Guild Wars Wiki talk:One-revert rule

Older discussions

---

• Year 2007
• Year 2008

Never get to see the consensus results

I arrived ultra-late. I know. But I never get to see the concensus results after discussions. Somebody will read this, right? Yoshida Keiji talk 15:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you rephrase your question? Consensus results should be available: (1) They are nearly always stated by someone at the end of the relevant discussion. (2) They are implemented in the wiki via relevant policy, style guides and/or templates and/or practice. (3) When in doubt, you can ask wiki veterans. (I still do this whenever someone is claiming an established consensus that I wasn't around to see implemented.)

(I moved this note to a new section because it was out of context, even without considering it was made 4 years after the last post in the section and 3 years since anyone posted on this page.)

Also, this isn't strictly related to GWW:1RR. The purpose of this rule is to encourage people to discuss rather than engage in a revert war. It isn't meant to give greater weight to a recent edit over the original article (or vice versa), the initial change or the recent revert, or any single change over any other. The idea is that people can more easily (and calmly) discuss the merits of each point of view on the talk page. Typically, we end up with a better update than either editor originally conceived, sometimes clarifying long obscure points, adding necessary citations or research, etc. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(Can you show me a list of concensed talks?) In these two months that I have participating in wiki I have checked every single page/talk people had sent me to. Some with discussions that spam very long. Its hard to double check the edits done years ago to match with talk pages. I havent found yet any large scale debate that ends with some sort of {{notice}} box or a template of the like were it is summarised the results while also containing the: background, the sides between different opinions, what statements had a strong impact and how was the final result. For example, if you take the Hero behavior page. The split discussion doesn't actually end. Most users favoured the division, was revived once by myself after a year and died again. Two months later a guy wears an apron and cleans out the house while everybody else was sitting and kicking. Afterwards the one who proposed the original split, comes to remove the note... BUT... the talk has no update as to how it ended. I know because I was there, but to whoever comes a few months later will still find the discussion regarding the split... and could reply to it (for those who have never seen a split notice before and are un-awared).

I have a lots of thoughts related to pages. I understand the need to prevent revert wars. What makes me un-confortable is how pages had been filled with "fat" as in miss information, average junk and a huge amount of unnecesary data. I remember a Magunna Jungle mission where somebody even described wildlife and plants...which have no relevance in how players can accomplish a mission. It worries me how is the wiki community countering mission pages to grow up to 13.000 bytes and when anybody who is experienced comes... you realise as I did that the information can be cut by 6.000 bytes. What prevents pages from getting "fat"? This is going too much off-topic so Im just providing some reference only. Whoever asks me to explain my actions or detail better, you know I will. But then a lot of people just leave more data in the notes sections because they are lazy enough to not bother re-arrange it in the walkthroughs or bonus descriptions where they should be placed instead... and many of these changes rarely have a comment on its talk pages. Like... how are we and am I supposed to avoid ever entering reverts if others won't stop from doing lazy edits? Yoshida Keiji talk 19:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There are policies, style guidelines, project pages, and current practice. There are no templates that indicate a long discussion has reached consensus. Instead, when the discussion is resolved, someone implements the decision (by moving an article, deleting a category, updating the relevant policy, or whatever appropriate action is required). Most of the time, folks will leave a note at the end of the discussion and in the relevant edit summary. The only way to see this is to review the talk pages and/or history of the relevant articles.

But that has nothing to do with 1RR.

You bring up several other issues, that also have nothing to do with 1RR. I'm happy to discuss them with you...on an appropriate talk page. (I'll start a section on your talk page.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is the point?

I have seen many people that dodge "undoing" by just editing it again but back to the previous version which is ... exactly the same as "undoing" but just while not looking bad at it? I can catch many users behaving like this in present time. Also...which is the point of this if every other "undo" that comes afterwards has an incorrect statment or worst...non-at-all? While I am in the talk page...the following editors had left NO COMMENT AL ALL in the talk page? See The Deep page, its history page and the talk page...this rule is flawed. Yoshida Keiji talk 10:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

One revert applies separately to each user, not to the article. It's sorta saying that initially you only have 1 vote to the article. In this case, it was you edit, someone revert, you revert, someone else reverts. At that point, you've used your revert (vote) and now it's 2-1, so you need to go to the talk page to get the complete consensus. --JonTheMon 14:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

But...I am already in the talk page...from even before the reverts started... and now there is even an IP just trolling. Yoshida Keiji talk 14:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagreeing isn't trolling, by itself. He was saying his experience (recent) was different than your's. Also, just being on the talk page doesn't mean you have consensus. If a couple days pass without comment (or consensus) ask some of the reverters to speak on the talk page. --JonTheMon 14:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Small change

I strongly recommend changing the policy on the topic of one revert per user. I can make an edit, get reverted, and then revert that revert according to this policy. This is a bad practise. If a user reverts me, I should not be the user to revert them in return. Another user can revert the revert, sure, as long as that user is not a sock account, but even that is fishy business.

A revert shouldn't be thrown around this easily: if content is spam/blatantly wrong/against rules of any kind/a bot run amok, reverts are fine. But for content disputes, reverts can do a lot more harm than good. Add in a revert per user and you get long walls of text such as these. Massive disputes over parts of the content. Any healthy additions are disregarded if a full revert is applied for parts of the revision.

I believe a revert should be reserved for an entire revision, maybe even limited to the reasons given above. Partial disputes should be brought up on the talk page sooner. In the event of a revert, a re-revert--as is currently not against the policy--should not be made by the user that made the original revision. The policy as it stands protects the original revision that entered disputed content. It shouldn't be the baseline. If an article had no disputed content before the revision, surely the newer revision shouldn't be left actual if a dispute arises from it, as a result of a revert to it being reverted.

So, to summarize:

"Each editor may not perform more than one related revert on any given part of a page, or the entirety of narrowly focused pages, until a consensus is reached."
should (at least) become
"Each editor may not perform more than one related revert on any given part of a page, or the entirety of narrowly focused pages, until a consensus is reached. The original editor of the disputed revision may not revert any reverts made in this fashion."

This change also allows a much more efficient use for the {{disputed}} template, as it can now be reserved for content that finds its way back to an article via multiple users over time, rather than sitting on an article while consensus regarding the dispute has yet to be reached. Reverted disputes should be added to the community portal's hot topics list, so that other users can find these discussions more easily.

Finally, I know this wiki is ancient and the user base small, but a change like this would have prematurely stopped a lot of past disputes. - Infinite - talk 11:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Or people can simply talk to each other through the talk page to explain why the edit should be reverted. I believe the best way to avoid a revert war is simply not to revert anything. If something is wrong, prove it to the one that said it and then let him remove the wrong statement. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ruine Eternelle (talk).

You know, I always thought the best way to go about it is to just lock down the page until the dispute has been resolved. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 14:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I don't think this would prevent walls of text or protracted arguments. The user who made the original change gets their work undone, and is then in a position where they almost have to appeal to the editor who reverted them in order to have their content re-added. This shifts the power dynamic dramatically but doesn't make things any less contentious.

In the example above, Konig would have reverted my edit, which was not spam/blatantly wrong/against rules/a bot run amok. I would have to convince him to allow my edit to go through, and so it would simply never make it onto the wiki. Even if he didn't have a long history of driving other users off the wiki with his territorial behaviour (Auron's words, not mine), there'd be nothing to stop him from doing what he does in that very thread and saying, "By the way, I probably am not going to respond again if you post here". Considering that he reverts any edit to lore articles that he personally disagrees with (which includes most of the edits I make, I'm afraid to say), that would effectively make him gatekeeper of all lore on the wiki.

A better rule would be 0RR: reverts are only for content that is spam/blatantly wrong/against rules/a bot run amok (i.e., never revert good-faith edits), and otherwise, if you disagree with parts or all of someone's edit, take it to the article talk page or their user talk page. If they refuse to engage in discussion, then you can revert. Even them, you'll find that when Konig is involved the user that wins is the one that gives up first, not the one who's "right". --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I hear that. Clearly reverts must be followed up with a discussion, although a discussion in favour of a change to a long-standing article up front might be even more effective. We still do have AGF for edits that are notably different but not necessarily wrong from the get-go, and I believe that is a good stance on editing in general. My comment was more so targetting the edits that are easily disputed but with one revert for each user involved, can be frozen in an inaccurate version of itself. The reason I used the example I did was as a direct result of you and Konig often getting into disputes and have had strong tendencies to disregard 1RR anyway. I understand what it is like to see hard work and research undone by the same user a lot, especially when it's not the whole revision that they disagree with. If users refrain civilised discussions after a dispute arises, I would absolutely consider their opinion unimportant (like how they consider discussions about the topic unimportant enough to refuse participation). Personally I would prefer to freeze a previous version from before the dispute, as opposed to a disputed article in the main space. One thought simply originated from the other matter. My apologies for the negative connotations. - Infinite - talk 16:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)