Forum:Quick 3RR clarification

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Quick 3RR clarification
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 30 November 2013 by Matthew2602.

This is just an announcement that I made a change to RS:3RR to explicitly disallow reverting another user's good-faith revert to any lore-related articles. This was done to try to put an end to the annoyingly constant edit wars that take place on god pages and the like. It's generally the same 5 or 10 people doing it (you know who you are), and so far there's been little progress in stopping the wars since everyone involved is very good at avoiding actually doing four reverts in 24 hours. There have been plenty of warnings tossed around but very few blocks, and the conflicts don't seem to really be decreasing.

Simply put, I codified what everyone seems to think is true about RS:3RR and RS:UCS into a more concrete statement without much wiggle room. I don't think it's a controversial change, or much of a change at all. It will just make the line of what can and can't be done in lore-related conflicts that much clearer. Basically, if someone reverts your edit to an article (assuming the revert is not blatant vandalism or otherwise bad-faith), you are not allowed to revert their revert. Take it to the talk page, no exceptions.

Obviously discretion will be used for how to enforce this, but the idea is that things like this and this will stop, because the involved users will be conscious of the fact that they are undoing what someone else has undone. That's the real definition of edit warring, not some arbitrary number of reverts over an arbitrary time period. I hope this will outright stop most of the lore war issues we've been having over the last year or so without having to resort to blocking people, although that's more than a possibility if people don't follow the rules.

So, uh, I guess discuss this if there's anything to discuss. This is really just here so nobody thinks I slipped the change in without making anyone aware of it. ʞooɔ 18:07, November 20, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - Up emoticon.gif User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 18:08, November 20, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Kay sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 22:35, November 20, 2013 (UTC)

Sapport - I still think a Yew Grove thread should have been made about this BEFORE 3RR was changed though, policy wording really shouldn't be decided by a few people in [[Special:Chat]]. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 11:02, November 21, 2013 (UTC)

This is the place to contest such a change and here's your opportunity. cqm 11:18, 21 Nov 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
You have it wrong; policy shouldn't need this sort of change to it. It's pretty pathetic that Cook had to do this, I hope it actually works. MolMan 21:33, November 21, 2013 (UTC)
The part added by cook was already exactly what 3RR was about. Adding this just makes it clearer for those who don't seem to get it, but it was a rule already: Starting editwars is against 3RR. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:41, November 21, 2013 (UTC)

Support - It gets very tiresome having to tell off the same few people for edit warring and having to protect pages just because some people think they're right and the other person's wrong What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 12:57, November 21, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Megadog14Talk 21:30, November 21, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Yeah the lore article edit war RC spam is getting quite ridiculous now... Ozank Cx 21:04, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Support - :3  . . . Yours, This user admires the Void Knights. Who aim to maintain Gielinor's Equilibrium. Enquidou Talk This user likes to do Quests and genuinely loves the story line; lore is his love! . . 11:13, November 25, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Cook's ammendment to 3RR shall remain. If someone reverts your edit to an article, and their revert isn't blatant vandalism or otherwise in bad-faith, you may not revert their revert. Matt (t) 12:16, November 30, 2013 (UTC)

Clarification - Suppa asked me to make clear that this applies to lore articles only. I feel as if Cook's wording of the thread was honestly a little ambiguous, and a lot the overall sentiment of the discussion was against edit-warring in general. However, Cook's amendment did explicitly say "in the case of lore-related articles", and people were supporting Cook's amendment. I'm personally of the belief that this rule could safely be extrapolated and should be extrapolated to every article, but that was not what this thread was about. My apologies. Matt (t) 05:17, December 4, 2013 (UTC)