Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2018/January

People Ignoring Talk Page or They Don't Know Talk Pages Exist
There is an edit war on Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Getaway concerning WP:TRIV. It seems as the editors involved either ignore the pleads concerning stopping the war, or they don't know there's such thing as a talk page (and therefore don't see the pleads). How do I deal with this situation? Thissecretperson (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally the first step would be to leave a message on their user talk page directing them to the article talk page. I see this has already been done. Further edit warring by users without particpating in discussion could result in users being blocked. I see EdJohnston (sysop) has already weighed in on the matter on the article talk. Stickee (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So we warn them that they could be blocked? Alrighty then. Thank you! Thissecretperson (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You can use the template Template:Uw-3rr to give such a warning. Stickee (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2018
Under, please clarify that the issue should be discussed on the article’s talk page, rather than the other editor’s usertalk. 67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: clarify as associated talk page. Edit warring also relates to pages that are not articles. AdA&D  23:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Nonconsecutive edits that count as one revert
The actual interpretation of 3RR (and 1RR) by admins nowadays is that a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert, as does a nonconsecutive series that has no effect upon any such intervening edit. This policy ought to say so, if we want people to understand what the rules are here. If no objection, I’ll make this change by adding the bolded material (but unbolding it).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Admins" interpretation? Evidence? SPECIFICO talk 09:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps User:El_C or User:GoldenRing or User:Black_Kite would like to comment. It's fairly obvious that people who follow the literal rule are going beyond what most Wikipedia admins currently require anyone to do.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Edited.10:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The example that you are referring to falls under enforcement tolerance rather than a technical point that we would want to document in the policy. I trust admins to look at the bigger picture and make sound judgements. Let's not make it easier for some users to WP:GAME the system.- MrX 12:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You’re mistaken. In the example I referred to, admins didn’t say they’d tolerate a 1RR violation by not enforcing the policy, they said “this isn't a 1RR violation”.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not mistaken. I was referring to what actually happened, not what any particular admin said, otherwise I might have quoted El_C who wrote "Not a 1RR violation. You can't, by virtue of sticking an edit in the middle of his obvious continuous ones, turn his (now-broken) series of edits into an extra revert." Remember, policy reflects practice, not the other way around. The admins in this case handled it appropriately. I can appreciate 's frustration in this case (regardless of your actual intent). I have had editors use the intervening edit trick on me, most recently at Roy Moore. I won't mention any names though.- MrX 13:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Policy should reflect practice. When it doesn’t, the policy should be revised to reflect practice, so that people who read the policy are not misled.  You think I should have to go through life carefully avoiding any reverts after any intervening edit, but you shouldn’t?  I think I know the answer, BTW.  You also seem to suggest that when admins at AE said “this isn't a 1RR violation” they didn’t really mean it, and if that’s what you meant then it would seem you owe them an apology. &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I think the policies should be enforced as consistently as possible, regardless of the offender. It requires judgement though, and in most cases that I've seen, admins will err on the side of Blackstone's formulation. We don't need to add things to our policies that enable Wikilawyering and WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM. Perhaps someone else can explain it to you better than I can.- MrX 13:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone could if there was really any possibility that this proposal would increase rather than reduce chances of “gaming” or “wikilawyering”. Easy slogans to throw around. The admins at AE did not express any doubt about the facts, they said that the facts as I stated them did not amount to a 1RR violation.  Maybe they can explain that to you better than I can. &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anything, I ask you to document that Admins in general hold the view you ascribe to them and your response is to reassert it? And canvass one of 3 Admins to confirm? Please find some way to support your claim that this is the consensus among Admins.  SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I gave a link above. I hardly think it’s Canvassing to openly ping three admins who just finished bashing me over the head at AE.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't even have agreement among Admins as to the definition of "revert" -- as was demonstrated at an AE matter last year. If you really want to improve definitions here, I suggest you think the problem through from scratch and identify the issues we could all consider to rewrite the definition and supporting guidance on this page. You could help us all by setting up a structured discussion as to how 3RR and 1RR could be clearer and more effective.  SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If the others haven't made it clear, there are objections to your proposed change. The more instructions you add here, the more opportunities you give to editors to wikilawyer. If an editor uses the intervening edit trick (as calls it) and reports another editor, that gives admins a good idea of who's actually being disruptive in the area. --Neil N  talk to me 16:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, I don’t see why I or other people who try in good faith to follow the rules around here should have to go through life carefully avoiding reverts after intervening edits, but others not. The change I suggested would create no specific problem, and just saying in generalities that it would is unconvincing, but thanks for bothering to reply, User:NeilN, if only to insinuate that I’m tricky, wikilawyering, and disruptive. Bye.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not who you are, it's the edits you're making. --Neil N  talk to me 18:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Content.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

We just got through discussing this at WP:Village pump (policy). I relayed the following there: "I agree with Anomie. Like I stated before, see the Definition of 'Revert' and 'Undo', 'Does Change = Revert?' and Disastrous discussions; as seen by reading those discussions, the definition of a revert has been discussed a lot. Despite a few interpretations that a revert means any change to an article, the vast majority of editors, in my experience, do not interpret a revert in that way. If a revert actually meant that, it would mean that if I went to an article right now and started editing it, I'm making a bunch of reverts and would be over the WP:3RR limit in a matter of minutes. Editors interpret our policies and guidelines differently, but they are usually in agreement on their interpretations and they usually have common sense. Our editors, including our administrators, know what a WP:3RR violation is when an edit warrior is reverting me and another editor and crosses the WP:3RR line while I and the other editor have not crossed it. The administrator is not going state that I and the other editor also violated 3RR because we edited an unrelated part of the article within those 24 hours. One administrator acting in a rogue manner by interpreting the policy in a way that editors usually do not interpret it will not change that. And that administrator can be brought to WP:AN or WP:ANI if he or she continues to apply the policy in such a way. Any argument at those venues that the policy supports the administrator's viewpoint would be dismissed if a pattern of applying the policy in this problematic way was made clear. Do it once, and the administrator can slide (with admonishment, of course). If the administrator continues to do it, the behavior will be stopped." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Flyer22 Reborn, that's a different issue from the narrow one here; the issue here is about when a bunch of revert edits qualifies as a single revert --- the policy right now says they have to be consecutive, but in actual practice they don't have to be. Your issue is instead about whether an edit to "an unrelated part of the article" can be counted toward 3RR, even though this policy presently says "whether involving the same or different material".  Feel free to argue for deleting "or different material" in this policy, but that's a different edit from the one I'm suggesting, and is directed at a different issue.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)