Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2010/October

Two questions
Scenario:


 * 1) A contentious portion of an article goes through a rocky period, which, after more than one RfC, manages to reach a majority (although not 100%) consensus, based on some compromising, and via the comment on uninvolved editors.
 * 2) The article is changed to reflect that compromise.
 * 3) The article sits for a while (a few days, a few weeks, a few months, whatever), without the contentious portion changed. Like all other articles, it has a few small changes here and there to other parts.
 * 4) A change is made to the article introducing a factual error (a good faith error, not a vandalism error).
 * 5) A member of the majority in the compromise position fixes that error.
 * 6) A member of the minority in the compromise position, on the same day, changes the contentious portion back to their preferred version.
 * 7) Edit-warring ensues, as the same majority member mentioned in line 5 attempts to return the article to its compromise state.

Two questions:
 * 1) Does the first edit made by the majority editor count towards 3RR? It was a reversion, but a reversion of a different, unrelated part. It was not a reversion of vandalism, so not automatically exempt.
 * 2) Are the minority editors' actions questionable, given that the seem to have left the article alone until presented with an opportunity to "win" a 3RR fight?

Just because I feel like I'm being intentionally deceitful if I write all of this in a generic sense, I'm the "member of the majority" mentioned above. The results of the question aren't particularly critical, nor does the article in question need oversight, as I've stopped at either 3 reverts (his count) or 2 reverts (my count), and am awaiting a discussion on the talk page. I just found it, um, interesting that it seemed like a way for someone to WP:GAME the system.Qwyrxian (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, 3RR is easily gameable like this. Of course, the side that provoked the edit war may also get blocked for disruption even without breachign 3RR, but the very fact we have this "rule" encourages people to think in gaming terms, which is the main reason I don't think we should have it. If an admin's ability to identify and counteract disruption is limited to an ability to count up to 4, they probably don't have much business being an admin.--Kotniski (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Opinion among administrators is split on this issue of the first edit. For example suppose that the minority editor leaves the article alone for a year and a day and then changes a phrase back to their preferred version, then is that a bold edit or a revert? It is not clear cut because we accept the principle that over an (unspecified) length of time that consensus can change and it is reasonable to assertion consensus through bold edits. Some administrators consider it to be a revert others do not. I think it better if it is not decided with a mechanical rule but is left to the discretion of the individual uninvolved administrator. -- PBS (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hello.

I have read this page, and would like to propose a slight modification to the rule, but with the caveat that it is just based on what seems to be appropriate in theory, and it would need someone with experience of actual editing conflicts to comment on how it might work in practice.

The change is to insert some text, inserted text underlined here:


 * A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user, or with only intervening edits which are obviously independent of all of these reverts, counts as one revert.

I am thinking about the case where there is a busy article, and someone reverts some change(s) in bits rather than in a single edit, at what happens to be the same time that someone else is making a series of unrelated and uncontested changes (e.g. to a different section) which end up as intervening edits. It would seem unfair if the person making the reversions fell foul of a rule about "edit warring" just because of this.

Many thanks. No name is good name (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would agree with that. Though I don't know if it's necessary to actually write it, or if it's something we would expect admins to take into account anyway, per common sense.--Kotniski (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Anyone else any opinions? No name is good name (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would oppose making this an actual change in the edit-warring policy. An admin who stepped through all the edits in a dispute would possibly make this allowance anyway, but creating a rule about it increases the admin's burden of analysis too much. I recall one case which depended on this distinction, a couple of years ago about a Canadian topic. The person in question had been working up to the very edge of 3RR, so I still think that a block was justified. We do not like it when people treat 3RR as a fixed allowance that they can exhaust as they please; we prefer to use it as a criterion for when a case can be closed as unimportant and not needing further study. If they technically go over 3RR then we try to assess the motivations and predict whether the person will cooperate in the future, or will keep on doing the same thing unless they are sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomenclature
"Revert" is mainly a verb, and although it does exist as a noun, "reversion" is much more normal (so it should be the "three reversions rule"). I guess it doesn't really matter because this is only a "behind-the-scenes" page rather than an article, but even so, it would be nice if it was in more natural English. No name is good name (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Revert" is used in Wikipedia-speak as a noun - I think it's acceptable jargon for what is, as you say, a behind-the-scenes page.--Kotniski (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (No name...) Grammaraticalistically;-) speaking, perhaps... but I suspect, jargon wise, "revert" is easier to type, spell, remember and understand. Since the idea is to properly convey this subject in a fashion as comprehensible as possible (with an ease of finding it as well), I prefer "revert". Best, R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 00:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverts done with the tacit permission of the other editors are not edit-warring.
Reverts done with the tacit permission of the other editors are clearly not edit-warring. Yes, I know this can be assumed. However, editors can get sandbagged into making too many reverts under the assumption that they have permission. Great way to get a ban on a pesky, but naive, editor. And yes, it would be quickly sorted out. However, best this policy gets spelled out, just in case. Nucleophilic (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I absolutely disagree that this can be assumed or should be made a policy. You can't just invoke "oh, those 2 other agree with me, so I can revert as many times as I want."  If you're going to cross 3RR, you have to stop and let those others who agree revert.  How many other editors do you need to have "tacit" support?  And what if there are 2 different groups, who each give "tacit support" to 2 different positions?  Edit warring amongst a big group of people is still edit warring, and can/should result in page protection if not blocks all around.  In any event, if you have a "naive" editor, you should be informing him/her about Wikipedia editing policy/guidelines, not seeking to use a rule to get him/her off the page.   Maybe you meant something different than what I'm interpreting; if so, please clarify, but as I read it now, this seems like a really bad idea.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tacit permission from other editors? How does that work? Anyone can claim to have tacit permission from editors. The exceptions to 3RR are supposed to be bright line situations that either do not violate the spirit of our policies (such as self-reverts) or where a higher principle takes precedence (such as BLP vios). This isn't one of those. Tacit permission isn't good enough to make an exception. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was imprecise.  What I meant was everyone on the discussion page agrees to the revert.  I bring this because I have seen professional edit-warriers agree to a fourth revert or otherwise trick another editor into doing one and then use this to accuse the other editor of violating the three-edit rule.   A good way to drive off pesky nubies who don't know any better.   BTW, I've been here in one way or another for close to 6 years--  the only one I ever revert is myself.


 * Perhaps the article should simply warn that such trickery can happen, and yes it is a gross violation of a bunch of rules. But that none-the-less the three edit rule still stands. Nucleophilic (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If everyone on the page agrees to the revert, then one of the other editors should be making the revert. Now, this may "trick" the new editor into making a 4th edit, which may get them blocked for a very short period of time.  However, one of the talk page people should warn the new editor about 3RR.  The goal of 3RR and the edit-warring policy in general isn't to drive away the nubies--it's to drive those nubies to the talk page. Sometimes, of course, that requires tings like "attention-getting blocks."  Ideally, of course, if a group of people is editing disruptively just to keep out new editors, an admin will notice that and then start scrutinizing their behavior.
 * If you're saying, though that the new editor breaking 3RR does so because they were explicitly told to do so on the talk page (i.e., they're already engaging in conversation), then the admin probably shouldn't even block them in the first place. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tricking inexperienced and/or too-trusting editors into making too many edits is an architype example of WP:GAMING.  So over-reacting to it just rewards bad behavior,  not what you want to do.  As for "attention-getting blocks",  We are not training horses here.  Particularly in the case of "experts",  if I'm a nubie and then get even briefly banned after being throughly-gamed,  I'm out-of-here,  never to come back.   Which is the gamer's goal in the first place. Nucleophilic (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know someone this actually happened to? Admins usually try to judge the whole picture before issuing any blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a complaint of it on Wikipedia_talk:Gaming_the_system. See: "Example: Double-teaming on 3RR".  Apparently,  it was in the article itself as an example of an abuse,  but was removed.    Remember,  this is an error likely to be committed by less-sophisticated editors.  These may not bother to complain or, just having been throughly beaten up and thrown into an alley, will just blow off wikipedia as a "Bad Idea".   As for admins, as others here have remarked,  ya never know what they are going to do. Nucleophilic (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)