It should, eventually, since we'd be taking other factors into account, not just the strict do -> undo -> redo pattern.
If you're wary about the tense thing, you can post what you want to add here
and see if your phrasing gets corrected.
Trying my hand at writing up a rewrite for the policy:
When there is such a disagreement, instead of reinstating the edit, do the following:
- The article's Discussion page. If you use this, please leave an edit reason saying so, because most people won't think to look there first.
- A private message to the troper with whom you are having the disagreement. Needless to say, this works best if there's only one other person involved.
- If all of this doesn't work, or if it's clear that someone will reinstate their edit despite attempts to engage, head to Ask The Tropers. Outside input may lead to a consensus, or a moderator arbitrates the dispute.
Repeatedly overriding consensus or other people's objections can lead to your editing privileges being suspended. We make allowances if your edits were clearly enforcing existing wiki policynote , but if someone is edit warring already, continually reverting their work won't help even if it's correct. Get the moderators to deal with the situation instead of fighting a pointless battle.
I've left out references to the forums for now, because it's a bit of a shot-in-the-dark method to resolve edit issues; most pages don't have dedicated discussion threads and they often aren't easily findable, either.
vvAdded a missing "if"
Edited by SeptimusHeap on Apr 25th 2024 at 11:12:34 AM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I can't think of any objections to that writeup.
Useful Note
I can think of just one: it should say "This can also happen if two sides are repeatedly reinstating their version."
Bumping for more input.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Another bump.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
One-Track Mind (he/him)
What other input do you need? I can't think of anything.
I'm lovin' it. (My Troper Wall)
the Retromancer
Anything I've wanted I've laid down in previous posts.
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
Same.
Since discussion has pretty much stopped, I don't think it would hurt to just go ahead and implement the changes.
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
I'm not sure what's being referred to here.
- A->B->A->B?
- A->B->C [back to A's version]?
- Both?
Why say both "two-sided" and "involve multiple participants"?
Is "side" meant to encompass potentially multiple people? (e.g. A->B->C [back to A's version])
If A->B->A is considered edit-warring, I don't think it's necessary to specify that A->B->A->B is also edit-warring (if that's what the intent is), because the latter necessarily includes two cases of the former.
I think it'd be good to keep a mention of edit stomps and the link to Edit Stomp.
Hmm. My issue is that a formulation like A->B->A leads to people prematurely calling the staff in. On the other hand, we want to say that edit warring is still edit warring if both sides are doing it.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
My interpretation of the proposed changes being discussed was that ABA would still be considered edit warring, but not necessarily suspension-worthy. That is, another troper could warn them that they are edit-warring, and if they persisted after the warning, then it would be suspension-worthy.
That is correct - the main point is to stop people from running to ATT as the first resort. I actually wasn't exactly sure how to formulate the part about multi-sided edit warring.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I think directly stating that "if person A and person B are in an edit war, ABA is a warning, ABABA is a suspension" would be a good formulation.
Nay, that's going to encourage people to go to ATT prematurely to ask for a warning.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Oh, I didn't realize the restrictions were being lifted by that much. I'm actually happy about that though; I agree with everyone that an ABA being a suspension is way too far, and because three suspensions usually form a permanent ban, I disagree with the "suspensions are not punishments" statement. Thank you Septimus Heap and everyone for your work in loosening the edit warring policy!
Musician/Composer
I personally have no objects to SeptimusHeap's writeup.
He/His/Him. No matter who you are, always Be Yourself.
Anyone else (~Twiddler)?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I'm mostly good with it aside from the first paragraph. For that, maybe:
Here on TV Tropes, we speak of edit warring when some troper does an edit, another troper modifies or reverts it, and the first troper reinstates their version without getting a consensus first. This can also happen if a troper is providing edit summaries for their reinstatements; explained edit warring is still edit warring.
The stuff about two-sided edit warring seems redundant to me. Is this something that actually comes up as a point of confusion? Because like I said, ABAB by necessity also includes ABA and BAB.
Also tweaked some tenses for consistency.
Also some tweaks for the bullet points, to match the lead-in ("do the following:")
- Post on the article's Discussion page. […]
- Send a private message […]
And I'd keep the paragraph about edit stomps, maybe putting it after the "Repeatedly overriding consensus" paragraph.
Friends forevermore
It's definitely plausible for someone to accidentally make the same edit a second time; it's the third time which usually proves intent to edit war.
ABABA is obviously an edit war on A's part, but might not be on B's if there's reason to believe the edit was repeated by accident.
I had a dog-themed avatar before it was cool.
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
Yeah, that's why we agreed to relax things. So many edit war cases boil down to "I didn't realize I'd added it already / I thought there was a glitch".
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
I am pretty certain I've seen lots of people trying to argue that because the other guy was edit warring, themselves they weren't.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I know I'm late but I have this to say.
The solution you propose could be a potential solution though it might not help the paranoia of people accidentally causing an "edit war". I know suspensions are not supposed to be a punishment but push people the right direction but it's made me a bit more reluctant to put examples (along with my fear of violating the "Historical Present Tense" rule)
Edited by JustaUsername on Apr 23rd 2024 at 8:09:20 PM
Some people say I'm lazy. It's hard to disagree.