Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2013/April

Edits done one after another
I just finished flailing about at Talk:Separation barrier in suspicion that an editor was in violation of WP:1RR through her edits made one after another. I had not noticed the exception to the rule because it was not highlighted in the box. (a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.) Therefore, I pasted the exception into the box because I feel the box is really misleading without it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The addition has been reverted, as I expected it would be (here). I would like a consensus to make the change because we definitely need a definition within the box to avoid such a contretemps as I have recently been engaged in. I realize the box should be kept short, but it should really contain all the essential points. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to address this, hopefully no-one will revert without good reason, this doesn't change the meaning of the policy in any way, just tries to make things clearer. Victor Yus (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I liked your changes, so I didn't revert. I did make some further changes, mostly cosmetic.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest deleting "Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours," because the box should simply tell people what to avoid, not what sort of punishment they might expect. Simplicity rules. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the box could be reduced to just "An editor should not perform more than three reverts on a single page within 24 hours. For definitions, qualifications, exceptions and consequences, see below." Victor Yus (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Appreciate Victor Yus' suggestion, but the box should give all essential info — a place that sums it all up. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems to me to be the problem - the box is not big enough to contain all essential info (there apparently isn't room to state explicitly that vandalism reverts aren't counted, for example). So rather than select (it seems to me pretty much at random) a few of the bits of info and put them in the box, it would be better just to give a glib statement of the basic rule, and make it clear that if you want to properly understand it, you need to read on down. Victor Yus (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, no consensus has emerged, so I've renewed my edits in the hope of gaining one. This is really a serious problem, and I hope to save other editors the trouble I described in the opening paragraph above. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Quote
hello! No way on this? In the page there is no reference to wilove. That quote is pretty good, I think. --Spinoziano (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss edits
Surely the irony of edit warring (or is it "edit-warring"?) on the edit warring policy page is self-evident? Perhaps a discussion is order??? (I don't think anyone's going to "get off" a 3rr because of a present or missing hypen.) NE Ent 23:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment related to 3RR
A proposal to change the wording "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period" to "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period while engaged in an edit war.


 * I propose changing the wording as mentioned above in order to bring 3RR more in line with the policy it is enforcing. Currently, editors can be and are blocked for making three entirely unrelated reverts on a page in the same day.  This might be example of ownership, which can be dealt with separately, but is not edit warring in its truest sense.  The "whether involving the same or different material" is still included in my proposal so it is clear that edit warring over the same subject, even if written differently, is still covered by 3RR. Ryan Vesey 23:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mayhem then focuses on the definition of "edit war" and who makes the call whether the definition has been met. How do you propose to handle that? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur with NewsAndEventsGuy. That just makes 3RR a subset of EW (which it is), but with no discernable content.  If that were done, the next step would be to delete 3RR entirely as being void.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The only reason 3RR exists is so there is a bright line. Heck, I wouldn't have a problem with deleting it entirely though.  Making three unrelated reverts on a page is not edit warring, and there's no reason to set an arbitrary limit to that. Ryan Vesey 01:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because 3RR isn't always a bright line isn't a good reason to eliminate it. It's useful. I also agree with News and Arthur.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not reword to prohibit "making the same (or substantively similar) revert three times or more".? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ryan Vesey's idea of adding "while engaged in an edit war" would leave the policy almost unchanged in a practical sense. Admins already decline to take action on things which are not edit wars, even when four reverts have managed to occur somehow. I'm not in favor of Ryan's idea, since it would make the policy longer while not really changing it, and it would give more opportunity for lawyering by those sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @Pigsonthewing, I dislike this idea because it would allow mutliple "almost-but-not-quite edit non-wars". What we have now compels people to either walk away for a while or else engage on talk.   If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The point of this bright line rule is to prevet disgruntled editors from disruptively escalating their blocks into protracted disputes. If someone breaks 3RR and is blocked for it, that's it - there's little room to argue (and we get enough from editors about whether they technically violated 3RR or the actions of other editors as it is). Adding this caveat adds vagueness to a policy which is supposed to be incredibly clear: now anyone blocked can claim that it was not really an edit war and we can't just refer them to the fact that they reverted four times. There are times when someone technically breaks 3RR but a block would be inappropriate (either they are not edit warring, or alternative solutions may be more effective). In these cases, I'm sure we can trust admins to IAR and act appropriately. That is exactly what happened in the the case that prompted this RfC, which seems to suggest that it is unnecessary to write this into policy. Thus, there is no obvious problem that this resolves because admins can and do IAR where necessary, and it is likely that users who have already been disruptive will use the caveat to continue being disruptive to the project. ItsZippy (talk • contributions)#
 * Let's not complicate the matter, edit warring and 3RR are similar, but it is possible to edit war and not be at 3RR and it is possible to not edit war and be over 3RR. 3RR is a solid line, let's not have subjective wiggle room. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There already is plenty of wiggle room in the rule - and there very much should be, and should quite possibly be more. It would be damaging to our community if unthinking administrators (and such do exist) started blocking editors for mere technical "offences", when no actual disruption has occurred. Victor Yus (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Editing in contentious areas with wikilawyers, and being one myself :-), I know how much wrangling the definition of whether we are edit warring would be. (Or changing to "substantially similar" since three word phrase in one sentence might be fine and same phrase in another extremely problematic and they need separate editing and discussion.) Keep it clean and clear. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 17:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I am sometimes involved in current event articles, and find that the 3RR rule taken literally can be a hindrance for constructive editing of those articles, if one wants to be on the safe side (as some of us tend to want). When a new article is built, facts change rapidly and many inexperienced users (often IPs) participate, the articles will often benefit from a lot more than 3 changes to the article from experienced users. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. Definition of 'edit war' is too slippery. Kaldari (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as per discussed above, including the requirement for 3R to include edit warring would create a more slippery slope people would try to get out from. I believe that the exclusions that already exist on the page (7) are sufficient, and perhaps per what Iselilja stated, we might want to separately consider expanding the exclusions to recent events, although it already covers removing overt vandalism or perhaps expanding #7 beyond just BLP. As a former AIV member, it was still strongly stressed to us that even with tools which makes reverting faster, we still need to avoid 3R, and utilize other methods to protect a page should we even get close to 3R. Overall I trust our admins to provide appropriate research and review of edit summaries (that we should always be using) in determining when to hand out blocked based on 3R. Tiggerjay (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Are Bots intervening edits?
Working a lot in 1 rr articles I run into this from time to time and need to know, for self and others. Not clear from policy page search of "bot". Thanks. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 21:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Except in very unusual circumstances, I would not count a bot's edit as an intervening edit. Thus, if you make two edits, a bot makes an edit, and you continue with two more, I would count your series as one revert, assuming it otherwise fits the definition of a revert. As for the "unusual circumstances", I've never encountered one, but off the top of my head, if an editor reverts a bot without cause, I would count the same edit sequence as two reverts. Now you're going to ask why it isn't specified in the policy, aren't you? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say no -- it says edits by users not accounts or bots, and I'm opposed to instruction creep in general. On the other hand, I'd feel bad if an editor got blocked by an admin with a different interpretation. NE Ent 00:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your comment is demeaning to bots everywhere. I mean Hal was a person, wasn't he?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't answer that, B. NE Ent 00:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification
This page says that "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring." It then gives a single example. Have these "overriding policies" been specifically clarified anywhere? I ask because of this warning was given to me after I had added templates, waited, discussed the issue on the relevant talk page, reverted twice and believed I was following our policies. Is this the best place to ask? - Shiftchange (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The BLP example is one of several; the others are found at WP:3RRNO. My advice to editors is never edit war unless you're absolutely sure your reverts are exempt (blatant policy violations) and include the exemption in your edit summary.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)