 17th, then it is "beyond" the revert period and NOT a revert. Now I've never heard of that before and it sounds quite extreme. But if that IS the policy, the article should say so explicitly. CarolMooreDC 20:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The current policy says "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." It is left up to the closing admin as to how far back to go when judging whether something is a revert. If you impose a 24-hour limit on the definition of a revert, then someone could revert at exactly at the same time every day and never be blamed for revert warring. This would be nonsensical. Since the July dispute between Carolmooredc and Goodwinsands was never reported at WP:AE it is hard to know what the verdict would have been. Actual AE closures sometimes take into account the apparent intentions of the parties. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That was a very helpful response, pointing out that merely "beyond 24 hours" is incorrect, and that for far longer periods of time an admin would have to decide. It did not occur to me the specific revert (whatever it was) belonged at WP:AE evidently under WP:ARBPIA. [Corrected later after memory jogged in discussion below: The WP:ARBPIA template recommended either this noticeboard or WP:AE and it didn't seem serious enough for WP:AE.]

So my question is, next time it happens - whatever the article - that there is a dispute on whether an edit is truly a revert, should it just be put in the list of reverts with a preemptive apology if others don't agree the change of a 6 week or 6 month edit is a "revert." (And is it relevant if it's a revert of something widely discussed and consensed upon as opposed to something that was not discussed?) Or should we seek guidance on this talk page or elsewhere before complaining about it? Thanks. CarolMooreDC 21:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not everything can be precisely defined. What is disruptive editing, exactly? What is a BLP violation? The answer is not always clear. Submit at the noticeboard and see what happens. Anyone who is trying to cut it too close to the line is taking a risk. Using the talk page is good. EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would improve the policy page to say something very general to that effect so that there won't be misunderstandings with one person thinking it means anything ever changed, another anything more recently changed or controversial in the past, and another only if it's been changed with the last 24 hours, which just shows the range of confusion that abounds. CarolMooreDC 03:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You want 'it depends' added to the policy? Surely you don't watch the 1RR line like a hawk trying to figure out what you can get away with. 1RRs are resolved in different ways depending on whether the person seems to be listening and whether it is likely they will do it again. We take into account that they may not be sure whether their first edit was a revert. Regarding your dispute with Goodwinsands, I would tend to consider the first group of his edits ending at 12:55 on 24 July as being a revert because it removed 2,665 bytes from the article. That is clearly undoing the work of others, and it should count against the revert limit. (Even if it was all a good-faith change not aimed at changing the POV of the article). EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So you saying that we should interpret "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." as being the strictest interpretation, unless after someone is reported it appears that they were all good faith edits of really old material?? In that case I don't have a problem since that was sort of my understanding originally.

Looking back at my original complaint here, I see it was declined as something that should go to WP:AE, even though, as I noted, the relevant WP:ARBPIA template recommended this noticeboard as one alternative. And in fact when I brought that up on this talk page an editor added this text to the noticeboard "Violation of a WP:1RR restriction may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts which happened within a 24-hour period, plus a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed."

It is rather annoying that despite these clarifications Goodwinsands, who has restructured his talk page to be an indictment of those who have had problems with his edits, has re-titled my original complaint section: POV Warrior #1 tries again: bogus redefinition of 'revert' in attempt to pin a false 1RR. which is a personal attack. He hasn't changed it even now that his definition of revert - only if happens within 24 hours of the original edit - has been proved inaccurate. This is the sort of nonsense that I am just trying to see end through greater clarity - or whatever policy-correct means - for myself and others. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 16:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So we are leaving this ambiguous??

Trying to take some things off watch list. Right now I don't have any problem with people disagreeing over the issue of old something has to be before it's considered a "revert." But it would be nice if it was a bit clearer for next time I run into a dispute. CarolMooreDC 22:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete/create - what kind of war?

Just out of curiosity, if a user is recreating a page and an admin is deleting it under a non-CSD criteria (such as PROD), is this edit or wheel warring?Jasper Deng (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What is a revert

An editor has added the description "terrorist" to the article Khader Adnan. Another editor, commenting that the "Edit was inaccurate. Israel did not say he was a terrorist" removes the word terrorist, and instead writes 'he was arrested for "threatening regional security,'. Is this a revert? full details here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Al_Ameer_son 71.204.165.25 (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)