From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 05:58:16 -0700
Never hurts to correct a typo while reverting, but its still a revert.
Fred
From: "JAY JG" jayjg@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 07:26:32 -0500 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change
My question is, what about editors who revert while simultaneously (and deliberately) making non-trivial changes, so they can claim their edits
were
not a delete at all?
Jay.
The issue that I'm talking about is when an editor does a significant re-work of part of an article (say, re-wording or adding a number of sentences) while simultaneously reverting other parts of the article, in order to do a revert while being able to claim that they are doing substantive edits.
Jay.
That is nasty. And can produce a lot of needless work. You have to look at the changes they made and save them if they have not made it too complicated, but definitely they are leading you into a trap. If you revert they have this complaint that you removed useful edits. I guess you have to balance the situation. If they have created reams of work by combining a revert with an edit it is their responsibility not yours to do all the extra work involved. This kind of behavior leads to two versions of the articles.
It's hard for someone not closely following the action to catch this sort of thing.
Fred
From: "JAY JG" jayjg@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:40:32 -0500 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 05:58:16 -0700
Never hurts to correct a typo while reverting, but its still a revert.
Fred
From: "JAY JG" jayjg@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 07:26:32 -0500 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change
My question is, what about editors who revert while simultaneously (and deliberately) making non-trivial changes, so they can claim their edits
were
not a delete at all?
Jay.
The issue that I'm talking about is when an editor does a significant re-work of part of an article (say, re-wording or adding a number of sentences) while simultaneously reverting other parts of the article, in order to do a revert while being able to claim that they are doing substantive edits.
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
That is nasty. And can produce a lot of needless work. You have to look at the changes they made and save them if they have not made it too complicated, but definitely they are leading you into a trap. If you revert they have this complaint that you removed useful edits. I guess you have to balance the situation. If they have created reams of work by combining a revert with an edit it is their responsibility not yours to do all the extra work involved. This kind of behavior leads to two versions of the articles.
It's hard for someone not closely following the action to catch this sort of thing.
Fred
You mean a bit like this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:2004_U.S._Election_controver...
Ta bu shi da yu
At 09:40 AM 11/14/2004 -0500, JAY JG wrote:
The issue that I'm talking about is when an editor does a significant re-work of part of an article (say, re-wording or adding a number of sentences) while simultaneously reverting other parts of the article, in order to do a revert while being able to claim that they are doing substantive edits.
The 3RR doesn't have to be perfect, IMO, it just has to be better than what we've got now. At least this will make POV warriors hav eto work more to fight their revert wars, which should help reduce their number. Nobody likes to work :).
I think it's more likely to make POV warriors use sockpuppets and thereby force other editors to either let them get away with it or risk being blocked. Nobody likes to work, but POV warriors are generally more willing to work.
Further, the way I interpret the 3RR, if there were 2 different POV warriors, each reverting to different POV versions, an NPOV warrior would lose. Consider the edits:
original version: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the Palestinean Authority. Warrior 1: Jerusalem is a city in Israel. you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the Palestinean Authority. Warrior 2: Jerusalem is a city in Palestine. you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the Palestinean Authority. Warrior 1: Jerusalem is a city in Israel. you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the Palestinean Authority. Warrior 2: Jerusalem is a city in Palestine. you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the Palestinean Authority. Warrior 1: Jerusalem is a city in Israel.
In this scenario, the person restoring the NPOV version has broken the 3RR, but the POV revert warriors have not. Sure, you can try to get people on your side, but it takes more than twice as many people on the NPOV side as it does on the POV sides. Add in a few vandals who put in "Jerusalem sucksorz!!!!" and give a few of them multiple IP addresses...
I think the 3RR is a great guideline. In fact, Jimbo has convinced me to limit myself to one revert per day in almost all cases. But to be a strict rule, I think it has to be perfect, not just good.
Anthony
The 3RR doesn't have to be perfect, IMO, it just has to be better than what we've got now. At least this will make POV warriors hav eto work more to fight their revert wars, which should help reduce their number. Nobody likes to work :).
OK, this happened to me today in [[Exploding whale]]. Mikkalai remove a whole chunk of text, which I reverted. He then reverted me. I modified it to try to compromise, and commented on talk, and I messaged him explaining what happened. He reverted again. I tried to modify again to compromise, again I placed a note on talk, and in the edit summary I asked him politely to go to talk before reverting. I also placed a message on his page. He reverted again. I tried to clarify, left *another* message on the talk page (responded to his comment), and left a message on his talk page again. He reverted again.
I then listed the article on [[WP:RFC]] and left a note on his talk page telling him I had done this. I didn't revert any more, I just explained that I wanted outside comment. Sure enough, Markalexander100 tried to compromise also. He reverted again, then he changed his mind and attempted to compromise. This was all worked out well, though I do regret that I was told by Mikkalai to "Go hunt zionist revisionist deniers" - whatever that means (I'm sure it can't be good!)
My faith in the 3RR process is restored AND satisfied.
Ta bu shi da yu
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I think it's more likely to make POV warriors use sockpuppets and thereby force other editors to either let them get away with it or risk being blocked. Nobody likes to work, but POV warriors are generally more willing to work.
Further, the way I interpret the 3RR, if there were 2 different POV warriors, each reverting to different POV versions, an NPOV warrior would lose. Consider the edits:
original version: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the Palestinean Authority. Warrior 1: Jerusalem is a city in Israel. you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the Palestinean Authority. Warrior 2: Jerusalem is a city in Palestine. you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the Palestinean Authority. Warrior 1: Jerusalem is a city in Israel. you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the Palestinean Authority. Warrior 2: Jerusalem is a city in Palestine. you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the Palestinean Authority. Warrior 1: Jerusalem is a city in Israel.
In this scenario, the person restoring the NPOV version has broken the 3RR, but the POV revert warriors have not. Sure, you can try to get people on your side, but it takes more than twice as many people on the NPOV side as it does on the POV sides. Add in a few vandals who put in "Jerusalem sucksorz!!!!" and give a few of them multiple IP addresses...
I think the 3RR is a great guideline. In fact, Jimbo has convinced me to limit myself to one revert per day in almost all cases. But to be a strict rule, I think it has to be perfect, not just good.
Anthony
The 3RR doesn't have to be perfect, IMO, it just has to be better than what we've got now. At least this will make POV warriors hav eto work more to fight their revert wars, which should help reduce their number. Nobody likes to work :).
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:06:07 +1100, csherlock@ljh.com.au csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
OK, this happened to me today in [[Exploding whale]]. Mikkalai remove a whole chunk of text, which I reverted. He then reverted me. I modified it to try to compromise, and commented on talk, and I messaged him explaining what happened. He reverted again. I tried to modify again to compromise, again I placed a note on talk, and in the edit summary I asked him politely to go to talk before reverting. I also placed a message on his page. He reverted again. I tried to clarify, left *another* message on the talk page (responded to his comment), and left a message on his talk page again. He reverted again.
I then listed the article on [[WP:RFC]] and left a note on his talk page telling him I had done this. I didn't revert any more, I just explained that I wanted outside comment. Sure enough, Markalexander100 tried to compromise also. He reverted again, then he changed his mind and attempted to compromise. This was all worked out well, though I do regret that I was told by Mikkalai to "Go hunt zionist revisionist deniers" - whatever that means (I'm sure it can't be good!)
My faith in the 3RR process is restored AND satisfied.
Ta bu shi da yu
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I think it's more likely to make POV warriors use sockpuppets and thereby force other editors to either let them get away with it or risk being blocked. Nobody likes to work, but POV warriors are generally more willing to work.
Further, the way I interpret the 3RR, if there were 2 different POV warriors, each reverting to different POV versions, an NPOV warrior would lose. Consider the edits:
original version: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the Palestinean Authority. Warrior 1: Jerusalem is a city in Israel. you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the Palestinean Authority. Warrior 2: Jerusalem is a city in Palestine. you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the Palestinean Authority. Warrior 1: Jerusalem is a city in Israel. you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the Palestinean Authority. Warrior 2: Jerusalem is a city in Palestine. you: Jerusalem is city which is claimed by both Israel and the Palestinean Authority. Warrior 1: Jerusalem is a city in Israel.
In this scenario, the person restoring the NPOV version has broken the 3RR, but the POV revert warriors have not. Sure, you can try to get people on your side, but it takes more than twice as many people on the NPOV side as it does on the POV sides. Add in a few vandals who put in "Jerusalem sucksorz!!!!" and give a few of them multiple IP addresses...
I think the 3RR is a great guideline. In fact, Jimbo has convinced me to limit myself to one revert per day in almost all cases. But to be a strict rule, I think it has to be perfect, not just good.
Anthony
The 3RR doesn't have to be perfect, IMO, it just has to be better than what we've got now. At least this will make POV warriors hav eto work more to fight their revert wars, which should help reduce their number. Nobody likes to work :).
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Also, if one is attempting a compromise (and without reverting to the same one repeatedly), this probably doesn't count as a revert. In other words, if your new version does retain some details from the version you are changing, then surely it is not a revert. i.e. I presume the rigid 3RR rules only pertain to three actual outright reverts.
Am I right?
Zoney