Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2018/November

Three revert rule enforcement?
At first blush, the policy is super clear. "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." It links to Bright-line rule which helpfully explains "leaves little or no room for varying interpretation". It's even in a red box.

But closer examination reveals a rule much less clear-cut. It says "liable to be blocked", not "will be blocked". It says "the violation of which often leads to a block"... so, not always then?* On one hand it tells us clearly "An editor must not perform" but on the other "Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours". Of course, the openings left by the imprecise language might have the exemptions in mind. However, these exemptions are very clear and very limited.


 * *) When I ask above "so, not always then?" I am not having listed exemptions in mind. I am fully aware of the exemptions that are listed, thank you very much. This is about cases where no exemptions apply and the transgressor is still not sanctioned.

I believe there's something missing here in our instructions. Are there examples where editors are not sanctioned even when they clearly revert three times and equally clearly none of the exemptions 1-7 are applicable? Do transgressors need to be manually reported, or is there an automatic flagging of the 3RR rule? I believe our documentation can do better in answering how this stuff really works. Questions that deserve answers. For example:

If you are involved in an "edit spat" (that is, not yet an edit war), are you encouraged to report 3RR violations? Discouraged? Should reporting be handled by disinterested parties? Reporting edit warring does mean your own actions will be scrutinied.

How much time must pass before we know whether a transgressor has evaded a block? I mean, if an editor has made three reverts and still isn't sanctioned after 12? 24? 36? 72? hours, does that mean the administrators are merely back-logged or does it mean no sanction is forthcoming?

If a case of 3RR does not lead to a 24-hour block (or longer) where is that decision discussed? (Assuming previous questions aren't answered by "it should always be manually reported, and thus there will always be a discussion about each and every case where an admin is involved"... which is a fine answer except it isn't explained anywhere).

Regards CapnZapp (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The answer is Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Attempts in real life to restrict tax evasion show the futility of issuing long documents spelling out precise details that will result in a sanction. For Wikipedia, everything should be based on a judgment of what would be best to improve the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not helpful, I'm afraid. Please do not make this personal. Please do not make this about taxes. Please instead address my specific questions: how and what information would improve the policy page? If not, why? Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Avoiding blocks because "a block won't help, anyway" or some other excuse is a power play that stems from the arbitrary application of rules on Wikipedia. The problem is far too big to be solved on this talk page. A solution requires intervention from the top, for someone to put their foot down and say "that's it--no more arbitrariness. Set disruptions will have set mandatory blocks and there will be no more leeway for admins to protect certain editors from being blocked." Of course this would encompass many more Wikipedia policies than just 3RR. Bright☀ 22:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I misunderstood you, but did you just take the opportunity to answer my question with a soapbox? No offense intended, I genuinely have a hard time understanding your reply if an answer. Are you saying that violations aren't always sanctioned? Are you saying its random luck that decides if you escape sanction? Yours confused truly CapnZapp (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * BrightR's response above displays a profound misunderstanding of Wikipedia and how it works. There is no one "at the top" to "put their foot down", not Jimbo, and not the Foundation. There is only the community, which decides these things through discussions just like this one, in which it strives to reach a consensus. BrightR's statement is in the category "What I would do if I were King of Wikipedia," which is always fun to daydream about, but bears no relationship to reality on the ground. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And so the dance around the issue continues :) (In other words, thank you for your comment but I can't help but notice that Ive had three replies now, none of which have even begun to talk answers! :) CapnZapp (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To respond to Beyond My Ken's juvenile accusations, no, I don't expect the "King of Wikipedia" to do it, I expect admins and the arbcom and the people who actually keep the lights on—namely the Wikimedia Foundation—to take responsibility and take action. Bright☀ 21:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I accused you of nothing, I merely described your behavior, and your obvious lack of understanding of how Wikipedia actually works, which you again exhibited in the current response above. Except for very specific policies about copyright and BLP, which have to do with their legal exposure, the WMF does not interfere with the running of the many projects under their purview.  These are run by each project's community.  Arbcom has a specific remit, which does not allow them to do what you wish them to do, and admins can only enforce the policies as written by the community to the standards the community approves.  It is thus the community, and the community alone, which deals with these matters, and there is no "higher authority" to appeal to, as you keep pretending there is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your accusations are baseless. I never appealed to a "higher authority" or the "King of Wikipedia" as you so childishly put it. "The top" is whoever wields the power to block disruptive editors. Your childish posturing and constant attacks about the other party's supposed lack of understanding of Wikipedia are characteristic of your tendency to personal attacks and disruptive behavior. Bright☀ 13:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * BrightR, accusing others of personal attacks while simultaneously describing their posts as "childish posturing" looks a lot like the pot calling the kettle black, and I suggest you stop. If you want a change in the way 3RR violations are handled, or more rigorous rules around implementation, then propose it here and let the community decide. This is the appropriate venue for that discussion, there is no higher authority to put its foot down, and no admin lounge where the conversation would be resolved any more emphatically than here. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I'm talking about and you are the "person at the top" who needs to "put their foot down." Here's an admin suggesting I stop saying someone's remarks are childish, with the implication if I continue it will lead to a block. That's great! You're stopping incivility! ...but it feels kind of arbitrary that calling someone's comment "childish posturing" is dealt with rather swiftly with a warning, while in your years of adminship you never blocked anyone for gross, habitual, disruptive incivility. You, and everybody with the authority to block disruptive editors, need to put their foot down and deal with it. Did you really witness zero cases of gross incivility in your tenure as admin? Or did you just choose not to enforce Wikipedia policy when you saw it violated? Bright☀ 00:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Amakuru, Wikipedia's (supposed) dysfunction is all your fault. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, remember when you misrepresented what I said? And again? And again? If you were blocked for this behavior that's explicitly specified as a blockable offense, Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia. Bright☀ 15:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You've really got to try harder to insult me properly. Another editor said that I was "The worst thing to ever happen to Wikipedia."  There's your goal -- do better than that! Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you think I'm trying to insult you? You've been pursuing your against-MOS style for about ten years, refusing to accept consensus. You've been reverting edits with reasons given as explicit examples of ownership behavior while edit-warring. This is not a personal attack against you; it's a description of your behavior on Wikipedia. If you just accept consensus and stop power-playing and edit-warring to keep your preferred version of articles, you'll be a net positive to Wikipedia. Bright☀ 12:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If an edit war takes place but no admin spots it or is informed about it then neither party is likely to be sanctioned. If by the time an admin does look at the situation the two edit warrers have stopped edit warring and started collaborating then again they should count themselves lucky. Admins have discretion and we are expected to use it. In some senses edit wars are the parking and speeding offences of Wikipedia, create a hoax or commit copyvio and everything else you do is suspect, have an edit war and no you aren't under a wider cloud.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The purpose of blocks is to stop edit wars. If there is some other reason for optimism that the war won't continue, a block may not be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "If an edit war takes place but no admin spots it or is informed about it then neither party is likely to be sanctioned."

Ah, excellent. So, just to be sure, is this the consensus of everybody? And to be specific, we're not talking about edit wars in general, but the "bright red" Three Revert Rule in particular. CapnZapp (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am here because I find the documentation lacking. Let us improve the documentation so that visitors understand how the red of 3RR is "brighter" than the red of other rules. Do any special mechanisms apply? Is enforcement automatic? Ultimately: "Do I need to do anything when I see 3RR or is it handled in other ways?". CapnZapp (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Many of these questions are answered in this page's talk archives, which you can find through the box at upper right. You asked, 'Do I need to do anything when I see 3RR..' If you think there is a serious problem you can report it at WP:AN3. When an editing dispute happens, it should ultimately get resolved through consensus, and the various noticeboards are a way to ensure that happens. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) If you see edit warring, and you think it's disruptive, you can put an edit warring template on each participant's talk page. If the warring continues, file a report at WP:EWN (which is the same place as WP:AN3 noted above).  That's really about all there is to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I am truly sorry, but most replies still don't get that I am not asking for personal advice. I am here because the documentation doesn't tell me in what ways the 3RR is enforced, if any. Giving me advice "go here and do this" is not helping (but thank you for your WP:GF concern). Instead, saying something like "yes, I see your point, maybe we can make section NN a bit clearer" would be. The topic is improving the documentation. Even "I don't understand what you feel is lacking, even though I have read the entire talk section twice; please explain further." would be appreciated. Now, I trust you understand that sending the users to the (vast) talk archives isn't what I want? (Assuming the archives do contain pertinent information, please point me to a specific archive section, and we can discuss how to incorporate it on the documentation page) Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no blanket answer to the question of "How will a 3RR case be enforced?" because the answer is dependent on context. Possible answers include but are not limited to: nothing will happen, editors will be warned, editors will be blocked, another editor will propose a compromise that satisfies the warriors, etc. How would you recommend we change the documentation to address this? DonIago (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note - it's not One Right Answer I'm looking for here. Again, it seems I must explain so word deluge warning:

If all those above are indeed possible, it stands to reason to explain that to the reader, ideally in a way that does not lessen the importance we place on not breaking the three-revert rule. But if I'm watching an edit war (as a neutral bystander), this page does not currently give me any understanding of whether I should get involved or not. Is 3RR enforced by some under-the-hood mechanisms? (I don't know, anything from automatic mechanisms, to bot detection, to some special tables that are patrolled with some frequency?)

Essentially: Should I report it, or will it sort itself out? If nothing happens unless somebody reports it or admins basically fall over the case by accident (that's my take of what's been said upthread), should I feel obliged to report it? How long after the last action of the "war" is the violation still sanctionable or even worth bothering with? (Note: as a non-admin, I'm not talking about actual sanctioning. I am strictly talking about reporting it or otherwise taking action per existing prodcedures: talking to the editor, signalling it with templates, and so on)

I find no guidance here. The page only says it's a bright line, but is completely silent on what that means. Please re-read my earlier questions, still unanswered, such as "How much time must pass before we know whether a transgressor has evaded a block?"

And then, all questions again but from the POV of somebody not neutral? If I was in an edit war but stopped before 3RR, but my "foe" did not? Can I still report that? Should I? One reasonable reply is "nah, preferably leave that to a neutral party". But if enforcement is not automatic, and nobody (admin or no) happens to pass by? Should I let it slide? For how long? How long before "sliding" becomes "better drop it entirely, even if that means an editor gets away with 3RR scot-free." And is that a bad thing?

Lots of questions fo' sho. 🙂 Please feel free to not answer them individually - again the point is to improve the documentation so it gives the reader the decision tools that serve Wikipedia the best! Regards CapnZapp (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Um. There is a section specifically titled "What to do if you see edit-warring behavior"...
 * It might be worth enhancing the section to say that it's intended to refer to active edit-warring. If you see an edit-war that occurred three days ago, you should probably assume (hope?) it's been sorted out at this point.
 * Blocks are not punitive, so editors cannot "evade" them in the manner you appear to be suggesting. They are put in place to prevent disruption going forward. If an edit-warrior is no longer edit-warring, then perhaps they should have been sanctioned at the time, but unless it's reasonable to assume that they're planning to do so again, the best course of action may be to let the past remain in the past.
 * I don't really understand your concerns here, and it sounds vaguely like the subtext is "tell me how I can edit-war without getting into trouble for it". As was said previously, WP is not a bureaucracy. If you feel someone is edit-warring actively, by all means warn them and/or report it, but if you've been edit-warring with them, expect that your own behavior may be called into question as well. Or as I used to say when I was an admin on a forum, "flaming a flamer is still flaming".
 * If it helps, if I find myself involved in such things, typically the first thing I'll do is refer my counterpart to WP:BRD, followed by an edit-warring notice on their Talk page. If that comes to no avail I may go to WP:3RN. I try to be good about asking at relevant project pages for other editors to review the matter as well, but I'm not always as good about that as I should be. Note that all of this is predicated on the assumption that they are changing the stable version of an article and I am reverting to the stable version. If you're reverting to make changes to the article, the shoe is more likely on your foot.
 * But this also depends on the nature of the edit-war. If someone is edit-warring to insert unsourced material, then it's not just an edit-war, it's a violation of WP:BURDEN and may be sanctionable in that regard.
 * I hope this helps. DonIago (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Answering my questions is great, since it gives me the understanding I need to improve the documentation. But I still see no actual opinions on the subject at hand from you. The subject for this talk page discussion is improving the page, as always. I realize you are trying to help, but you come across as talking to me 99% and just maybe discussing the actual page 1%. I don't want to be rude but please stop framing your replies as personal advice to your fellow talk page editor (i.e. me). What are you actually proposing we improve? What sections? What language? Are you just waiting for me to start making edits or what? Ok - as long as I'm not getting reverted for my trouble, fine. At least now I've tried to initiate discussion / achieve consensus. Multiple times actually. CapnZapp (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me turn this around...you started this thread, and you've received advice from multiple editors approaching the general subject from a number of different angles. In light of all that, are there things you'd like to see changed on the page, and if so, what specific changes would you like to propose (i.e. actual changes to the text as it currently stands)? If there were changes I wanted to see made I would have started my own discussion thread. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It appears nobody has any theoretical objections, so let's move to the next phase: practical implementation. I sure hope you (any one of you) aren't going to revert me without suggesting improvements, not after all the effort I've spent here on talk beforehand! CapnZapp (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I might have suggested presenting your proposed changes here first rather than putting them in preemptively, but we've already crossed that bridge.
 * You may want to throw in something about how editors aren't likely to be sanctioned for non-current edit warring, but I'm not able to come up with good phrasing for that presently. DonIago (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. However, I'm content focusing on the basics (directed at regular editors). By reading "If several days have passed .. consider doing nothing" a reader should be able to infer the rest without us having to put a probability on it, or inferring anything about possible admin actions. CapnZapp (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

passive voice
Hi!

I'd like to rephrase the following to avoid the formal-sounding passive voice:
 * If, despite such efforts, one or more users fail to cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or do not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard is the norm.

Perhaps into
 * If, despite such efforts, one or more users fail to cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or do not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then consider making a a request for administrative involvement. The standard way to do this is to add a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard; please see WP:AN/EW.

After all, we're in a section that's talking to the user: What to do if you see edit-warring behavior (my emphasis). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that you have two "a"s there, this makes sense to me, barring any objections. DonIago (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:PGBOLD edit IMO. --Izno (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

✅ Fair enuff. CapnZapp (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)