Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2020/October

Shortcuts at Edit warring
These shortcuts are not very good. They make it appear as if the exemptions only apply to 3RR and not to 1RR. I propose using WP:RRNO, WP:NOTRR and WP:NOTWARRING. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

American politics exception
On the standard template for American politics articles in the collapsed section there are extra exceptions to 1RR listed. Such as Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Is that something that should be added to WP:1RR? Do those exceptions actually enjoy consensus? It appears to be something added by when he created the template here back in 2017 but after a quick look at the cased I did not see the committee mention it. PackMecEng (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Those exceptions and the overall system were done under the authority of discretionary sanctions, which were placed by ArbCom on the topic area (see: WP:AP2) to allow administrators to impose sanctions at their discretion in ways that the imposing administrator finds will work to prevent disruption. To quote the relevant part of the DS policy created by ArbCom: “Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.” Given the prior 1RR restriction was being gamed, I felt it necessary to create a system (albeit imperfect) which would force discussion on contentious issues/disputes on certain AP2 articles. So, that’s primarily why there needed to be some exceptions to enforce documented consensus and/or to force consensus to be documented. While they have been used and applied in this manner by some other admins in the AP2 topic area, there are also some who have chosen to use their own different methods on separate articles (in the same topic area) to try to tackle the same issues. They’re still somewhat of a work in progress, but even when finished, they’re not really something I think would work for most of the encyclopedia. So, it would not be something to be added to the general 1RR restriction for all of the site, at least in my view. —  Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 04:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Fair enough I see where you are coming from. It is basically under that last part any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. I was just unsure if there was a larger discussion where the committee mentioned it specifically that would apply universally in AP2. Which does not appear to be the case, it is still under admin discretion. I do not think it would be something added as a general exception to 1RR, more of a note added that pages with that template that there is a exception to watch out for. I have spent quite a bit of time in that subject and was unaware of it personally. Now obviously that was my mistake and I should of known that, but I can see others missing it as well. From my count that template is used on well over 200 articles with many of those articles being fairly high traffic. PackMecEng (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. The bold and red lettering was supposed to draw people’s attention to the specific instructions, but I can see how it might be missed by some. I’ll see about discussing this with some admins that are still active in that area to see what we can come up with. — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 05:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , What about just moving that one line outside the box and up by the restriction itself? PackMecEng (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see others missing it as well. There's the information near the top of the talk page, which begins with WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES, in bolded, oversized all caps so as to stress the importance of reading what follows. Just in case one misses or ignores that, the DS alert includes mention of "page-specific restrictions" (you last received that DS alert in February). Even if both are missed or ignored, there is nothing wrong with not knowing something for awhile and then having a different editor refer you to it; avoiding such occurrences should not be a goal of PAGs, and WP:CREEP applies here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes page-specific restrictions and DS aware templates are a thing. Neither of which actually address the issue at hand. PackMecEng (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, the issue at hand is that you failed to understand clearly written instructions and believe that the instructions therefore need improvement. In my experience, editors are required to show a need and I can see how it might be missed by some is not enough. In my experience, editors generally understand the processes at DS articles, use extreme caution there, or avoid the areas completely. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Again you are missing the point I think. The issue is they are not clearly written instructions. PackMecEng (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's you who is missing the point, which is: The instructions are sufficiently clear until you show otherwise. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If I was the one making the point how did I miss it? Anyhow, why not make it easier and more clear since as you say editors should exercise use extreme caution there, or avoid the areas completely? I see no evidence that it would be a negative thing. Also again, the point is they are not sufficiently clear as I showed above. Heck you even made an oopsie on it thinking your revert was covered by consensus when it was not. I am just trying to make the encyclopedia a better and more friendly place. Why do you not want that!? PackMecEng (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're confusing two unrelated issues. My alleged oopsie had nothing to do with unclear instructions about ArbCom restrictions. My revert was per the list entry and the hidden comment, which, as I have explained to you elsewhere, had stood uncontested for 11 days. That was a completely routine action. If an error was made, it was in the list entry (which was not created by me). But that question is still under dispute, as evidenced by the fact that the list entry has not been updated. Until that happens, I or someone else will revert any further attempt to change the lead's COVID-19 wording without prior consensus. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So you intent to edit war your personal version while the discussion is under way? I don't think I would recommend that but this is getting off topic for this discussion and I have no opinion on the wording personally. PackMecEng (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the wording personally, either, and I'm at a loss to guess where you got the impression that I do. I do care about process, per Process is important. I agree that we are off topic, which you started by referring to my alleged oopsie. No objection to a collapse starting with that comment. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oopsie! PackMecEng (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)