Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2018/October
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Warning
Be advised that User:Beyond My Ken is attempting to change this policy so that he can continue to edit-war in favor of his personal layout style that has been repeatedly rejected over the span of ten years. Bright☀ 20:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Really? ArbCom has commented on at least two occasions that edit warring to enforce MOS is not exempt from 3RR, so it seems quite reasonable to include that information in the policy. Instead of reverting what is factual, if you think that the wording is problematic, why not suggest a different wording? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Guys, don't edit war over the policy that says "don't edit war". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ahhhhh.... right, bad form, apologies. So... Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Guys, don't edit war over the policy that says "don't edit war". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to know the page(s) of concern, as the edit made by BMK does seem awfully motivated by an interest in "winning" a dispute rather than improving the policy. --Izno (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Suggested addition
So, I formally suggest that some mention that edit warring to enforce editing guidelines such as MOS is not an accepted exemption be added to the policy page. This is not a new interpretation of the policy, it's been ruled to be the case a number of times by ArbCom, but there is no mention of it here. I think such an addition would be helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- There are lots of things that are *not* included as exemptions to 3RR in WP:3RRNO. Not sure how itemizing all of them would help. Also, emphasizing guidelines is puzzling because policies don't matter either, unless they are mentioned explicitly in WP:3RRNO. Finally, it is unusual to point to Arbcom as determining policy. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Since policies are always subject to interpretation, when no consensus can be found about how to apply a policy, ArbCom is the body which determines which interpretation is justified -- or, at the very least, encourages the community to hold a formal consensus discussion. As such, ArbCom's (several different ArbComs, actually) determination that edit warring to enforce MOS is disruptive and not exempt from 3RR is significant. I am at a loss as to why citing that would be controversial.As for itemizing, this is not a slippery slope situation, I'm not suggesting that a full itemized list of what is not exempt would be useful or necessary, but it is a fact that many editors labor under the misapprehension that MOS is a policy and must be adhered to. Some go so far as to edit war to enforce that belief: in my experience, it's an endemic situation that calls for some mention in the policy to alleviate the disruption caused by such behavior.Regarding guidelines vs. policies, while you are correct that edit warring to enforce a policy is not per se an exemption (except when specifically mentioned, as in BLP), admins will often give editors who do so a pass, especially if the policy violation is egregious. As such, enforcing policy has become something of a de facto exemption. It would be useful, I think, to expressly state that this is not the case with editing guidelines which, as is obvious, are simply guidelines and are not mandatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- As he stated above, Beyond My Ken wishes to continue edit-warring against consensus, which is why he tried to introduce that wording to policy. He reverted a revert of his edit of a policy page and demanded that his version remains while the new version is being discussed, which is exactly the opposite of what Wikipedia policy on editing policies says. His mindset is "first keep my version (which doesn't have consensus), then discuss". You can see this plainly in the revert he did in this very policy.Additionally, "my version" or "status quo" has no standing; if a non-MOS style gets replaced with a MOS style, Beyond My Ken can't edit-war to keep his "not mandatory" version. MOS has more consensus than someone's personal style. While edit-warring is not justified in either direction, Beyond My Ken wishes to introduce wording that enables him to edit war against policy, which should be obvious by his revert on this very policy page. Bright☀ 11:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Anyone else getting tired of BMK's constant "guidelines and are not mandatory" whimpering? You simply don't get to revert MOS:LQ or whatever because YOUDONTLIKEIT and then speciously justify overturning consensus with WP:IGNOREALLRULES. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- So, is it your position that guidelines are mandatory? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, what's perhaps more interesting than Curly Turkey's views on guidelines is that after complaining that I am following them around to revert their edits [1], which is demonstrabvly untrue, Curly Turkey shows up here, on this talk page which thay have never edited before in their 12 years on Wikipedia [2] to complain about me.I would suggest to Curly Turkey that they not lay any more foundation for a complaint of WP:HARASSMENT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- So, is it your position that guidelines are mandatory? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Not as tired as I am of BMK's insistence that it's always on the other party to start a conversation regarding their edits and that it's inappropriate to revert their edits without a discussion...though apparently okay to revert anyone else's edits without said conversation. But then, WP:BRD isn't a policy either... DonIago (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- So, is it you position that editors should not follow BRD? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- It always bewilders me how everyone wants to insist that one or the other version of a page is the "correct" version while discussing changes to that version. ALL versions are the wrong version, if there are changes to discuss. Just discuss. Forget about what it says right now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- When this came up yesterday I was thinking along the same lines as EdJohnston: itemizing in the policy what is not an exception to the policy is a slippery slope. After going away to think about it for a while (c.f. Cannabis in Prince Edward Island) my opinion hasn't really changed. We can discuss amongst ourselves that yeah, reverting to "enforce" a manual of style really isn't something that ought to be exempt from 3RR, but I don't think it needs to be formalized in the policy. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Since policies are always subject to interpretation, when no consensus can be found about how to apply a policy, ArbCom is the body which determines which interpretation is justified -- or, at the very least, encourages the community to hold a formal consensus discussion. As such, ArbCom's (several different ArbComs, actually) determination that edit warring to enforce MOS is disruptive and not exempt from 3RR is significant. I am at a loss as to why citing that would be controversial.As for itemizing, this is not a slippery slope situation, I'm not suggesting that a full itemized list of what is not exempt would be useful or necessary, but it is a fact that many editors labor under the misapprehension that MOS is a policy and must be adhered to. Some go so far as to edit war to enforce that belief: in my experience, it's an endemic situation that calls for some mention in the policy to alleviate the disruption caused by such behavior.Regarding guidelines vs. policies, while you are correct that edit warring to enforce a policy is not per se an exemption (except when specifically mentioned, as in BLP), admins will often give editors who do so a pass, especially if the policy violation is egregious. As such, enforcing policy has become something of a de facto exemption. It would be useful, I think, to expressly state that this is not the case with editing guidelines which, as is obvious, are simply guidelines and are not mandatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this (followup note here), I disagree with the addition, which was added by Ivanvector. That aspect is already stated (and in a better way) in the WP:3RRNO section of the policy. Edit warring under "BLP exempt" claims are often not valid, and WP:3RRNO makes it clear that claiming such an exemption can be disputed. We've had a number of problematic editors claiming edit warring exemption under BLP when all they are doing is just removing content they don't like. And contrary to what Curly Turkey stated when reverting me on removing Ivanvector's addition, no one was discussing Ivanvector's addition. Beyond My Ken's addition is being discussed, yes, but I was not focused on restoring Beyond My Ken's addition. I thought about reverting further, before Beyond My Ken's addition, but I felt that Beyond My Ken would just revert. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Flyer22 Reborn: "no one was discussing Ivanvector's addition": what the text should say or not say is under discussion, not whose text it may be. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Then the text should be restored to the status quo, as is standard practice. Instead, Ivanvector's piece, which is redundant to WP:3RRNO, remains in place and is yet another piece to make BLP edit warriors think that all they have to do is claim "per BLP" and that they are not edit warring/they are exempt. Without restoring to the status quo, Ivanvector's piece will remain. Months or years later, it will still be there. I see more bickering than genuine discussion about what the text should state. No need to ping me to this page since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- I restored the status quo (your revert actually restored Beyond My Ken's version BTW); I agree that section gives more ammunition to WP:CRYBLPers. To be honest, that whole list of what edit warring is not seems repetitive of WP:3RRNO. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Then the text should be restored to the status quo, as is standard practice. Instead, Ivanvector's piece, which is redundant to WP:3RRNO, remains in place and is yet another piece to make BLP edit warriors think that all they have to do is claim "per BLP" and that they are not edit warring/they are exempt. Without restoring to the status quo, Ivanvector's piece will remain. Months or years later, it will still be there. I see more bickering than genuine discussion about what the text should state. No need to ping me to this page since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Merged from template talk link destination
Above there's a box saying The contents of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule page were merged into Wikipedia:Edit warring. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The "its history" link is useful, since by linking to history the link avoids getting redirected back here. The "its talk page" link is not useful however, since you're simply redirected back here.
I propose the link is changed to the last revision of the Three-revert rule talk page before redirection happened.
That is, here: [3]. As you can see, that (revision of the) page is newly archived and thus empty, but the links to the archives are clearly accessible and newly updated. As far as I can understand the {{merged from}} template, our intended goal for having it was precisely this: to point the user to the (archived) talk page discussions of the pre-merger Three-revert rule page. If there's a more easily accessible super-page of those archives, I missed it. CapnZapp (talk) 10:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)