Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2022/December

Re-writing How to avoid an edit war

I've set myself the task of re-writing the WP:AVOIDEDITWAR section. As a preliminary matter, I've identified four principal recommendations that this section should make:

1. Keep in mind that you are part of a community (assume good faith, etc.)
2. Consider adopting your own 0RR or 1RR policy
3. Stop, take a breath, and consider options when you find yourself in an exchange of reverts (option #1: go to talk)
4. Approach talk page discussions with a goal of understanding and compromise (and seek outside help if another editor refuses to reciprocate)

Am I on the right track? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@user:Bbb23, regarding your revert:

(1) As I previously alerted you, editors don't need any kind of consensus to make any edit.

(2) As you will note from the above post, I telegraphed my intention to re-structure WP:AVOIDEDITWAR and no one objected.

(3) As you will note from my edit summary and the edit itself, I made no meaningful change to the text I reorganized.

(4) Do you have any substantive objection to my edit? If so, please share it. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Silence doesn't mean consensus. Your changes are not an improvement on the existing section. Regardless of the merits of your statement that anyone can make an edit, which is only superficially true, I am objecting, so you now need a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Reorganization of How to avoid an edit war

@user:Bbb23, thank you for providing a substantive objection ("not an improvement"). What I did was reorganize the existing text by subject matter. Can you help me understand why that is not an improvement over the prior, disorganized presentation that had built up over time? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps instead an explanation of how "the prior, disorganized presentation" "built up over time" and what exactly is wrong with it? Selfstudier (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure.

(1) The prior presentation built up over time as everything on Wikipedia builds up over time: individual edits which may or may not pay particular attention to how they relate to existing text.

(2) Here are two examples of what is wrong with the current presentation: (i) The text regarding adopting a personal 0RR or 1RR philosophy (that is, encouraging starting a discussion rather than editing) appears after the text discussing what to do when a discussion reaches an impasse. Logically, text regarding what to do in discussion should follow text encouraging engaging in discussion. (ii) The recommendation to discuss rather than edit appears twice - once at the beginning and once at the end. That's kudzu. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@user:Bbb23, it appears from your silence that you no longer object to the edit you reverted. If that is not the case then please reply to my December 9 post (above) within the next three days. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't impose deadlines. Regardless of what I do, you still need to obtain a consensus for your changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

At this point, you are the only person objecting. With who else would I have a discussion to attempt to obtain a consensus? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@user:Bbb23, as I understand the sequence, it is (1) Bold edit, (2) Revert, and then (3) Discuss with the reverting editor (and anyone else who objects). If there is no deadline, how long should I wait before I can safely conclude that you are choosing to not "D" your revert and assume that you and I have reached consensus by your wp:SILENCE? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Silence, including mine, does not represent consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Silence is consensus until someone objects, provides a meaningful rationale, and engages in good faith discussion. See Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. Objecting and then not discussing is Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling.

Do you have an objection? If so what is it? I'll be happy to discuss it with you further. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

In one edit you made a bundle of many changes to a major policy. This causes various problems from a process standpoint (including making it difficult to review thus creating silence  :-)) and so I'd be opposed to that approach. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The "many changes" I made was to reorganize the existing text. There was no substantive change to review. But, fine, if that is the only issue then I can go back and do it one-by-one. For now, I'm still trying to find out from Bbb23 why reorganizing isn't an improvement and from Selfstudier whether they have any objection at all. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Just clarifying, the issue I raised is the amount of work it takes to review it to confirm that it is just that or what any other changes are. North8000 (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I have two alternative suggestions. Start an WP:RfC here or start a discussion at WP:VPP. Either of those should get you more editors to weigh in on your proposed changes. If you start an RfC here, I suggest you paste in the language of the current policy and your proposed language so editors can see them side by side without having to bounce back and forth. I'm not sure whether that is typically done at the Pump as I don't patrol that page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@User:Bbb23, you say "so editors can see them side by side without having to bounce back and forth." I wonder whether your underlying objection is along the lines of TL;DR. If that's the case then the solution would be the one North8000 has proposed: moving the text sentence by sentence so folks can see the "changes" one by one. Would that work for you? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC) @User:Bbb23, I look forward to your response to this post. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I prefer what I said, and your latest ping didn't work.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, we all prefer our own ideas. I'm not hearing you raise any objection to North8000's approach, so I'll start with that. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

God, you're a pain to deal with. Why do you even ask?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

And I was thinking the same of you. Perhaps we deserve each other.

In response to your question, I was hoping you'd say "yes" or "no, because ..." instead of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed textual changes to "How to avoid an edit war section"

Current language

Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page, which is where a reviewing administrator will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. Instead of reverting, add an appropriate cleanup tag and keep in mind that there is no due-date. See also Wikipedia:Reverting § Avoid reverting during discussion.

When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comment. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. If these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution.

Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of reverting only edits covered by the exceptions listed above or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute, they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse, i.e., they revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, resulting in more frequent edit warring.

The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without prompting), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

Proposed language

Keep your cool.

Keep in mind that there is no due-date. The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars.

Take it to talk.

Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others. Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page, which is where a reviewing administrator will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. Instead of reverting, add an appropriate cleanup tag. See also Wikipedia:Reverting § Avoid reverting during discussion.

If a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without prompting), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of reverting only edits covered by the exceptions listed above or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute, they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse, i.e., they revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, resulting in more frequent edit warring.

Consider alternatives when a dispute seems intractable

When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comment. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. If these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution.

---

Hopefully, this will demonstrate that a line-by-line presentation would be more difficult, although it may be that the section approach could be supplemented by a partial line-by-line approach provided by the commenting editor. While I'm here, I'll make a few points. First, I don't see the need to make these changes, and I think the burden of why this material needs to be reorganized and needs to have the equivalent of sub-section headers (that are cosmetically ugly) in a relatively short section is on the proposer. Second, even though there is a Nutshell, the proposer inverts the organization by putting the "bottom line" at the beginning instead of at the end. Third, the largest sub-section (Take it to Talk) is misleading because only the first paragraph of that sub-section has to do with the article Talk page. Finally, the original language flows very nicely as it is, taking things one step at a time and building to a conclusion, whereas the proposed languge muddles the logical flow by putting parts in different places.

I would start an RfC myself given that the proposer doesn't seem interested in doing so, but I confess to never having started an RfC, and don't feel like making a mess of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for providing substantive concerns regarding the reverted text (use of headers, text of headers, and placement of bottom line). As I move forward with incremental reorganization I will avoid those pitfalls. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)