Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2014/March

more problems with the definition
Consider the following:

Case 1: I add "cat" to paragraph #1, "dog" to paragraph #2, "horse" to paragraph #3, and "cow" to paragraph #4 in four separate edits (being a stickler for providing justifications for my editing, I break up my work so I have an edit summary for each component) and, it being a busy article, there were intervening edit(s) by other(s) each time. Suppose these intervening edits were all unrelated (to other paragraphs) except for one of them, and in the case of that one of them, another editor, call him Editor X, had been edit warring with a third party and my edit happened to restore the work of that third party. Editor X then tries to get me blocked, having discovered that a fourth party had apparently removed the other three animals months ago, meaning my additions reversed the actions of other editors four times in 24 hours. Since there is no obligation on admins to provide any written reasons for blocking beyond deciding that there was a technical violation and my plea that there was no common element to my four edits gets rejected by quoting "same or different material", I get blocked.

Case 2: As in Case 1 except that I add all four animals at the same time, and I repeat this move two more times in 24 hours because I'm edit warring with someone and I happen to prefer bulk reversions to detail work. And I never bother to provide an edit summary, never mind use the Talk page. Now I get off! Why? Because I only reverted three times in 24 hours! And nothing in 3RR says there is any obligation to discuss. Is this fair relative to Case 1? I suggest not, because in Case 1 there is never a RETURN to a preferred version. Yes, there are four edits, and they are all edits to a preferred version, but every ordinary edit on Wikipedia is an edit to a preferred version in the editor's eyes! True edit warring arises when there is a move to bring some part of the article back to the same point, whether that's a point that excludes or includes material, that is, when there is a common element between one's edits. If you keep going forward to something new in all elements of your edits, is there genuine edit warring?

Now before anyone complains that I'm complicating things, note that a reference to having a common element amongst the edits (whether that's the inclusion of something or its exclusion) could have a simplifying effect in that it allows the dropping of "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert," for example. If there's been no intervening edits by someone else, you can't have a common element between your edits. By the same token there'd be no need to say self-reversions shouldn't be counted because no common element persists through edits that sum to zero.

And before anyone complains about wikilawyering, what invites wikilawyering is giving the letter of the law "bright line status." It is allowing blocking for purely technical violations, in other words, that invites wikilawyering. When there is no call to use common sense, human nature being what it is, someone will refuse to use it.

Finally, note that in Case 1 versus Case 2, the bulk reverter gets an unfair advantage. This is because the rule refuses to consider the magnitude of the edit warring and only considers its frequency. If I hit you in the ear, nose, and gut all at the same time, that's one infraction. If I allow you to fight back inbetween those blows, I've committed three infractions instead of one. The policy accordingly encourages editors to kick over the whole dinner table at once instead of just removing three pieces of offending cutlery in a meticulous way.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy with the way 3RR has evolved over time, especially since it doesn't currently recognize that we can edit collaboratively in an article while still warring over a single sentence. But I think we need to address the more basic issue of what "undoing" means (e.g., not "using WP:UNDO"), and consequently what "reverting" means (hint:  not adding new material that everyone supports).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Contacting WikiProjects
My edit to suggest resolution via related WikiProjects was reverted. Note that leveraging WikiProjects is already suggested in a section at the policy, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The edit summary of the revert said that "Many 'Wiki projects' tend to attract people with a particular point of view." If WP:CANVASSING is the concern, the wording can be tweaked. Contacting WikiProjects is more lightweight that the 3O or RFC option mentioned in WP:EW; a simple link to an existing talk page discussion can quickly get participants to diffuse an edit war, and less cumbersome than posting at 3O or starting an RFC.—Bagumba (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that 3O is the least cumbersome process, but do we need this? Do the people who read this page actually need to be told that WikiProjects exist?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WikiProjects have the advantage of needing less explanation for domain-specific details, similar to how some editors prefer contacting admins active in a particular domain to reduce the overhead and background to explain in more generic forums. A sentence on WikiProjects isn't going to bloat this, and it educates users that might not go and read WP:DR.—Bagumba (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

== ''The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts operated by one editor count together. Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.'' ==

What if someone's using a public computer? Computers/IPs aren't humans. 98.207.236.113 (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, what this is saying is "Don't edit war". If you try to avoid detection by editing from different computers or using different accounts, you still get blocked as if you hadn't done that.  The rules and blocks so applied are meant to be directed at YOU the person, not at any particular computer or account you are using.  The moral of the story is if someone disagrees with what you are doing, stop doing it and discuss it with them.  -- Jayron  32  18:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are blocked as an IP the consequences in terms of your editing career are far less serious than if you are blocked as a named account. So if you're blocked as an IP I say find your own identity and thereby avoid collective punishment.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)