Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2014/February

Edit Avalanches

It should be considered edit warring when an editor makes an avalanche of controversial edits, sprinkling in some gnome edits. It makes it nearly impossible to work. The BRBGBBBGBBBBGBBBGBBBGBBBBGBBBGBBBGBBBGBBBGBBBGGGGGGGG cycle, when detected (Gs are gnome edits) should be immediately dealt with as edit warring behaviour. It forces others to risk 3RR, or simply throw up their hands and quit. (or try to fix it all in a single edit) Especially when the helpful person attempting to sort out the mess is accused of vandalism because they reverted a few of the gnome edits by accident. I have been a victim of this several times in the past. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Another approach is to chill out, since wikipedia is not an emergency. You can ask them to pause; You can force a tick in their own "3RR counter" with a gnome edit of your own (though it is best to say "hi please pause" on their talk page first); if there are grounds you can ask for page protection. The trouble with your idea is that inbetween a reasonable number of revisions counting as just 1 single edit for 3RR purposes and your idea there is some blurry boundary, one side of which would be an OK single edit, and the other side of which would be edit warring. Subjective boundaries are hard to agree on, and usually make a lot of people sore. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't edit warring. This can be difficult and cause you to do a lot of work to WP:PRESERVE anything good, and it might occasionally meet WP:DE, but it's not edit warring (there's no significant back and forth here), and it is actually no different in the end from the editor making one really enormous change that happens to include both good and bad changes, or even one editor making bad changes while another person accidentally happens to do some good gnoming work at the same time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

“is likely to be” vs. “may well be”

Read through the edit history to find it. Let's discuss. Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 19:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• “may well be” should be used. I get the sense from the word “likely” that the state of an edit chain as violating the 3RR is determined by chance, when it's actually an informed decision by one or more Wikipedia editors. (We're doing this deletion discussion-style to keep it neat.) Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 19:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• The irony of your edit warring on the policy itself to keep your change in before discussing it has not been lost on me. "May well be" means something different from "is likely to be" and is not the intended meaning. "May well be" is weasely whereas "is likely to be" is not. Pretty much the difference between maybe+ and probably. I suggest you self-revert during this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• point-by-point: "May well be" means something different from "is likely to be" and is not the intended meaning. What is this “something different” in your mind? // "May well be" is weasely whereas "is likely to be" is not. How is “may well be” weaselly? Being weaselly is not at all the same as being incorrect. From the New Oxford American Dictionary: weasel […] 2 informal a deceitful or treacherous person. // Pretty much the difference between maybe+ and probably. “may well be” implies as much certainty as if not more certainty than “is likely to be”. // I suggest you self-revert during this discussion. I will not eat my words until they have been fully baked. Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 21:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

As per the enlightening post below, why don't we compromise? I think we can both agree that there are ambiguities in both phrasings, so let's come up with a new phrasing that avoids the faults we're both pointing out in each other's solution. Right now we're stuck in a false dilemma. Compromising will get us out of that and prevent each of us from affirming the disjunct. Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 21:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

"It may well be" means "it might be" or "it is fairly likely". "It is likely to be" means something much closer to "this is the case in half or more of the cases". Compare "it may well snow tomorrow" (there's a small chance of snow) with "it is likely to snow tomorrow" (you should expect snow). It is not a dramatic difference, but the "may well be" is much less certain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Once you self-revert, I'll consider a proposed change to the existing language.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Conditional compromise will only slow us down. Please take a moment to think about how lucky we are to be this close to compromise and just do it. After all, that's what compromise is about. There's no need to revert anything: We're going to change the phrasing very soon anyway. Let's be as civil and accepting about this as possible. Stubbornness will only get in the way. Neither of us owns the page; we can only do our best to improve it. Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 22:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with this change. "May well be" is, as Bbb23 suggests, weaselly. The original wording is strong and lets you know that this outcome is the most likely one to occur. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, I don't think “weaselly” is the word you're looking for. Also, please stop stating opinion as fact. I fully understand the bases of your argument—don't think I don't—Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 04:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't state opinion as fact. I stated what I thought, nothing more or less. Nor do I make any assumptions what you understand or don't. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I already proposed compromise, suggesting we consider a third option. I feel both options are faulty, and I'm sure you will find consensus is within close reach once we work together to address our collective concerns. Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 04:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think “is likely to be considered by editors as” would make the rationale of the decision-making system clearer. Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 04:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• The edit in question proposes changing "is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation" to "may well be treated as a 3RR violation". That proposal is unhelpful, and the original gives a clearer picture. Edit warring on any policy page (the text was added three times) is a very bad idea; doing so on this page may well be treated as trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• If you carefully read the discussion above you will find we have moved past bickering about these two options and have moved on to considering other options. I have made my intentions clear, and they are not those of a troll, “to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia”. In fact, this same page states trolling “is considered not to be any more useful than the judgment 'I don't agree with you' by many users, who prefer to focus on behaviors instead of on presumed intent”. (no emphasis in original) This describes you. You are ignoring my intent and instead focusing on the assumption that all people who assert that they are right are trolls. In addition, you used the same phrasing as me, indicating either that you subconsciously agree with me or that you feel it is appropriate to make jokes at others' expense on Wikipedia, making you a troll. I hope you know how it feels to be accused of something you did not intend. I would like all of us to avoid ad hominem and start discussing a third option: We are presently in a false dilemma. I think we can all agree that each of us intends to make Wikipedia a better place; we just intend to do so in different ways. Show others what they are doing wrong instead of pointing fingers and ganging up on one person with whom you disagree. Think before you act rashly. Perhaps most importantly, read. You can easily avoid some conflicts by making sure you are up-to-date on both the discussion and related policies. Now, let's move on. Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 17:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't think either version should be there. The idea of breaking the rules by only just obeying the rules is nonsense to start with, akin to getting a speeding ticket for repeatedly driving just below the speed limit. If you think that 4 reverts in 24.1 hours is a violation of 3RR, change the rule from 24 hours to 24.1 hours. It makes no sense to have a rule and then promise to enforce something stronger than the rule. None of this means that one can't edit-war while technically obeying the rules; of course one can, but then some discretion from administrators is required. Zero^talk 06:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's generally easy to tell when someone is pushing boundaries. Consider an editor who does a bunch of constructive editing on twenty different pages, but one of them, unknown to the editor, is contentious and the editor does four reverts in 25 hours. That editor needs a polite indication that the page is contentious and must be carefully handled (no block). If someone is a regular editor of contentious topics, and they focus their attention on righting a particular wrong, they are likely to find that four reverts in 25 hours is regarded as edit warring—that's because it obviously is edit warring. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and it is the spirit of policies that needs to be followed, not their wording. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone who repeatedly makes the same revert, but carefully just avoids 3RR violation, is edit-warring. But the key here is "repeatedly", not just four reverts in total. The wording at the moment applies to a single event, which will almost never be treated as actionable edit-warring all by itself. Regarding the wording "is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation", a rather serious problem is that it is a false statement. In practice it is unlikely; try to find examples by scanning the appropriate noticeboards. Zero^talk 08:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's as unlikely as you think it is. In the case of a two person edit war, for example, where both parties had reverted four times, one barely outside the 24-hour limit, I would unquestionably block both (or neither), as either one would be equally culpable. And I've generally found other enforcing admins (I'm not particularly active at this, it's true) approaching it similarly. Of course, you're free to check the noticeboards and see just how common it is (that much I wouldn't know). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I highly recommend attempting reconciliation among parties before blocking anyone unless there were some hint of legitimate bad faith that would make reasoning unfeasible. Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 04:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You make an interesting point, Zero. I agree it is unfair for one to claim to be able to know it when one sees it. However, there will always be the problem of people stopping just before breaking the rules. I don't think we should quantify whether an editor is breaking the 3RR; instead, we should say that, if after three reverts, neither editor has started a thread on the relevant talk page, a third editor is strongly encouraged to step in, revert the page to its state prior to the edit war, and begin a discussion thread. Making a time limit only encourages gaming the system—gamifying the system, if you will. The amount of time that has passed should not matter so long as the person who made the violating edit was either part of the original edit war or may have seen the edit war in the page's history. In the latter case, good faith should be assumed; however, the former involves repeated violation and does not lend itself to the assumption of good faith. (Please respond with constructive criticism, rather than blatant disagreement, which is unhelpful.) Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 04:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A big advantage of the 3RR rule is that it is precise and easy to understand. Both from the average editor's point of view and from the administrator's point of view, this is a big advantage. As soon as we say that, no, it isn't precise at all but some similar poorly specified behaviors can also violate 3RR, we take away that big advantage. None of this is necessary. It is just a question of presentation: instead of saying "such-and-such behavior is likely to judged a 3RR violation even though it wasn't 4 reverts in 24 hours" we just have to say "such-and-such behavior, even though not a 3RR violation, is still likely to be judged as edit-warring". That is, leave the definition of 3RR alone as a precise no-arguments rule and then go on to explain that 3RR violation is not the only unacceptable way of editing. Zero^talk 07:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

☑︎ Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 07:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The essential point is that a revert undoes someone else's work

If we emphasize this in the policy, it will prevent the unfortunate run-in we had and what started this section. I suggest;

The essential point of revert limits is that a revert undoes someone else's work.

as a modification to the definition so that admins are not tempted to interpret the policy as meaning any modification is a revert. We can discuss including a second sentence above as well.

jps (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That is a firm, clear definition. If you click undo, you reverted, if you did not, you did not. See my post above for why that seemingly-obviously-good characteristic is so dangerous to harmonious editing. If your change undoes my intent, without clicking undo, is it a revert? Well, that depends, doesn't it -- on your intent. If you are working collaboratively with me, editing together in mainspace, working towards a final version we can both be satisfied with, then you did not revert, even if you repeatedly changed my meaning, deleted my phrasing, and so on. But if you are working tendentiously against me, thwarting my edits to mainspace, working towards a final version that only you will be satisfied with, then even if you did not technically click undo, you still absolutely reverted me.

The essential point of revert-limits is that a revert thwarts someone else's intent/efforts/meaning/prose/work. Intent is key. Done in a friendly collaborative spirit this is great; done with a battlefield mentality this is awful. Admins must judge carefully which sort of event happened. Pillar five and pillar four, especially, are applicable.

The fuzzy definition we have now, which is something like what I've said just above methinks, gives the judgment call over which was happening to the nearest admin, one of 1433 or so. The firm rule you are suggesting, means that subtle just-short-of-war editing, simply cannot be prevented, short of the nearest admin invoking WP:IAR. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The main problem with "undoes" is that it incorrectly appears to have a relationship to WP:UNDO. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point. I think that nullifies SlimVirgin's argument above rather pointedly. We need a different word. What do you suggest? jps (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This still doesn't solve the problem of normal WP:EDITCONSENSUS changes being counted as reverts, since they may partially undo another's work. There is a technical contradiction between WP:EW and WP:EDITCONSENSUS which is overlooked in practice (see TopGun's comment above). The EW article could simply make explicit what is already implicit, which is the eighth exemption,

8. Consensus through editing. Modifying the edits of another in an attempt to find consensus is exempt when the edits are (a) clearly explained or obvious, (b) done cooperatively, and (c) free of warring behavior.

vzaak 18:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

vzaak, I think that your suggestion has merit. It's basically "if all the editors are happy with each other's contributions, then they're not edit warring". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Only (b) and (c) are close to defining nobody-unhappy-means-no-edit-warring. There are two loopholes buried in (a) that permit "∞RR" as long as the edit-summary is "clearly explained" ... or as long as the change is "obvious" to some unspecified party. How about we just strike (a) entirely. "Modifying the edits of another, in an attempt to find consensus, is not edit-warring when all parties and observers agree it was (a) done cooperatively, and (b) free of warring-behavior." However, this phrasing does not seem to significantly change what the policy already says:

"EDIT WAR: when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.
Don't use edits to fight with other editors –
disagreements should be resolved through discussion."

  Collaboratively editing to seek consensus, is not edit-warring, because (a) edits are not being used to fight, and (b) there is no disagreement to be resolved. So maybe, rather than adding a sentence which explains that modifications-without-warring-do-not-actually-count-as-edit-warring, which sounds tautological, I would suggest that we simply explain the converse of the existing WP:EW nutshell:

"COLLABORATION: building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect.
Use edits to collaborate with other editors, mutually improving the encyclopedia.
When disagreements arise about how to improve the encyclopedia,
or about whether a particular change is improving the encyclopedia,
immediately shift to resolving the disagreement through discussion:
do not shift to using edits as a means of fighting (as opposed to collaborating).
TLDR:   if everybody is happy, then nobody is edit-warring. "

  HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the word "and": Vzaak wants to require a, b, and c. It's not good enough to have only (a). Therefore, the hole you claim does not exist, and his proposal is actually more restrictive than yours. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

To me, the hole is in trying to add more exemptions. That said, there is an "or" embedded into clause-A, which threw me, but you are correct, that if the embedded-OR only applies to the two members of clause-A, aka $exempt=((a1 || a2) && b && c), then vzaak's proposal is more restrictive compared to a proposal with only clause-B and clause-C. Thanks for catching that potential bug in my thinking, it's appreciated; maybe vzaak can clarify where the implicit parens go? However, even with ((a1|a2)&b&c) as exempt, consider this scenario. Person#1 is guarding an article. Person#2 comes along to insert a new sentence, backed by a new source. Person#1 reverts, with the edit-summary of "WP:UNDUE". Under vzaak's proposed rewrite, because the revert was clearly explained (it was... sorta), done cooperatively (hard to prove it was not), and free of warring-behavior (again... how is reverting someone you disagree with 'warring'), the revert would not count as edit-warring. Can we apply the same logic to the next sequence, iteratively, when person#2 re-inserts and person#1 re-reverts, again with the "WP:UNDUE" edit-summary?

  They *should* be at 2RR... but under vzaak's proposal, I'm not sure they would be(!), technically speaking, because Person#1 can say they were engaging in an "attempt to find consensus" which is *exempt* from WP:EW (or would be... once the proposed change was enacted). My actual proposal for clarifying in the WP:EW policy how collaborative editing is just peachy (text above), is distinct from vzaak's proposal mostly because I am careful to never mention the idea of edits which are exempt as being called edit-warring. I think we already have enough exemptions: for blatant vandalism, for blptalk, for "convicted" socks, and for copyvio. I think adding additional exemptions is a Very Bad Idea™ that will encourage wiki-lawyering. I prefer to leave the policy where the admin can use their judgment. Sure, that will sometimes be faulty, but adding additional rules cannot solve *that* fact of wikiLife (especially given that WP:IAR trumps any such rules anyways). See the comments by North8000 above, on how we are (re-)defining the rules of POV editing here. They are giving a correct assessment of this situation. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious to me that $exempt=((a1 || a2) && b && c) is the answer; if it weren't—if it were "clearly explained" vs "obvious plus two other conditions", then the lettering would change (you wouldn't have (a), (b), and (c); you would have (a) or (b), where (b) includes (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3).)

I'm not sure that Vzaak's (a) is an essential component. The fact of removing someone else's contribution is really what sets up the possibility of an edit war. I personally appreciate explanations, but (b) + (c) alone might be sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I tried to address this issue yesterday with the addition of three words, which NE Ent reverted because "simpler is better per wp:creep".

I agree that simplicity is better than instruction creep. However, clarity is better than confusion, and we have seen a bit of confusion about whether manually editing out a person's contribution is really a "revert", because you only undid the contribution without WP:UNDOing it. I don't think that simplicity is a good reason to preserve a confusing statement. What do other people think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a valid point, but I don't think this page is the issue. Wikipedia:Revert first line says "Reverting means completely reversing a prior edit," whereas Help:Reverting explains "Reverting does not always use the undo tool. Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version can be considered a reversion." We ought to bring those two pages into alignment before changing this one. NE Ent 17:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If the policy is correct, then it is easy enough to make improvements to the help pages 'stick'. Right now, if we change the help pages, then someone might reverse them on the grounds that the policy doesn't agree with those changes. I don't think we should get hung up on the chicken and egg problem, but I'm inclined overall to fix this one first.

WP:Revert is obviously wrong, because that definition does not account for partial reversions (i.e., you added two sentences, and I completely reversed only one of them). Partial reversions are a common enough thing that the explanatory pages ought to mention it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this editwarring?

I have been reverted by 2 editors on Scotiabank since January 29, 2014. One ditor has reverted my edits four times, and the other once. Talkpage discussions are going nowhere. Should I let it go, or is there another way? I have tried to simplify this so that I can learn from this experience.XOttawahitech (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

An editor who has reverted you four times is likely in violation of WP:3RR. You should warn them of such and report them at WP:3RN if it happens again. I assume you're not reverting them in turn. For the larger situation I'd recommend looking at dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually this is what is called "slow edit warring". As Doniago pointed WP:DR lists your other option besides letting it go. -- SMS ^Talk 21:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that, if two editors oppose your addition, and none support it, then it might not have a place on Wikipedia. (I oppose most of the addition, and I am not one of the two editors.) Furthermore, the count is three and one. To be precise, on January 29, Editor1 reverted your addition twice and Editor2 once. On February 19, you reverted Editor2 and Editor1 reverted you, claiming consensus against inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

3RR definition still too technical?

I propose changing "undoes other editors' actions" in the pink definition to "undoes the actions of other editor(s) that someone has indicated in an edit summary or Talk page comment as not wanting undone."

Currently, an admin can block editor A for undoing editor B's action even if B has apparently conceded the point on the Talk page (e.g. B adds a sentence cited to two sources, later concedes that one of the sources is unreliable, A then modifies the sentence so that it only reflects what the one remaining source says). Now one could say that B wouldn't then turn around and try to get A blocked for edit warring, but this doesn't preclude a third party C from trying to get A blocked and both C and an admin failing to notice the relevancy of Talk page developments. An admin can currently also block A for undoing typoes, as "undoes other editors' actions" makes no allowance for whether those "editors' actions" included the addition of typoes which the contributor would presumably not object to seeing corrected. This problem would be resolved by the change I propose: editors would be free to presume no objection absent a stated objection. An added benefit here would be to introduce into this section a requirement to make at least an edit summary comment on one's own part before one tries to get someone else with whom one is edit warring blocked. Currently nowhere in this section, or in its "exemptions" sub-section, is it ever suggested that any kind of discussion is required.

Now I'll grant that the edit war itself can be construed as presumptive of opposition to the content being warred over. Unfortunately, however, this occasionally assumes either too much good faith and/or too much due diligence of both parties. In the latest instance that produced by first block in the eight and a half years I've been editing, editor B had an unfortunate habit of reverting me even when I added material editor B had requested, and editor C was wont to revert me without looking at the content he was reverting. Would someone ever edit war to add back their own typoes? Sadly, yes, simply because many editors do not break down their reversions into individual elements, they just hit "undo" and revert to what was before, warts and all, as opposed to selectively reverting those elements that they continue to disagree with. But wouldn't an admin decline to block editor A in these circumstances if A has been diligent in attempting to engage on the Talk page and in trying different approaches to integrate others' work instead of just diminishing their work? Sadly, we don't always get @Mark_Arsten to investigate an edit warring complaint. We sometimes instead have an admin whose rigidity as been complained about before. I think we accordingly need to adjust the definition here as I suggest so that an editor is not normally blocked if there has never been an expression of opposition anywhere to the specific content the editor is accused of edit warring over.

The change I propose here would introduce the element of will. Is an edit war that isn't a battle of wills with respect to how the content reads the same as an edit war that is? While the former sort of "war" shouldn't normally form the basis of a edit warring complaint, if the one of the parties does not "will" a difference in content but does "will" trying to get his or her counterparty blocked, it might be the basis of a (spurious) complaint. I believe that requiring editors to participate on article Talk pages or, at a minimum, in edit summaries will help to mitigate and resolve edit wars.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

your qualifier phrase "that A said at either B or C that A does not what D to happen" seems more convoluted than the existing improvable definition NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure which "qualifier phrase" you are referring to, but in an attempt to simplify the general point here, when I say requiring editors to participate on article Talk pages or, at a minimum, in edit summaries will help to mitigate and resolve edit wars, what I'm saying is that this requires editors to express what they want, so the fighting is minimized to what editors disagree on as opposed to what they what they actually agree on but are fighting over just because of the hit "undo" button dynamic. If there is some other way of changing the definition to get at this idea better I'm entirely open to that.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The qualifier phrase I referred to is the underline part of your desired change - "undoes the actions of other editor(s) that someone has indicated in an edit summary or Talk page comment as not wanting undone.". Although I would like my errors to be fixed, and my turns of phrase to be improved, I generally don't want any of my edits to be undone. Saying so in an edit summary seems superfluous and if this change were adopted I expect soon every edit summary would include the acronym DUMP ("don't undo me please"). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well my contributions have been amended by others many times over my Wikipedia career, and I'm not about to say that in every one of those circumstances even a partial reversion of my contributions created a worse article. I'm simply not infallible. I think we are at our most fallible when the "us versus them" psychodynamic threatens and we just punch "undo" instead of trying to go over another party's changes in detail and seeing what elements could potentially be sufficiently acceptable to not continue to dispute. I think the only people who would add "don't undo me" to every edit summary would be those who don't appreciate the nature of a collaborative project (which is not about "me"): it is in the interests of the project that changes that are likely to be disputed be justified by some sort of argument, however brief. At issue here is the absence of an effort of justify one's editing. That absence ought to create room for the rest of the community. If an editor does not want to grant that room, he or she can engage with the community by means of discussion. The philosophical point here is that from Wikipedia's perspective, whether content should stay or go should be based on the support for its inclusion and that support isn't tied to any particular editor but to its strength regardless of where that strength (argument, evidence, etc) is coming from. It does not make sense to me to have admins protecting disputed content that no editor has ever been inclined to defend in discussion.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that an alternative here would be to add an exemption: "Reverting material the non-reversion of which has never been opposed in an edit summary or on the Talk page." Note that this would not allow someone to say, "his argument was a non-argument in my eyes so I kept reverting him." It doesn't say there has to be a good argument on the other side. It just says there has to be some expression of lack of agreement however irrational and unsupported by evidence that may be. If a party to a dispute can't be bothered to make even that much of a statement in an edit summary, never mind on the article Talk page, I suggest that that party does not have the "clean hands" necessary to seek a block of the other party.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikilawyers already have enough grist to fight over. (My gut reaction was "yuck".) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There could potentially be less Wiki-lawyering over, say, whether there is a vandal involved or not because the test would simply be did the vandal make any effort to defend his or her action, whoever small? If no, we don't need an exemption for vandalism, which may be in the eye of the beholder, since the action can be reversed as unobjected to. If yes, best not to presume vandalism, since how often do true vandals try to justify their behaviour?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)