Two of us were trying to reply at the same time in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Recent_correction_to_Simple_Lists. I had to choose between the other editor's comment and mine. I opted for theirs, and had to copy mine from the right-hand column of the diff display, cancel my edit, go back in and find the right place in the thread again (hoping that no-one else was also replying), and paste it back in again. I don't know what would have happened if they;'d politely opted for my post instead of theirs: some kind of Mexican standoff? In the old system I could at least see what was going on. Not impressed with the new system, as yet. PamD (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Help talk:Paragraph-based Edit Conflict Interface
Hello @PamD, thank you for your message, and apologies for taking so long to reply (vacation time).
Our team has looked into this and would need a bit more information to see what happened here. Are this and this the two edits that triggered the conflict?
From what got stored in these two edits, it looks like they should have triggered a special talk page interface that looks like this:
This interface was made specifically for talk pages and it allows you to save both edits, just like you wanted in this case.
The reason it didn't work here might be that the detection for this special case only works when no other edit was made to the page. Was your original edit possibly fixing e.g. a typo somewhere else on the page?
"I don't know what would have happened if they;'d politely opted for my post instead of theirs: some kind of Mexican standoff?"
While a Mexican standoff sounds interesting, that's not what would have happened. In an edit conflict, two people are editing the same page. If the other person saves the page before you do, you run into an edit conflict. To the other person, however, their work is done. They don't see any edit conflict interface.
Another question, when you say "old system", are you talking about this interface?
Greetings,
Johanna
When I began copyediting 2020–2021 Slovenian protests, the infobox indicated that the protests continued into 2022. I moved the page to reflect this, edit-conflicting with myself. I've never really understood this interface, must have hit the wrong radio buttons, and somehow lost the previous page history. I didn't think it was possible for the work of other editors to be lost like this. I'm using Windows 10 and the latest version of Firefox.
Fixed now, thanks to Izno.
On my local dev wiki, the (just installed) feature is broken : I choose thanks to the radio buttons which version I want to keep, but when I click save, the page reloads and every conflict paragraph is highlighted in red. None of the options I chose are memorized. If I start over and try to save again, the same thing happens.
Unfortunately that's not enough information. How was the conflict resolution interface triggered? How many rows of radio buttons appeared? Is JavaScript enabled? Does the JavaScript console show some error? It might also be the configuration of your webserver or PHP somehow not accepting array-structured form variables. But this is all speculation. Sorry.
Thanks for your swift response.
I trigger myself the conflict resolution thanks to two separate accounts (since it is my dev wiki) on two separate browsers (I tried a bunch, does not seem to be the cause of it).
I run MediaWiki 1.35.6 on a local EasyPHP dev server (Apache 2.4.25 x86 - PHP 7.4.19 x86 - MySQL 5.7.17 x86).
Javascript is enabled and works fine. No particular message in browser console either.
The error happens whether there is more than one paragraph or just one.
It seems that if I choose the newest, not saved yet, revision, the page reloads with a red "alert" background-color on conflicting paragraphs and deletes all choices.
If I choose the already saved revision, the paragraphs that had conflicts just disappear, but the page is still not saved: the interface shows then only the unchanged paragraphs, which is really weird.
I hear you about the PHP version, but every other extension works perfectly, so that would be odd.
Might be linked to my other extension configurations, I'll try on a fresh install and keep you posted.
That sounds really strange. Sorry, I have no idea. I even went back and tested this older version (it's almost 2 years old by now) and it seems to work fine for me. The error sounds like parts (?) of the POST request are lost. Maybe it's an overly aggressive security or spam protection plugin in Apache or PHP?
I've probably commented here before, but I just got another instance of this and felt compelled to talk about it. Every time I'm dropped into the EC tool, I'm totally befuddled as to how to proceed. I'm a software developer, I'm used to merge conflicts. Every merge conflict tool I've ever used has some way to say, "Keep this version", "Keep that version", "Keep both". I don't see any of that here. I see a box which shows "Conflicting comment", and another box which shows "Your comment", and no indication of how I'm supposed to proceed to select which, or both, I want to keep. I'm going to do what I always do; copy my text, abort the edit, and start again from scratch, pasting in my saved text.
I'll add that edit conflict resolution is something people do rarely. That means they don't remember the details of how the tool worked the last time they used it, so it's got to be totally obvious how things work in order to be effective. The developers who wrote the tool use it all the time, so it's hard to step back and ask themselves, "If I knew nothing about how this worked, would I be able to figure it out?"
I agree, and have been annoyed by this often. If it isn't going to give me useful instructions, why doesn't it just say, "Your edit has been aborted. You can copy it and try again"? ~~~~
I agree—I just bull my way through and seem to get random consequences—as if some critical timing issue picks an outcome with no meaningful interaction on my part. (What request initiated this beta offering what were the goals?
wieralee — Dziś o 17:09 kurczę [17:09] dwa razy poprawiałam stronę spisu [17:09] i nie zapisało mi [17:09] KONFLIKT EDYCJI [17:09] godzina w plecy [17:13] sześć stron zmian nie chce wejść Seboloidus — Dziś o 17:13 Gdyby się spodziewać tegoż, to można jeszcze skopiować całość przed zapisaniem. Ale zazwyczaj się nie spodziewamy. wieralee — Dziś o 17:14 za pierwszym razem się nie spodziewałam wieralee — Dziś o 17:16 masakra Seboloidus — Dziś o 17:16 Nie wiem, mnie praktycznie nie zdarzyły się konflikty. Może ze dwa przez 2 lata. wieralee — Dziś o 17:17 no tak, ale kiedyś konflikt edycji był, jak dwie osoby przycisnęły równocześnie enter [17:17] moja edycja jest 6 minut późniejsza [17:17] i nie wchodzi [17:17] W OGÓLE [17:18] jeszcze mi piszą, że "Dokonane przez Ciebie zmiany zostaną pokazane natychmiast po przejrzeniu przez uprawnionego użytkownika." [17:18] tyle, że na OZ-tach nie ma żadnej mojej nie przejrzanej zmiany [17:21] no nic [17:22] zostawię ten indeks [17:22] szkoda mojego czasu [17:23] tyle pracy na nic... Draco flavus — Dziś o 17:23 sorry wiera [17:23] ale jest przecież OK wieralee — Dziś o 17:23 nie [17:23] wykasowałam wszystko co zrobiłeś [17:24] i wkleiłam swoją drugą wersję [17:24] wtedy dopiero weszło [17:24] teraz by trzeba to porównać Draco flavus — Dziś o 17:24 czyli jest twoja wersja, to dobrze wieralee — Dziś o 17:24 ale nie mam już siły Draco flavus — Dziś o 17:24 ja to przejrzę wieralee — Dziś o 17:24 dzięki [17:25] ale widzisz [17:25] nowe oprogramowanie nie przewiduje że ktoś nam pomoże [17:25] musimy się umówić, kto robi jaki indeks [17:25] może lepiej będzie robić osobne indeksy dla każdego tomu? [17:26] to nie Twoja wina Draco flavus — Dziś o 17:26 albo może wróce do mojej wersji, powiedz, jakie zmiany zrobiłaś wieralee — Dziś o 17:26 tylko gości od "ulepszeń" Draco flavus — Dziś o 17:26 i je wpiszę, będzie łatwiej mi wieralee — Dziś o 17:26 no każde hasło linkowałam od nowa [17:27] wcześniejszy zapis był takim zapisem "w trakcie" [17:27] żeby mi nie uciekło [17:27] wszystko wieralee — Dziś o 17:31 to była edycja od 14:38 do 17:19 [17:31] w tym czasie zrobiłam dwie wersje i żadna się nie zapisała [17:32] a cały czas w tym siedziałam, z przerwami na życie Draco flavus — Dziś o 17:32 poprawię po prostu twoją wersję i tyle, jakoś to będzie wieralee — Dziś o 17:32 jestem wściekła na ten zespół "ulepszający" Draco flavus — Dziś o 17:32 a dzisiaj jest dzień konfliktów (naszczęści u nas tylko takich) - to samo miałem, gdy ci odpisywałem w dyskusji wieralee — Dziś o 17:33 no bo to wina oprogramowania [17:33] a jak cofniesz, to nie pokazuje już tego co miałeś przed zapisem [17:33] chociaż inne strony można cofnąć strzałką przez kilka wersji [17:33] tak samo, jak mimo wszystko chcesz zapisać, to nie pozwala [17:34] pełna blokada, trzeba zaczynać zupełnie od nowa [17:34] tyle razy mówiłam, że jak nie pomagają, to żeby chociaż nie przeszkadzali ci z sekcji "ulepszeń" [17:35] ale oczywiście nie [17:35] trzeba wszystkich zniechęcić do projektu [17:36] wiem, że w ich oczach jestem nikim a moja praca jest nic nie warta [17:37] nie wiem, po co nam te wszystkie narzędzia, skoro wychodzi na to, że trzeba edytować w wordzie [17:37] i po cichu szybciutko wklejać
For some reason, this "tool" posts my comments duplicate times, as if I have an edit conflict with myself. I then have to go back and remove the excess comments from the page. This has happened more often than not with this tool. When I have a chance, I'll try to figure out how to disable it.
Thank you for the report. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what kind of response you expect? Are you able to post some example links where this happened? That would help a lot investigating this issue further. So far it sounds like a long known issue with the edit conflict detection algorithm in MediaWiki core, which is what TwoColConflict depends on. See for example phab:T28821, phab:T36423, phab:T59264, or phab:T222805. TwoColConflict is essentially just an interface on top of that.
Well, when the Beta feature pops up, I get a message to come here to offer feedback so that's what I did. I don't know if I have expectations, I just followed the suggestion to come here and post.
You can see one example of this if you look at my contributions and look at the posting to WP:ANI at 21:03, November 5, 2021. It posts twice in the same moment and the next edit I delete the duplicate entry.
I would love to do something about this. Let's see. There are two edits, the first at 04:03:14 UTC, the second 27 second later. That's not exactly the same moment. Furthermore, the second edit is marked as a revert. Why is that?
This happens to me several times a month.
I encounter these "Edit conflicts with myself" when I try to edit my previous edit shortly afterwards to correct some mistake or other.
It is often not possible to choose between different versions (as there are no check boxes or rather check circles offered) so the obvious option is to click "publish" which results in the corrected text passage being appended to the one added in the previous edit.
See here where I tried to correct a small spelling mistake in my previous edit when the "Edit conflict" interface popped up ...
This post was hidden by TMg (history)
I from time to time get the Edit Conflict message, but find it to be completely useless. It doesn't tell me whether it will be preserving the other editor's edits and adding mine, or what my choice is. How do I attempt to add my edits while ensuring that the other editor's edits are preserved? It doesn't give me useful information.
~~~~
For me, it gives two source views, like in a diff, and you can analyze the two versions there and pick a version or edit a version to include parts from both. I suck at reading the source code and scanning for what's different, but on bigger edits it is very noticeable.
Hello,
I had this gadget enabled for quite some time, but after various issues have finally bitten the bullet and disabled it. The last straw was one particular issue that I hope is just a bug: a user on English Wikipedia had gone through and inexplicably removed most line breaks. They'd made several other changes I didn't want to revert, so I couldn't just revert the entire edit, so I bothered to go back and add in all the removed line breaks by hand. This user by then had made yet another edit, so the edit conflict window came up. Despite clicking on "my side" for each option, it didn't matter - all those line breaks I re-added were thrown away. That can't have been intended behavior. Hopefully this suffices as reproduction steps, but is this fixable? I would link the edit in question but get an "abusefilter warning linkspam" when I do so...
Thanks a lot for the report! This is indeed not how the interface is meant to behave. I found the edits (1, 2, 3) and was able to reproduce and fix the issue locally. It's tracked at phab:T284994 now.
Hello
Is there any plan to deploy this feature to more wikis?
Can a single wiki ask to have it deployed as default?
Thanks!
Hi Trizek, thanks a lot for your question. I don't have an answer yet, we need to discuss this in our team first. I'll let you know once we know. :)
Best,
Johanna
In the old version, the following scenario works as expected:
- Edit a page
- Attempt to save, resulting in an edit conflict
- Edit the original text
- Click "Show Changes", to view the new diff
Step 4 doesn't seem to be available any longer. I usually like to use the diff before saving something, especially in complex situations like handling an edit conflict.
Overall, it seems like a great addition to the editing workflow!