Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2017/April


Why was I reverted?

@Bbb23: What do you mean by "no"? Do you think what I wrote was inaccurate? If so, could you explain how? I wouldn't have added a matter-of-fact claim if I thought there was a possibility I was wrong. Or did you mean that while what I wrote was accurate, it just doesn't belong? WP:CREEP doesn't apply, since I was only describing a variant of the one-revert rule that already exists. If you just think I was making the paragraph unnecessarily wordy, then ... well, I disagree: it's clearly necessary to tell users who are subject to the "standard" 1RR that that doesn't mean they can ignore the details of various topic-/page-specific 1RR variations. The fact that some 1RR variations differ in their definition of what a "revert" is seems a lot more relevant than the current, obvious/superfluous, clarification that sometimes the phrase "24-hour period" [can be] replaced by some other time period, such as "one week" or "one month".

I read through the wording of 1RR thoroughly before all-but requesting that it be applied to me to demonstrate my good faith and my personal dislike of edit-warring, and have read it several times since (when asking for clarification on, for instance, whether I am allowed change my mind, self-revert, and then change my mind again), but I wasn't aware until more than a year later that I still needed to be careful where "1RR" applied to certain articles or topics. I am obviously not afraid I'm going to be blocked for a good-faith mistake I made three months ago, so this isn't about amending the rules to fit my particular situation -- if I can make a mistake like that, anyone can, and the clarification I added seems at least as relevant as the one that was already there, if not significantly more. I don't think adding clarification on whether 1RR forbids us from self-reverting under very specific circumstances, since that would be amending the rules to fit my particular situation.

On an unrelated note: in case there has been another misunderstanding, I might not be the user you think I am. Last time you reverted me with an edit summary that didn't explain why you reverting me, and I asked for clarification, you threatened to block me for my repeated usurping of admin responsibilities, which it turned out was apparently mistaken identity, and once I clarified this you provided a more detailed explanation of what was wrong with my edit (one I conceded to, as it made sense). For all I know, you had already clarified to the user you thought I was why some edit similar to mine was inappropriate, and if this is the case here then I understand why you reverted me with the edit summary "no", but a clearer explanation would be appreciated. For what it's worth, I've never edited this policy page before, and I have only posted on this talk page once. I'm clarifying this here for the sole reason that, if I recall correctly, I lost about an hour's sleep worrying I would wake up blocked for whatever reason. I don't need that grief again, but I also don't want to discuss it. Please ignore this paragraph in your response.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

A revert is a revert, whether it's 1RR or 3RR. Any variations in how it's applied is typically at the discretion of the administrator. It's almost never a good idea to change a policy based on your own personal experience. Sorry for the brevity of my undo edit summary, but substantive edits to policies that aren't first raised in discussion are red flags, and I didn't feel like trying to fit into an edit summary what was wrong with your change.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
A revert is a revert, whether it's 1RR or 3RR. It's not, though: look at the example I linked (and specifically mentioned in my edit summary as the character count didn't allow for a link). Any variations in how it's applied is typically at the discretion of the administrator. No, in this case ArbCom applied a specific restriction with a specific definition of "1RR" that differs quite radically from the one currently described on this page. Yes, admins are free not to block users like me who technically ran afoul of it as a result of a good-faith mistake, but it would be nice if we could just prevent those mistakes in the first place. It's almost never a good idea to change a policy based on your own personal experience [...] substantive edits to policies that aren't first raised in discussion are red flags But I didn't make a substantive edit or try to change the policy. The page currently lists three examples of variants on 1RR (which presumably are in effect somewhere on the project), and I added a fourth (which, per my edit summary, is definitely in effect on a fairly visible portion of the project, and per my comment above seems a lot more relevant than the other examples). None of the specific examples would alter the policy itself just by being listed or delisted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
It's no different from 1RR to 3RR. Your first edit can always be counted as a revert, depending on context. Eg if you first edit is during the middle of an edit war (and it's related to the edit war), then it would likely count as a revert. Stickee (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but in the example I referred to ArbCom explicitly stated that any new edit that is reverted counts towards 1RR as though it were a revert, regardless of whether it falls within an edit war (or even whether the article has been edited in the past six months). I highly doubt that there are any topic areas where a general sanction that any new edit that is reverted is to be treated as a revert for 3RR purposes (in those cases standard 1RR would be much more intuitive and almost certainly applied before more exotic variants) or 0RR purposes (i.e., anyone who makes an edit and is reverted has already violated 0RR witthout knowing about it). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)