Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2016/May

Exemptions to WP:1RR?
Do all the exceptions to 3RR also apply to 1RR? I'm subject to a 1RR restriction at the moment, but if self-reverts are not technically considered exceptions then I technically violated it just now. If what I did was acceptable (and I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't), then shouldn't the 1RR description clarify that? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would interpret 1RR in the same way that 3RR is interpreted i.e. only the number is different. Only an asshole would block you for what you did there. That said I wouldn't push my luck with another revert on that article in the next 24 hours. Betty Logan (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Better explanation needed for 'three revert rule'
I find the content of the 'three revert rule' section confusing. Specifically, it does not state whether reverts of odd numbers of reverts, count as reverts.

In other words, it is ambiguous whether this is the case:

Or whether this is the case:

Could you please state which is the case? Also, the section should be updated to be more explicit in this.

AlexiG42 (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi.


 * It is the first one. Honestly, I don't know how you came up with the second one because the definition reads "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page". The second shows three reverts but it is not "an editor" doing them.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Academic Research on NPOV and Edit warring
This summary of Academic Research would indicate that it is multiple revisions...what we would call Edit warring...that achieves the least bias in an article. Discuss? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. With all due respect, you have either misunderstood the article badly, or are misrepresenting it. Nevertheless, what you say about edit warring is both nonsense and not said in the article given. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, offence taken, the pertinent points lead from on from the quote "the more times an article is revised on Wikipedia, the less bias it is likely to show". Bosley John Bosley (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The opinion piece has no place anywhere in the policy, even if it were arguably "relevant", which it isn't. Revisions are a normal positive process at Wikipedia. Reverts in the context of edit-warring are only technically revisions and a sign of misconduct, not a positive collaborative objective. The article is a piece critical of Wikipedia and favorable to the Brittanica. Some may agree with it, but that isn't the issue. You have zero consensus to re-add it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel you have interpreted opinion piece with a closed mind- my reading is that it neither critical of either Wikipedia or Brittanica. I have added the peer reviewed academic paper on which it is based. The scientific approach questions the "perceived wisdom" that a stable article benefits the project. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Stable articles are useful. Fighting over content is not; edit warring is disruptive. For some other reading material, Lamest edit wars. Go ahead and tell me that those edit wars were not disruptive. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Disrupting the project" is basically ignoring Five pillars - and, if we are honest, ignorng the requirement that "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility" should be considered the disruptive behaviour...I'm not actually sure what WP:Lame actually contributes to the project- it pokes fun at others (see WP:5P) and if it is meant to be humorous which bits made you laugh? Yes, Stable articles are useful but EW policy should evolve as evidence of its effects on WP:5P becomes available; and this academic work is relevant because it provides objective evidence that multiple reversions correlate with WP:5P NPOV. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Page needs updating
This page claims that "Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours". That is not true. Looking at recent archives, blocks are only applied about half the time. "normally" should be changed to "occasionally" or similar. 88.10.64.44 (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on your comment only I have changed to "Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours" - Lets see what the owners of the page have to say. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * - no one owns a page. Doug Weller  talk 18:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I should be grateful if you would put Drmies right on this point. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)‎
 * He's right. No one owns a page or has an absolute right to edit it. I suggest strongly that you don't use this talk page to make a point or discuss another edito's actions elsewhere. And you would benefit by taking his advice. Doug Weller  talk 19:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What advice are you referring to? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Is a 4th revert outside 24h a bright-line violation of 3RR?
I noticed this morning that the policy said, "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered a bright-line violation." This doesn't make sense to me, since "just outside" is obviously subjective, not bright line. Before this edit in February, the wording was:

I do tire of reading (and have previously challenged) comments along the lines of, "you reached 4RR", when in fact no such bright-line violation (ie. within 24h) has occurred. Is there consensus for such a policy change? Burninthruthesky (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize your change was back to before an earlier (apparently undiscussed) change in February. Thank you for clarifying that. I no longer have a problem with your change, which was the previous status quo.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Even within 24 hours it's not a bright line violation any more. Plenty of people do it and get away without sanction these days.  83.61.155.91 (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Noting the irony of 9 reverts within 9 hours, on Edit warring. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

This is going back and forth with no resolution. To answer 's question, yes I did notice which version I was reverting. "a brightline violation" was added by on February 3, 2016. I don't see a corresponding talk page discussion in which consensus was reached for this bold edit. Moreover, it doesn't make sense. A bright line rule is something that is unambiguous. The discretion afforded admins when deciding to block users who have made more than three reverts in more than 24 hours is the very opposite of a bright line rule. I think this sentence should be restored to the pre-February 3 version.- MrX 18:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Per WP:EDITCONSENSUS, "any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". Glrx made a change that survived for four month (most of February, March, April, most of May).
 * IMHO, it was a rationale change too. If one games the system to betray the spirit of the bright-line rule, he or she is taken to have violated the bright line.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * An implied consensus because of lack of discussion is not the same as a real discussion. In my view, you should not have reverted now that this discussion is occurring.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, they are not the same; consensus through editing is much better. Having to discuss every little change to the wording is too obtrusive. Take this discussion: It is a waste of time. Now, I respect your view but at the end of the day, I have to stick to Wikipedia policies (in this case, Consensus) should your view contradict them. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with those above who've expressed concern about the wording. It is either is a bright-line violation, or it's not; something can't "may be a bright-line violation." The previous wording was fine.   Calidum   ¤   18:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A quick check of Wikipedia: A bright-line rule (or bright-line test) is a clearly defined rule or standard, composed of objective factors. To introduce nonsense into a policy can only be a misinterpretation of Consensus. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't care so much about the wording but rather the implications. My edit followed the exposition. The entire paragraph is not about edit warring in general but rather the 3RR aka a bright line rule in particular. It is not about when a series of slow reverts should be considered EW or other revert patterns that may be construed as EW. The paragraph (before my edit) indicates that the 3RR is not wedded to a precise 24 hours. Gaming 3RR is EW and thus implies violating 3RR.  A better way to say how I read the paragraph is a more direct "may also be considered a 3RR violation" rather than "may also be considered a bright-line violation". (My purpose in using "bright-line violation" was to refer to the paragraph topic. Thus the 3RR can be viewed as having a bright-line test but augmented with dim-line test.) The tenor of the argument is if an editor reverts just outside of the 24-hour window, then that person may be viewed as gaming the 3RR and therefore could be viewed as violating the 3RR rule.  Knowing about the bright line and avoiding its precise terms should not be rewarded. I do not want to invite more wikilawyering. It is reasonable to look at the pattern of reverts that almost meets 3RR, conclude the editor will continue to EW, and therefore protect WP by temporarily blocking the editor.  The rule does not want to imply that delaying a revert to 25 hours is not a violation and is therefore permissible. Furthermore, 3RR is also not an objective brightline rule in the sense that anyone violating 3RR must be blocked. Admins are already supposed to use judgment.  I doubt an admin would get much flak for blocking a problematic editor with more than 3 reverts in 28 hours. Glrx (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would disagree with the underlying notion that an editor should not be able to avoid being sanctioned for edit warring by gaming the system. The concern is just about the wording.  Calidum   ¤   03:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The way I read the current policy, a third revert outside 24 hours is never a violation of the 3 revert "rule", but the circumstances as a whole may still be considered against this policy. There are situations where policy recommends repeated reverts, provided editors stay on the right side of the "bright line" rule. I oppose any blurring of that line. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, your comment reads both ways, i.e. it can be taken as both the support or opposition of "bright-line violation" wording. Do you mind if you clarify? Thanks. —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking. Perhaps we're seeing different interpretations in the wording. There's no dispute that 3RR is a bright-line rule (as it already says in the second sentence of the section, which isn't under discussion). In my opinion, the existing (pre-February) wording,
 * clearly implies a 4th revert outside 24h is not a bright-line violation (although it may still be judged against this policy as a whole), as opposed to,
 * which says it may be considered a bright-line violation even though it actually isn't. I support the former. I hope this clarifies. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)