3 ms·

I made an edit last year, it immediately got reverted and I got a banner on my user page for vandalism. I complained about that, other people agreed with me but

I made an edit last year, it immediately got reverted and I got a banner on my user page for vandalism. I complained about that, other people agreed with me but the person who reverted my edits never responded. So there it sits.

GoblinSlayer 1y ago
I think it's an antispam bot, just rerevert.
paradite 1y ago
Seems like the story of Stackoverflow.
the_mitsuhiko 1y ago
Would be curious to learn what you edited.
Arch-TK 1y ago
If there's a dispute and the person you're having a dispute with never materialises to argue their side of the argument, you're fine to just revert the banner.
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  How are people supposed to understand these hard to follow and shifting rules?
  - Kim_Bruning 1y ago
    The base rules are actually not very complicated. But any time you try to write them down, people will come along and interpret them to their own advantage, sometimes outright in the opposite direction. That's a people problem, to some extent, not purely a Wikipedia problem. (BRD is my favorite pet-peeve)
    - firesteelrain 1y ago
      I am going to use this at work!
    - oarsinsync 1y ago
      > The base rules are actually not very complicated. > But any time you try to write them down, people will come along and interpret them to their own advantage, sometimes outright in the opposite direction. I think this a feature/bug of a (litigious) society that works on the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law.
    - dredmorbius 1y ago
      BOLD, revert, discuss, for those unfamiliar: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus...>
technothrasher 1y ago
The only few times I tried to make small edits, typo corrections, or similar, they just got immediately reverted as vandalism. So when I found a page that is largely wrong about a relatively obscure historical figure that I actually know a lot about and have plenty of source material for, I didn't really feel motivated to put the work in to clean it up.
- stogot 1y ago
  I made a small edit to fix a mistake once and it didn’t get called vandalism but I sort of got a harsh message telling I did it wrong and didn’t follow processes There must be some admin-level expectations of how things should be done but the editor flow gives you zero warning or indication. This was a while back so maybe they changed the flow
  - dharmab 1y ago
    I've had my edits similarly mass reverted with an unkind message.
arjie 1y ago
For reasons unknown, I am much better than many at navigating this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40655989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40655989 https://x.com/arjie/status/1847046183342297498?s=46 https://x.com/arjie/status/1847046183342297498?s=46 If you share with me what your change is I might be able to get it done.
Avamander 1y ago
If you revert someone's malicious reverts three times, you'll be forced into arbitration. They rarely bother with that though.

GoblinSlayer 1y ago

I think it's an antispam bot, just rerevert.

paradite 1y ago

Seems like the story of Stackoverflow.

the_mitsuhiko 1y ago

Would be curious to learn what you edited.

Arch-TK 1y ago

If there's a dispute and the person you're having a dispute with never materialises to argue their side of the argument, you're fine to just revert the banner.

firesteelrain 1y ago
How are people supposed to understand these hard to follow and shifting rules?
- Kim_Bruning 1y ago
  The base rules are actually not very complicated. But any time you try to write them down, people will come along and interpret them to their own advantage, sometimes outright in the opposite direction. That's a people problem, to some extent, not purely a Wikipedia problem. (BRD is my favorite pet-peeve)
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    I am going to use this at work!
  - oarsinsync 1y ago
    > The base rules are actually not very complicated. > But any time you try to write them down, people will come along and interpret them to their own advantage, sometimes outright in the opposite direction. I think this a feature/bug of a (litigious) society that works on the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law.
  - dredmorbius 1y ago
    BOLD, revert, discuss, for those unfamiliar: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus...>

technothrasher 1y ago

The only few times I tried to make small edits, typo corrections, or similar, they just got immediately reverted as vandalism. So when I found a page that is largely wrong about a relatively obscure historical figure that I actually know a lot about and have plenty of source material for, I didn't really feel motivated to put the work in to clean it up.

stogot 1y ago
I made a small edit to fix a mistake once and it didn’t get called vandalism but I sort of got a harsh message telling I did it wrong and didn’t follow processes There must be some admin-level expectations of how things should be done but the editor flow gives you zero warning or indication. This was a while back so maybe they changed the flow
- dharmab 1y ago
  I've had my edits similarly mass reverted with an unkind message.

arjie 1y ago

For reasons unknown, I am much better than many at navigating this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40655989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40655989 https://x.com/arjie/status/1847046183342297498?s=46 https://x.com/arjie/status/1847046183342297498?s=46 If you share with me what your change is I might be able to get it done.

Avamander 1y ago

If you revert someone's malicious reverts three times, you'll be forced into arbitration. They rarely bother with that though.