Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2012/April

Definition of a revert
A short introduction to explain why I'm in doubt. I don't usually block editors for violating WP:3RR, but rather for violating WP:EW honestly, I'd even go as far as proposing to do away with 3-rr as it gives the erroneous idea that if you revert three times you're not really edit warring, but that's not here nor there, so I don't usually have the need to determine precisely what counts as a revert. The problem, as far as I'm concerned, emerges when an editor is under a WP:1RR. My question is this: should the first edit, the one that starts the BRD cycle, be counted as a revert? Hypothetically, we have an article that has not been touched for a week, editor A arrives and adds something here and removes something there, he basically changes the article; editor B reverts him and editor A reverts back to his version. Assuming both editors are under a 1-rr, did editor A break his restriction? I'd be inclined to say no, because I do not consider his first edit to be a revert, but this gives him the advantage in the content dispute and basically turns the second editor's 1-rr into a 0-rr, because he can no longer revert or he'll be blocked. I hope I made the situation clear. And would welcome your opinions... Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely what WP:BRD is there for. All reports at WP:AN3 come with the diff of the first edit that was made and counted as a revert. If the first edit is objected to (reverted), it should be counted. Administrators have previously asked for a "previous version reverted to" diff to count the first edit, which in above explained case is easy. On a side note, I've seen editors go on the edge and finally add POV tags when they are on the brink of 3RR/1RR and claim that it didn't count as a revert, or adding different content and claiming it not as a revert. -- lTopGunl (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not a revert to add content never discussed before or to restructure an article in a way never done before. The very meaning of re-vert is to re-store something which was there before. It is a "re"doing of something. WP:BRD is just an essay, not a policy. WP:BRD-NOT is just as important. When content added to an article is reliably sourced, in this case with The Economist, and the source is rightly presented, the case for BRD certainly becomes slim to none. BRD can be misused for censorship, that is why it is not a policy. Also, the editor citing BRD to revert a major overhaul of an article is obliged according to that very same essay to first consider how he/she could adjust the article according to what he/she thinks needs to be written by working with the improved version. JCAla (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That by passes the whole concept of BRD. Just like your claim that BRD can be used for censorship, the above method can be used for POV pushing. BRD might not be a policy but consensus sure is a policy. The moment your version is objected to, it means it does not have consensus. Then you need to discuss instead of forcing it in. -- lTopGunl (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Not one valid reason was given for doing a general rv. Only one minor aspect of the edit was disputed which could have been handled separately. That minor issue has multiple editors both supporting and objecting. You are supposed to work with the edits of other editors not undo them in a general manner. JCAla (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:EW a revert 'means undoing the actions of another editor.' If someone adds a section of brand-new material, I would hardly ever see that as a revert. If it is brand new, it is not going to be a restoration of something previously removed. I'd also not count any change that would reasonably be considered non-controversial. For example, they could rearrange a sentence to make it flow better. On the other hand, if someone does a major restructuring of an article they should probably consider that as their first revert, and not do any other revert of anything for the next 24 hours. So in Salvio's example I'd argue that the first bold edit was also a revert. Since it changed existing material, it was undoing the work of other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The idea behind 3RR is a good one, but it does seem to come into conflict with a lot of other good policies, guidelines, and essays arguing for retention of the status quo in cases of controversy. As TopGun points out, WP:CONS gives precedence to the original version of the article in cases of conflict: "Be bold, but not foolish. ... If the edit is reverted, try making a compromise edit that addresses the other editors' concerns. ... If an edit is reverted and further edits seem likely to meet the same fate, create a new section on the article's talk page to discuss the issue". The same precedence to the original version appears in the verifiability policy under WP:BURDEN, and in many essays including WP:STATUSQUO and the widely-cited WP:BRD. Even within the WP:BOLD guideline the warning is given that "after a deletion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war." WP:3RR is one of the few places where a new and obviously contested version gains precedence over the version supported by whatever prior consensus may have existed.

This internal conflict between policies can be very frustrating and leads to numerous conversations exactly like this or, or any of the others on this page (by my count, BRD comes up in at least 7 of the other threads currently on this page). If EdJohnston is correct and the first edit can be construed as a revert (something which makes sense from a policy perspective if not from a grammatical perspective), then this should be made clearer on the actual policy page. I'd prefer to see a rule forcing a reset to the last agreed-upon version (usually the original status quo version) after 2 (or 3) reverts by any editor. -Thibbs (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly speaking, I see no appreciable difference between 3RR and 1RR, because the net result is the same: if both parties approach to these two rules formally (and admins support such vision) the rules become a variation of tic-tac-toe game, and a winner can be determined a priori depending on what is seen as a first revert. If EdJohnston's view prevails, then the second player (user) always wins. If Salvio's viewpoint prevails, then the winner will be a first user. At the first glance, the first approach favours preservation of existing context, whereas the second one facilitates evolution of the article's text. However, both of those approaches can be gamed. Thus, if by starting with alteration/removal the first user will inevitably lose, he may chose another strategy: to add new content that changes a meaning of the existing one. Therefore, the EdJohnston's interpretation facilitates the unlimited inflation of articles. Similarly, Salvio's approach can be gamed to edit war against the stable version: if some content is stable for a long period of time, and its change is not considered as a revert, then the first user always wins, and the stable version will be being gradually destroyed step-by-step. I think, the problem is not in a choice of the most optimal interpretation of 1RR/3RR, but in the admin's approach to these rules: if they see themselves as the arbiters in the revert tic-tac-toe game, any rule will inevitably be gamed by edit warriors. The only solution is to force the admins to apply common sense, which can be achieved by prohibition of redundant formalisation of the 3RR/1RR rules. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In the example provided by Salvio, he describes two users (A and B) who are under 1RR. Obviously, they are established edit warriors (otherwise they would not be restricted), so the most important thing we expect from them is the demonstration of collaborative spirit, not careful counting of the number of reverts per day. Therefore, if the user A makes a change and has been reverted by B, the next his step should be to follow a standard BRD: to discuss the change that has been reverted by the user B and to wait for a responce from him. That usually takes at least one day, so the A's second edit will not a violation of 1RR regardless of whether his first edit is seen as a revert or not. However, if a user B reverted the first edit without satisfactory edit summary and refused to provide a satisfactory response on the talk page, I do not see why the user A cannot restore his edit, which he politely and properly explained on the talk page. Even if the time interval between his first and second edits is shorter than 24 hours, I doubt a reasonable admin can block him.
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

the war
Wasn't this on the front page at one time?174.19.139.81 (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

slow burn edit warring and lack of warnings
Due to a recent incident involving five reverts over more than 1,500 hours, I'm wondering whether the bits "Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident"and "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring," could do with a major revision. I'm uncomfortable both with the idea of blocking transgressors without warning, and of the degree of latitude that the current policy gives us admins. The incident in question involved experienced editors rather than newbies, but it does concern me that while a badfaith editor is unlikely to be blocked for vandalism without multiple warnings, a goodfaith editor could be blocked for edit warring without ever having been told it is against our rules. I would prefer that we change this so that the presumption is that people, especially newbies who break this rule get warned rather than blocked (though of course that warning could be to politely bring 3RR to their attention after 2 reverts and before they've actually broken it). So I'd like to propose the following change, replace ''Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring,''. With ''As blocks are preventative rather than punitive, please try to resolve edit warring incidents without being over hasty with blocks. If an editor has had time to see a warning that their next revert will breach 3RR then a 24 hour block may well be needed. 3RR might still apply over periods much longer than 24 hours, but in general the slower burn the edit war the more important it is to try to resolve the situation without the use of blocks''.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's over 1,500 hours pretty much puts the incident out of the scope of 3RR, but I agree a change could be made here. I disagree that it's a good idea to change the notion that a bright line does exist. The idea of a bright line in itself probably stops quite a few edit wars from escalating. I do agree that a warning is definitely a good idea. If an editor is warned and stops, processes can continue on as normal. I think that perhaps as an initial change the word "usually" should be changed to "may", leaving "Editors violating 3RR will may be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident". This makes it less of an instruction to block, and would imply more flexibility. After that, adding something such as "Warning should usually be issued before a block is given, and if an editor violates 3RR then they should be given a chance to self-revert." In general, I think a self-revert shows good faith and will further dispute resolution. Of course, if an editor ignores a warning (there's a giant yellow bar at the top of their screen) and keeps editing without any communication, then they probably aren't that interested in consensus building, and a block could serve to pass the message that editors need to collaborate to edit here. CMD (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the point, but the proposed replacement language is a bit wordy and stylistically odd (using "you"). Here's another wording:

"Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. However, an administrator should try to resolve edit warring incidents without unwarned blocks. If an editor has been warned, their next revert will breach 3RR and a 24 hour block may well be needed. 3RR may also apply over periods longer than 24 hours, but the longer the duration, the more important it is for an administrator to resolve the situation without blocks."


 * I might also point out that there is a section "Handling of edit warring behaviors" and a section "Administrative guidance", and I'm wondering if these comments might better belong in one of those sections, partly for relevance, and partly to keep "The three-revert rule" section as short and as succinct as possible.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think part of the issue in cases like this is that when we say "warning", we could mean two somewhat different concepts. There's the "standard" warning, the template that informs someone that hey, we have this policy that prohibits edit warring, you shouldn't violate it, and there's the more general concept of warning someone who's about to put their foot in it that they probably shouldn't do that. In general admin practice (that I've observed), if someone has been given a 3RR/EW warning once, they're considered to know the policy and know not to violate it, and another warning isn't generally issued. In practice, it may be that it's ultimately better to disregard old 3RR warnings and issue a new one prior to any block. Both of these strategies have weak points: the "once and done" warning style runs the risk of people feeling they've been blocked out of the blue; the "disregard old warnings" gives people a rather large opportunity to game our policies by letting them continue edit-warring unless and until someone issues them another warning for it, even if it's their [second|eighth|thirty-fourth] offense against WP:EW. I think probably the least drama-causing approach would be to deal with those "gamers" as disruptive editors, and encourage admins to warn prior to edit warring blocks in every other case. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that, since Fluffernutter clearly considers it beneath herself to do so, that I should point out that it was Fluffernutter who instigated the '5 edits in 1500' hours 'edit war' block - via an off-Wiki discussion, and with no prior attempt to engage in the ongoing talk-page discussions regarding the article concerned. Why the hell should we take any notice of her opinions on the matter? And a final warning to Fluffernutter: the next time you repeat this false claim regarding me being involved in an edit war (where I was engaging in a talk page dialogue, in an article where your only prior actions had been undiscussed reverts), I shall be initiating action against you at AN/I. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was admirable of WereSpielChequers to remove the policy aspect of the precipitating incident to this page. Let's not bring the continuing contentiousness at ANI about administrator behavior over here. Please focus on the substance of comments and suggestions. This is not a forum for threatening ANI action.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If Fluffernutter had been honest about her responsibility for the whole mess, there would have been no need issue the warning. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the spirit of the change, but would focus more on the difference between straight 3RR rule violations, and non 3RR edit warring. Editors may be blocked on the first offense for violating the 3RR rule, but should generally be given a warning first. In slow burning edit wars where a 3RR violation has not occurred, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring and the editor has been warned regarding the specific edit war This would retain administrator discretion to block without warning in the case of flagrant edit warring, but would emphasize warning, and make it very clear for non 3RR cases that a warning is required. Monty  845  16:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this proposal heads in a better direction. I would point out that some users won't know what a "slow burning edit war" is. If you want to keep that phrase, perhaps a footnote?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I could probably just remove slow burning, as I'm using it to describe non 3RR situations, and the phrase would already do so. I'll strike it as extraneous verbiage. Monty  845  16:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see a change to this, too. The page used to be at WP:3RR, but the move to Edit warring extended admins' powers to treat any series of reverts as though they had occurred within 24 hours. This made sense to avoid editors gaming the system, but it can mean reverts being counted over extended periods when editors are just trying to keep articles clean. So a warning is definitely needed before an admin blocks for extended reverting. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK here is a revised wording that takes various comments into account, keeps 3rr as a brightline rule for edit warring within 24 hours but encompasses SlimVirgin's point about extended reverting. Admins can block without warning if all three reverts took place within 24 hours and there is reason to believe that the offending editor is aware of the 3RR policy. Edit warring blocks will usually be of 24 hour duration unless the editor has a recent block for a previous edit warring incident.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers '' 20:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I like your point, in addition to the above, about the need for a warning, so how about something like this:


 * "Admins may block without warning if all three reverts take place within 24 hours and there is reason to believe the offending editor is aware of the 3RR policy. Blocks for edit warring that do not violate the 3RR rule will usually be of 24-hour duration, unless the editor has a recent block for edit-warring. When the reverting has not violated 3RR, but involves a slow edit war, admins must warn editors before blocking, unless there are four or more reverts falling shortly outside the 24-hour period."


 * SlimVirgin (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I like SV's version with just some minor copy edits:


 * "Administrators may block without warning if all three reverts take place within 24 hours and there is reason to believe the offending editor is aware of the 3RR policy. Blocks for edit warring that do not violate 3RR will usually be of 24-hour duration, unless the editor has a recent block for edit warring. Administrators must warn editors before blocking when the reverting has not violated 3RR, unless the fourth and subsequent reverts fall shortly outside the 24-hour period."


 * --Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The current policy notes a block goes into effect if there are more than three reverts, not just three. I also think that instead of just being aware of the policy, they should be aware they broke it. Timezone differences and even absent-mindedness can cause 3RR to be broken (I've done it myself). With that in mind:
 * "Administrators may block a user without warning if they exceed three reverts within 24 hours and there is reason to believe the offending editor is aware that they have violated the 3RR policy. Blocks for edit warring that do not violate 3RR will usually be of 24-hour duration, unless the editor has a recent block for edit warring. Administrators must warn editors before blocking when the reverting has not violated 3RR, unless the fourth and subsequent reverts fall shortly outside the 24-hour period."
 * --CMD (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that would be quite a jump and there are people above who objected to that. I think we can demonstrate consensus here for limiting block without warning to where there is reason to believe that the reverter knows the rule. But "is aware that they have violated the 3RR policy" has two flaws, on one interpretation it would require that we always warn, and that would give edit warrers a lot more rope. On another, admittedly perverse interpretation it could lead to trolls telling newbies that they've had it now as they've breached 3RR. Though you could fix that by changing is to was as in "was aware that they were violating the 3RR policy" so that pedants like me could be happy that the question was whether the edit warrer knew they were breaking the rule when they broke it rather than in the subsequent arguments.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) I may be missing something here, but what duration blocks are you two (SlimVirgin and BBb23) proposing for blocks where 3RR has been violated? Otherwise I'm happy with SlimVirgin's version and could go with:


 * "Admins may block without warning if all three reverts take place within 24 hours and there is reason to believe the offending editor is aware of the 3RR policy. Blocks for edit warring will usually be of 24-hour duration, unless the editor has a recent block for edit-warring. When the reverting has not violated 3RR, but involves a slow edit war, admins must warn editors before blocking, unless there are four or more reverts falling shortly outside the 24-hour period."


 * I'm not keen on unless the fourth and subsequent reverts fall shortly outside the 24-hour period. as this would exempt two pairs of reverts with 24 hours in between them, so I used SV's original there.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  20:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Taking the comments above into account, try:

"Administrators may block without warning if more than three reverts take place within 24 hours and there is reason to believe the offending editor is aware of the 3RR policy. Blocks for edit warring will usually be of 24-hour duration, unless the editor has a recent block for edit warring. When the reverting has not violated 3RR, but involves a edit war lasting more than 24 hours, administrators must warn editors before blocking, unless there are four or more reverts falling shortly outside the 24-hour period."

--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That almost works for me. But I'd like to swap around the duration sentence as there may be other occasions where a 24 hour block would be too short.

"Administrators may block without warning if more than three reverts take place within 24 hours and there is reason to believe the offending editor is aware of the 3RR policy. When the reverting has not violated 3RR, but involves a edit war lasting more than 24 hours, administrators must warn editors before blocking, unless there are four or more reverts falling shortly outside the 24-hour period. Unless the editor has a recent block for edit warring, blocks for edit warring will usually be of 24-hour duration."
 * I've also moved the block sentence to the end so that it clearly covers 24 hour and longer edit wars. Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Does the last sentence apply only to edit warring and not to 3RR violations? Because of the distinctions we are making between 3RR and edit warring, I think that should be clarified - unless it's clear to everyone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think admins should be encouraged not to block for 3RR as well, absent a warning, but leaving discretion, while having a stricter warning requirement for non 3RR edit warring blocks. Knowledge of the rule is important, but a pointed reminder may stop the edit war without requiring a block. Monty  845  22:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I am making a hit-and-run comment without having had time to digest the above. A change is obviously needed, but please consider another scenario that I saw. One of our really top content creators (has created and maintained hundreds of articles on core encyclopedic topics, and is not one of the the well-known ANI regulars) was blocked for a 3RR violation on an insignificant article when in dispute with an SPA who was puffing the subject. The editor definitely broke 3RR so a block was in accord with standard procedures. Someone (not the editor) took the matter to ANI and there were several silly comments from admins to the effect that, as hired guns, they shot first whenever a rule like 3RR was breached, and no special consideration should be given to any special circumstances. Clearly an admin cannot be expected to spend half an hour checking the merits of a particular editor before issuing a 3RR block, but I would like some wording to suggest that user talk page warnings, possibly with a short full page protection, would be appropriate when non urgent edit warring by a good content creator occurs (I think the editor just had no idea about 3RR). Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are far from being the only one to support the idea that edit warring should be responded to with warnings at first and blocks only if the warnings don't work. However there are others for whom that would be too radical a change. I suggest that we make the changes that we can all agree on, and then later file an RFC on the more contentious issue of making warnings the norm for edit warring. If no-one else files it before mid May then I may do so myself.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  00:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the problem you're highlighting is one of inconsistency in the handling 3RR reports by different admins. It's not surprising really. Admins are not fungible. I remember when I thought 3RR was really a bright-line rule. After all, it says it is, and how many bright-line rules are there at Wikipedia? Then, I realized that admins handled 3RR reports in a discretionary way, even when per the rules and the exemptions, a violation had in fact occurred. I have to say, much as I approve of the simplicity of bright-line rules, most of the admin handling I've seen has demonstrated remarkably good judgment. No doubt exceptions exist.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree with both these comments. Let's defer consideration of the issue, but while it's still in my mind I would like to put my concern another way. At the mentioned ANI discussion, there was a view that the role of admins was to block anyone who had breached 3RR, while I was trying to argue that this is not a bureaucracy and the role of admins should be to help the encyclopedia. Breaches of 3RR at an article like Barack Obama do not need any investigation—block with standard explanation. However, at settled articles (where the current edit war is perhaps the only dispute in the last few months), some more thought should be applied. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in regards to stopping edit wars we could look at the role of admins as that of preventing further warring and promoting discussing, as blocks are meant to be preventative. Would it be good to note that when a warning would stop edit warring, and thus be as preventative as a block, it would be the preferred option? CMD (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to know with certainty whether a warning will be effective at stopping the war, so its instead a question of how strongly admins should be encouraged to warn first out of the hope it will be effective. Monty  845  15:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to know whether a warning will stop a war, but on the other hand if there was none it would be impossible to know if a block was needed. If there is a warning and disruption continues, there is a clear indication a block is probably completely justifiable. CMD (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm all in favor of the warn first approach. Monty  845  23:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is bizarre that vandals usually get four warnings before being blocked whilst edit warrers may get none. To my mind most edit warrers are goodfaith editors who perhaps have lost a little perspective, whilst vandals are badfaith editors who rarely get reformed. But shifting the community that far is something I'd be more comfortable handling in two steps. Partly because I feel I ought to look again at some edit warring blocks to get a better understanding of the way some of my fellow admins enforce this policy. But also there is a practical issue here. Handling vandals is a team effort via a series of warnings and AIV, if we tell admins that they have to treat edit warring as a two step process, warn first and block later, then we will probably need some sort of semi-automation and a way to work as a team. Otherwise an admin might warn someone, logoff, and come back 36 hours later to discover that the edit war resumed and ran for hours longer. Perhaps we need a system whereby once an admin warns someone that a particular revert gets them close to breaching 3rr then if they edit the same article again within 24 hours it lists them as potentially breaking 3rr for an admin to check.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  21:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days since WSC's last comment. I would like to put this back on track and focus on the language change we were discussing. I believe the last proposal was WSC's, and there were some comments about his proposal. However, for ease of reference, here is the last-proposed language:

"Administrators may block without warning if more than three reverts take place within 24 hours and there is reason to believe the offending editor is aware of the 3RR policy. When the reverting has not violated 3RR, but involves a edit war lasting more than 24 hours, administrators must warn editors before blocking, unless there are four or more reverts falling shortly outside the 24-hour period. Unless the editor has a recent block for edit warring, blocks for edit warring will usually be of 24-hour duration."

I believe I was one who questioned the language, but after rereading the language and my comments, as well as in the interest of moving this along, I would be willing to accept the above language. So, anyone who wants something different, it would be helpful if you would comment AND propose different language.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree for a very simple reason: even if the offending editor is aware of the 3RR policy, he may be unaware of the fact that he violated this rule. 3RR may be purely technical: for example, a user may believe he made four consecutive edits (which are considered as a single edit), but in actuality he may overlook some intervening edits. Per WP:AGF, we should not rule out a possibility of technical, or unintentional 3RR violation. It is especially important for slow edit wars: if some user makes just one revert per month, to block him for 24-48 hours is a purely punitive, not preventive step. In that situation, a warning would be more useful. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording distinguishes between breaches of 3RR (four or more reverts in a 24-hours period) and edit-warring. The first part of the text refers only to 3RR breaches, not edit-warring. So, that disposes, hopefully, of your objection based on 3RR. As to edit-warring, the language says there will be a warning. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're having trouble because the language discusses both concepts and it's only clear if you read it very carefully. Being very literal, I would prefer the language be clearer, which is why I questioned it earlier, but after rereading it, I realized it is actually correct, it's just not, I dunno, reader-friendly.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I can imagine a situation when "there is reason to believe the offending editor is aware of the 3RR policy", but the "offending editor" is not aware that his edits breach 3RR policy (I provided one example in my previous post). Since that can happen even with experienced editors, a possibility of non-intentional 3RR violation can never be ruled out automatically (especially when the article is under 1RR), a warning is always helpful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's your only disagreement, I, uh, disagree. Being aware of 3RR policy implies pretty much a warning, unless the admin is going to assume awareness based purely on experience. Also, currently at WP:3RRNB, one of the questions it asks you is whether you warned the editor ("Warn the user if you have not already done so"). Although a warning isn't technically required, it's generally considered a good idea. Also, because you at least have to warn when you file the report, that gives the violating editor a chance to self-revert, which would no doubt be taken into account by the evaluating admin. Finally, the purpose of the change to this language was to incorporate slow edit wars into the policy, not really to change existing policy as to 3RR breaches. (I'm still trying to keep this discussion from expanding so we can actually get this thing done. You could always raise this issue as a separate topic.)--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If your purpose is to incorporate slow edit wars into the policy, the proposed change does not serve it. Since slow edit war by definition implies long intervals between reverts, it would be against policy to apply normal 24-48 blocks for slow edit warring: such a short block will be purely punitive, because it will not prevent next revert, which normally is expected to occur after month or two. Therefore, a real preventive measure would be either long blocks or long topic ban (the later better serves the purpose to prevent slow edit war over particular article/topic: the user that is involved in a SEW over one article/topic may be quite collaborative and productive in other areas, so the most appropriate sanction for slow edit warring non-single-purpose-accounts would be prolonged topic ban). However, this measure is much more severe than 24-48 hour blocks for ordinary 3RR violation. Therefore, it would be highly desirable to warn users before imposing such sanctions. I am pretty sure that in 99% cases such warning (with reference to possible long block/topic ban) would be quite sufficient. And, again, to force users to carefully read article history before making each edit (because otherwise it is easy to overlook intervening edits and thereby to unintentionally violate 3RR) is no what we need. If in most cases the situation may be resolved just by warning, why not to start with it first?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

3RR exception for edits by blocked users
The current wording of the 3RR exemption says: "actions performed by banned users, their sockpuppets and by tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts". To the best of my knowledge, this wording is much more restrictive than actual practice. I don't see why it would be relevant that a sockpuppet must be "tagged" as such, or why the "tagged" status of the sock's user page is necessary in cases where the sockmaster is "blocked" but not if the sockmaster is "banned". This just makes no sense. In cases of serial, persistent sockpuppeters the socks are very often so obvious that people simply don't bother tagging their pages. Why should they? And what constitutes a valid tagging for the purpose of this rule? Any tag placed by the editor doing the revert himself? Or any tag placed by somebody else? Or any tag placed by an admin? Or only a tag placed after a closed SPI? The important criterion is not if a sock is "tagged", the important criterion is whether it is "proven or obvious". (In obvious cases it is also often not feasible and not useful to file an SPI, so it makes no sense to insist on that as a precondition for reverting.)

Also, I don't see why it would make a difference whether the block on the sockmaster is indefinite or temporary. Why would we grant editors less leeway in protecting the project against a user blocked for 6 months than against one blocked indef?

So, I propose rewording this as: "actions performed by a banned or blocked user, or a proven or self-evident sockpuppet of such a user". Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Or, on second thought: since it is technically impossible for a blocked user to make any edit except through a sockpuppet, and typically the same is true for a banned user because they too are blocked, we could leave out the first part and shorten it to: "actions performed by a proven or obvious sockpuppet in violation of a block or ban". Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The only logically uncontroversial interpretation of these words is that the 4th revert is not counted when a user, whose action was reverted, has been banned by that moment. I mean a situation when A makes an edit, B reverts him, A re-reverts, B reverts again, A re-reverts, B reverts, A re-reverts and is banned immediately after that. In this case, if B reverts A again, this revert is not considered as a 3RR violation. I cannot imagine other situations that fit this exemption, because, as you correctly noted, banned users cannot edit. Obviously, such a situation is extremely rare, so I agree that we don't need in the first part.
 * Regarding "obvious socks", I am not sure. "Obvious" for whom? If some account is "obvious" sock, why it is not banned? Do you think it is reasonable to revert an "obvious" sock instead of taking necessary steps to block/ban this account first, and only after that (when sockpuppetry has been proven) to revert all actions made by this account? The only situation your proposal is applicable to seems to be the following: if a user A became involved in the edit war with a user B who later would be identified (and blocked) as a sock, then the user A may request for cancellation of any sanctions against him that were a result of the conflict with this account. For example, if a user A was blocked for edit warring with B, then the block should be lifted immediately after B was identified as a sock, and the block log should be cleaned from the record of this block.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note: WP:BAN also contradicts the current wording here. In the table under "Content created during block or ban" it says "Edits by the editor or on his behalf may be reverted without question", both for blocked and banned editors without any distinction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Doesn't reverting an editor who just got blocked for violating 3RR (which means you are on the brink of it too if you are reverting alone) violate 3RR too? it would go opposite to WP:The Wrong Version otherwise. There's no question about reverting banned editors... the problem comes when when the editor just got a temporary block (not banned or indeffed). This refers to Paul Siebert's comment. -- lTopGunl (talk</b>) 14:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, the exemption only applies to edits that were made during the block, i.e. through a sock. Edits made before the block don't count, just like edits made before a ban don't count. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but some ambiguity still remains: if a sock has not been identified, it has all rights normal user possesses; as soon as he has been identified, he cannot edit any more. Therefore, what we should do with the user who violated 3RR during the edit war against the sock that has not been identified as a sock by that moment?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That has always been a matter of discretion, and is heavily dependent on circumstances and on the editor's overall conduct in the context. If editor A reverted in a good-faith, reasonable belief that his opponent B was a sock, and that suspicion is later confirmed, I would usually expect A not to be sanctioned, or a sanction already in place to be lifted. However, if A had no proper reasons for such a suspicion, or A's conduct shows he was revert-warring for other reasons and has a general tendency to do so, then his conduct might still be judged to be disruptive, no matter who or what B was. But of course, all of this is quite unrelated to the general issue of the difference between "block" and "ban" situations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the difference between ban and block, and between indefinite and temporary blocks, I agree that there should be no difference. The rules should not encourage sockpuppetry.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Re your "edits made before a ban don't count", sorry, but that is counter-intuitive: banned users cannot edit; which their edits can be reverted others than those made before the ban. In addition, since users get banned for some severe violations of policy, usually by making highly inappropriate edits, it is natural to expect that all their contributions made before the ban should be reverted as potentially disruptive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that is definitely not what happens, never has been. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only that happens, I myself was a witness of such practice for several times, and that was done with reference to the words you quote (which means that many users understand these words in that way). And that is quite logical, because if that is not the case, then I simply do not understand what actions fall under this exemption.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But that's just what I'm saying, isn't it? In the current wording ("actions performed by banned users, [or] their sockpuppets [...]") as well as in my original proposed amendment ("actions performed by a banned or blocked user, or a proven or self-evident sockpuppet of such a user"), the first element of the list is vacuous, because there couldn't technically be any such action that is not covered more directly by the second element of the list ("their sockpuppets"). But that's just an incidental weakness in the wording, and I don't think it has ever been intended to mean anything other than "edits by sockpuppets" in practice. Now, can we please get back to the actual topic I opened this section about, the (non-)distinction between bans, indef-blocks and temp-blocks? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding your last question, see my response on 15:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first part of your post, if I understand you correctly, that is illogical: community can ban the users engaged in disruptive activity, but it cannot revert the contributions made by such users. Why?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it can revert them. It's just that they aren't automatically exempt from 3RR. If there is a consensus that they were disruptive, that will hardly be a problem in practice (and even if a single user should find himself in the awkward position of having to do it all alone, they'd only need to wait 24 hrs after the ban was enacted to be on the safe side.) But most people who actually get banned in practice have massive edit histories with lots of good and bad stuff mixed together, so mechanically removing everything they have done is hardly ever even a consideration. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the key here is to limit the ability of an editor to justify a revert as an exception to the 3RR rule. Sock puppets that have already been identified and tagged (hopefully by an editor other then the reverter) before being reverted are a bright line rule that avoids the risk that the editor seeking to exceed 3RR will accuse someone of being a sock with flimsy evidence to justify the revert. Likewise there are many many blocked editors, but very few who have been formally banned, and someone justifying an exception based on the editor being banned would require a definite identification of which banned editor was being reverted. On the other hand if you can justify a 3RR violation on the grounds that the editor is obviously someone's sock, but you don't know whose, its an invitation to 3RR IPs with little or no evidence. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  16:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If the sock is so obvious an SPI should not take long ... but instead we provide a loophole so editors can revert edits they don't like and then start the community haggling over whether the revert was in good faith, the sock was a sock (or obvious) ... much simpler simply to say -- if you think it's a sock take it to SPI . Nobody Ent 16:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If a user is reported at WP:AN3 but believes he was reverting a sock, he can mention that in his response to the report. If the admin who closes the report is convinced, they can take that into account. It is risky to assume you will be excused for this, so it's better to bring the situation to a noticeboard before going past 3RR yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What "excuse" are you talking about? If a user is found to be a sock, then all his edits fall under a category "content created during block or ban", so, per our policy, they "may be reverted without question". Therefore, admins have no right to "excuse" or "not excuse" reverts of the edits made by the users who subsequently will be found to be socks of banned/blocked users. However, I agree that the user who reverts the edits made by the account that, as he believes, is a sock, takes a risk, because, if SPI will be negative, the user must be responsible for 3RR violation. However, that is a totally different story.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any cases in the 3RR archives where this proposed policy change would have altered the outcome. In practice, most admins would probably take note of sock edits if the report contained sufficient evidence of the sock allegation, or if the edit history revealed obvious socking. Admins have been known to make a judgment of socking in the closure of the report, for instance at
 * WP:AN3#User:119.237.156.246, User:SchmuckyTheCat reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: IP blocked). In that case the closer said the IP was 'an incredibly obvious sock of Instantnood,' and for that reason he did not sanction SchmuckytheCat.
 * That is the only case I could find (in three archives) where someone technically broke 3RR while reverting a sock. Instantnood is actually a banned user listed in WP:List of banned users, so the proposed policy change would not have affected the outcome of this particular case. Anyone is welcome to search the 3RR archives to see if the closing admin *ever* blocked someone for a 3RR violation for reverting a sock, who was known to be a sock but not a banned user. The problem this is trying to fix could be a nonexistent problem. The reason might be that admins generally use their discretion not to sanction the party that is reverting a sock. The other possibility is that the 3RR noticeboard hardly ever sees any cases of regular-editor-breaking-3RR-while-reverting-a-sock-who-isn't-banned. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe such cases rarely get to the 3RR admin board because sockpuppeters are typically smart enough to understand it's not in their own interest to report their opponents there once they have been identified? But in any case, if admins are doing this anyway, doesn't that just mean the current practice is just what the proposal describes, so the wording should be brought in line with it? And finally, even if it's just a cosmetic change, isn't there reason enough to iron out the odd inconsistencies in the current wording? (a) get rid of the duplicate reference to "banned users" and "their socks", because it's technically impossible for a banned user to be editing and not be a sock; (b) get rid of the unmotivated distinction between socks of merely blocked users having to be previously tagged, and no such rule applying to socks of banned users; (c) get rid of the odd and unmotivated distinction between indef-blocked and temp-blocked puppetmasters. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I have more than once been blocked for breach of 3RR when reverting obvious socks (which were subsequently blocked as such). The rule certainly needs clarifying. RolandR (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Roland, can you provide links? When reverting 'obvious socks' you should keep in mind that what is not obvious to you might not be obvious to the admin closing the 3RR case. A 'thoroughly-reviewed sock' who has an SPI and tags on his page will be credible at AN3, but others may not. The closer is using limited information and refinement of the policy wording won't make it any easier to close these cases in practice. It is safer to just not go past 3RR when you believe you're dealing with a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For instance, there is the block discussed here, where it was subsequently established that the other editor was, as I believed and claimed at the time, a serial puppeteer who had a libel conviction and a documented history of harassing political opponents by trolling the internet under countless false identities. There is also the block discussed here, where the other editor had already been blocked several times, and a week later was blocked as a sock. I also believe, though this has not been established, that in at least two other instances I was blocked after reverting SPA sockpuppets.. RolandR (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Roland, thanks for the links. Your first example is not terribly convincing because the discussion about it on your user talk is about whether your reverts were justified under the BLP policy. The issue was confused by the fact that your reverts added material to the article that was not pure reversion of BLP violations. The other party in that edit war, Truthprofessor, was not blocked as a sock until two months after the 3RR case. Can you argue that Truthprofessor was a 'self-evident sock' in April 2007?  In your second example, you reported  AFolkSingersBeard at AN3 without mentioning in your report that you thought he was a sock. (You only said that he had been blocked recently). The outcome of that 3RR complaint wouldn't have been affected by FP's proposed policy change allowing reversion of sock edits. In the last two cases your unblock requests don't mention socking. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In the first of these cases, there was already an SPI about the puppeteer, which concluded (incorrectly) that this was not a sock. And I noted at the time that I had been preparing a case. This was a case where sockpuppetry was claimed, the claim was not accepted, and three months later was found to be correct. It's true that my unblock request was on the grounds of BLP violations; that was because I felt it was the stronger and better attested reason. But it's clear that even then both I, and the editor who reported me for edit-warring, believed that the other editor was a puppeteer, creating several socks for the purpose of BLP smears. In the second case, I had already reported the editor as a suspected sock; and I was blocked after being reported by another sock, apparently of the same puppeteer. RolandR (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I propose to finish with the Fut.Perf.'s proposal first. It seems quite logical, and it should be added to the policy: neither temporarily nor indefinitely blocked users can have an illusion that the content they added as a result of sockpuppetry will have the same status as the content created by good faith users. Therefore, everybody can remove such content from WP without any restrictions. That would be useful for the blocked users themselves, because it decreases a danger that they may be banned for sockpuppetry during the block: a policy change proposed by Fut.Perf. shifts a balance between gains and losses, so the blocked sockmasters will think twice before attempting to edit. I suggest to add the Fut.Perf.'s wording to the policy, and then to continue with other two issues: (i) the faith of the content created by banned users before their ban, and (ii) the sanctions against the users engaged in edit wars with editors who later would be identified as sockpuppets.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)