Wikipedia talk:Edit war/Archive 1

message: Above, someone writes with regards to wikipedia:revert: "This is not an official policy and I am against it". Sie is quite correct.
However, one example of an official policy is the new text on Wikipedia:Edit conflicts, which, by the powers vested in me by the Wikipedia power structure I hereby declare official, having been standard practice for several years, and amply illustrated by a range of precedents over the past years. 
Making this common practice universal will significantly reduce longterm conflict, while improving the quality of the encyclopedia. Further, it provides solid guidance to newcomers to help them cope with the vagaries of Wikipedia's edit conflict system. Martin 23:34, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  New policy on edit conflicts 

message: To 213.84.6.203, who said in an edit summary "I really don't understand why this external link was removed": I suspect Maveric149 could see no direct relevance to this article.  I just took a quick look at the site in question, EditWar.com, which seems to be a new wiki someone has set up in the last few days.  I have to say other than its title, its relevance to this article isn't immediately obvious to me either.  Please explain.  GrahamN 23:35, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: EditWar.com

message: Hello, I was wondering if edit/revert wars are allowed in the sandbox.  Thank you, 152.13.128.72 23:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about edit/revert war policy 

message: I've reverted Light current's unilateral attempt to rewrite this article, who's proved to have a flawed understanding of policy at WP:V. FeloniousMonk 17:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of  Light current 

message: Would "rapid reverts" be a better term? StarboardFlank 08:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that matter if this is an internal document? "Wikilinks" is not used outside of Wikipedia, either.  That being said, editors who look for vandalism often revert rapidly (often within the same minute as vandalism).  The problems with the reverts being discussed are their "contentiousness", something that doesn't come across with "rapid reverts".  TedTalk/Contributions 18:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about "Rapid reverts"? 

message: The phrase "Waiting an hour or more between reverts to vandalism makes continued vandalism less likely, according to experienced editors. In most cases, troublemakers will lose interest, and subsequently leave." is under dispute, because it is alleged to be a violation of WP:DENY. Personally, I disagree since (1) delaying for an hour is not giving recognition, and (2) WP:DENY does not have consensual support. Comments welcome. (Radiant) 12:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: This is indeed a tough one! I see a few issues here, for something that appears such a simple issue. I'll try to go through in detail here.
Here are the arguments I'd see in favor:
*Not feeding trolls is good, and most trolls do like instant gratification of provoking a response. If they don't get reverted at once, they're likely to get bored and do something else.
*Simple vandals who just wanted to see "what would happen" are likely to similarly get bored and go away.
*No 15 examples of "rvv" (or similar) on the edit history.
And the main ones against:
*Some outside sources have done studies as to how quickly vandalism to Wikipedia is reverted. If more users go to slow reverting, they're likely to find that "vandalism on Wikipedia persists a long time." (This doesn't happen often but is something to think about.)
*Someone's going to revert obvious vandalism anyway, even if it's not the first one to see it. It's almost against the grain of an editor to let obvious vandalism slide-I know I'd find it grating.
*If we're trying to get into the vandal's head, ignoring the vandalism may only embolden h(im|er) to vandalize other articles in the belief that "no one noticed"-or to go vandalize higher-profile articles in hopes of provoking a response.
*Any editor can go as far back in the edit history as they like-reversions don't delete anything.
*Persistent vandals can always be blocked, or in extreme cases an article (semi)protected.
I would tend to say that, at the very least, this should be clarified. Massive or obscene vandalism (such as Blair-replaced-with-a-penis above) should most certainly be reverted immediately and as many times as it takes. The same for vandals who insert false (but potentially believable) information, or totally blank an article and replace it with profanity or nonsense. I think the "hello" vandalism Radiant cited is probably more conducive to this type of handling-perhaps revert once, see if the vandal notices, and if so just "let them have it" for a few minutes. Likely, they'll get bored and go away. However, the issue still remains that, even if one user doesn't revert the vandalism, the next to see it might-it's just hard to see vandalism in an article and knowingly leave it there! Seraphimblade 11:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: Hello, I was recently blocked for an edit war. I wasn't warned before I was blocked, should there be a warning first? I would have stopped if warned. That's obviously not true for some editors, but there are warnings for vandalism before vandals are blocked. --AW 03:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's not a good idea, but through an incomplete understanding of the 3RR rule I thought I was ok. Like I said, a warning would have been nice, I would have stopped. --AW 17:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warnings before blocks? 

message: Forgive me if the Talk page for Edit War isn't the right topic … tell me, I'll move it to a more appropriate Talk page.
I've encountered something recently that's probably old news. Maybe not. Please enlighten me. 
You happen upon a page that you have some expertise in, edit it about some, then get your edits reverted with or without a prejudicial comment ("spurious edit reverted," "this has already been discussed and resolved"). Twice now, I've encountered film pages in which I was effectively blocked for editing/adding to by editors who've had edits on the page for over a year. Twice I've been told something like, "if you'd read the Talk page for this article, you'll see that this has already been discussed [more like warred over]  and resolved. Read the Talk page before you edit." 
This seems anathema to many WP policies: be bold, don't bite newbies, everyone can edit, 3RR, no angry mastodons. The core concept  of WP seems, to me, that this is a living library, and that pages can continue to grow, shrink, change, etc. as editors come and go. No page is "done" when some higher authority has made sufficient edits that the page can no longer improve, only degrade (by someone's arbitrary measure, or formal  review and accreditation). There are exceptions, but my impression is that these are WP policy and guide pages, not article content. 
Editors who "camp out" on a page and discourage or "shoot down" changes seem to violate the WP:NOT policies that this is not a site for personal opinion pages, fan pages, etc. But if the article is of a notable topic, NPOV, has sufficient references/cites, it may not qualify as someone's "own page." Still, camped-out editors (I'll call them "page squatters") are effectively shutting out new editors by setting unreasonable prerequisites ("read the Talk page," "ask us on the Talk page BEFORE making your change," "hang around awhile and become familiar with the article [or editors?]  before editing"). I don't think there are many articles on WP -- I haven't found any, other than policy or admin pages -- which editors (registered or otherwise) have to ask permission on the Talk page prior to editing. (I'm excluding formally protected pages in this, BTW.) Besides, some Talk pages are pretty extensive, going back 2+ years. I've encountered Talk pages requiring more than an hour to read diligently. 
The obvious result of this behavior would seem to be edit wars ... but the insidious result is that new editors will shrug and move on, and a page is no longer really "editable." 3RR and edit war complaints won't hold water if the pgae isn't clearly mired in a mass of conflicting edits. Squatting can have its effect over time. I have my own tactic to prohibit me from being a squatter. But how do we deal with other squatters? Perhaps we need an essay about this...? (Or there already is one, and I just didn't find it?) Any reactions or thoughts invited herein. TIA. — David Spalding Talk/Contribs 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point, I've noticed this sort of mentality before too. --AW 19:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't seen this page before, this surely must cover the topic (he said, before reading it). — David Spalding ta!k y@wp/Contribs 14:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Page squatters" 

message: I think even someone as annoying as an edit warrior can have the sense to go to the sandbox to have an edit war if it's "too much free time". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.103.220 (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: too much free time?

message: Some times people vandalize my edits! RealG187 19:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ! 

message: I'ven't ever seen anything about an un-block policy. Wii Play was blocked due to an edit war. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it should be unblocked now, but I would like to know what the policy is for such cases (so we can be working toward it...). McKay 04:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Un block policy? 

message: I know some edit wars, that fall into the revert of text contributions "...in part" and continue to do so "...in part" each time (once it has passed a change of a revision in part once, bad edit wars usually turn into a revert "...in entirety" of that initial "part") can be constructive, if each side gives in a little, to the other users edits each change, until both are satisfied or at least less dissatisfied, I think this kind of "good edit war" should be added into the edit war page too. This kind of edit war usually starts with new articles that only two users view. 207.202.227.125 01:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefical edit wars? 

message: *Responded on the village pump. >Radiant< 15:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars where the other side will not talk 

message: Is it okay to have extensive discusion and then a mini edit war of let say three reverts in total and then proceed to dispute resolution, like mediation? Or is extensive discussion and one revert enough for mediation? I personally prefer the former. I think that the advantage of a revert is that they make it clear that there is serious disagreement. Andries 20:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ???? See WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:TE#Characteristics_of_problem_editors, and WP:DE. Edit warring is never an option. Revert once, if you disagree. Then engage in discussions. Mediation is not a replacement for collaboration, which is the main way we conduct business here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But reverting only once meansw that I will have to file a request for mediation every day. Extensive discussions yield no compromises.  Andries 04:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is a really surprising comment, Andries, as you are no newbie. I will let others enlighten you about how Wikipedia works, in case you have forgotten. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know very well that I have engaged in extensive fruitless discussions on some subjects. RFC's do not help. So I think that mediation is the only way forward. Andries 05:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are free to request mediation whenever you think it may help things, regardless of whether there was a previous edit war on the topic. >Radiant< 12:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mini edit war and discussion

message: In my opinion, people having edit/revert wars over a single article is just silly. What should prevent edit wars is a zero tolerance policy on edit warring. It should make Wikipedia a friendlier environment for editing. After the article gets protected so only administrators can edit it, said participants would be blocked for disruption. How does this sound? Harold26 (c) 11:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero Tolerance policy on edit warring, is it possible?