Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2021/November

3RR blocks for first offense
I have noticed that many editors who are blocked for violating 3RR for the first time complain if their block is longer than 24 hours. This is because of the phrase "24 hours is common for a first offense" in the Administrative guidance section. Although 24 hours is not mandated, nonetheless it puts the blocking administrator immediately on the defensive. I don't think we should have any "common" duration for a first-time block, and that the sentence "Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility and previous blocks." should be changed to "When a block is appropriate, administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility and previous blocks." (I also changed where to when).

From what I can see, the 24-hour business has been in the policy since 2009 when 3RR was a separate policy and then merged into the edit-warring policy. I believe there was at least one RFC on the merger, which also caused a restructuring of the policy. I'm not sure how much discussion was devoted to the addition of the duration for a first offense, but regardless, it's been over 12 years, so even if there were a consensus for that part, such a consensus can be changed.

I don't usually propose policy changes, so perhaps others can suggest whether this is something that should be done on this page as an RFC, or at the Pump. Hopefully, though, this will generate some initial comments here to get a better idea how others feel about this.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Might be easier to remove the 24 hours clause (with a pointer to this section on the talk page) and see what happens. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Revert of 09:44, October 30, 2021
@user:SummerKrut: How do you believe the image - added in February 2019 - "would lead to misunderstanding"? (I resist the urge to comment on the irony of reverting a revert on the edit warring page.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This counts as one of the main policies. Using joke pictures may make people think that the policy itself is a joke. SummerKrut (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems we have two issues: (1) Is the picture a "joke picture." (2) If not, does the use of the picture to draw an analogy between edit warring Wikipedians and fighting wildebeests detract from the message of the policy. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Is the picture a joke picture?
The is not a cartoon or cartoonish. On 9 April 2013 it was the picture of the day selection at Wikimedia Commons as "one of the finest images." I hope you'll agree that it is not. on its own, a joke picture. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC) SummerKrut: I look forward to your reply. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Is the wildebeest analogy counterproductive?
Drawing a similarity between animals and humans makes the picture look like making fun of "the warriors". A policy's purpose is not to make fun of someone, but to teach people what's good and what's not. SummerKrut (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The picture is a comment on behavior (warrior editing), not the editors who engage in such behavior. Further, it seems like a fair analogy: humans engaged in edit wars are acting like fighting wildebeests. Finally, the picture - as a complement to the text - may be an alternate pathway to get a visual-learner warrior to step back and see themselves as acting irrationally. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "humans engaged in edit wars are acting like fighting wildebeests" that doesn't always apply. There are times when people try to find a consensus in an edit war (using edit summaries), even though it's not the correct way to reach a consensus. SummerKrut (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever the intent, acting like a wildebeest is not the path to consensus. The picture may help those using reverts incorrectly to literally see that their behavior is counterproductive. And if that doesn't do it on its own, the caption does: "Edit warring doesn't help when attempting to resolve disputes. In fact, engaging in such behavior will usually inflame the dispute, and poison the environment that Wikipedia editors all share." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Manner of counting reverts: is the initial edit a revert?
Hello! I have a question concerning exactly how reverts are to be defined and counted in order to enforce the three-revert rule. It seems to me that the current formulation of the rule implies that the page cannot be left at the status quo during discussion of the matter. For example, suppose a user starts by making a controversial edit (but which is not obvious vandalism, meaning it is not within the scope of the exceptions; suppose it is, for instance, the insertion of seemingly poorly sourced material, or original research, or something of the sort). According to my interpretation of the current text: Is this the actual intention of the rule? Is the first editor really the one who should have it his way in the end? Or am I somehow misinterpreting the text? Or is the rule actually poorly phrased? Should it be modified? (I have recently discovered that, in the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, the policy clarifies that, for this matter, the initial controversial edit should count as User A's first revert [even though it is not a true revert], specifying the purpose that, "for as long as there is no consensus, the status quo be respected". Should we not have something like that as well?) Thank you so much for your clarification! LongLivePortugal (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) User A starts by making the controversial edit. This does not undo anyone else's action, so it is not a revert and it is not tallied.
 * 2) User B thinks the edit violates Wikipedia's policies and reverts it. This is User Bs first revert'.
 * 3) User A insists and edits again, reverting User Bs revert. This is User As first revert.
 * 4) User B continues to disagree and edits again, reverting User As revert. This is User Bs second revert.
 * 5) User A insists and edits again, reverting User Bs second revert. This is User As second revert.
 * 6) User B continues to disagree and edits again, reverting User As second revert. This is User Bs third revert. He can no longer revert anything else.
 * 7) User A insists and edits one last time, reverting User Bs third revert. This is User As third revert.
 * 8) Both users' limits have been reached and User B is unable to perform a fourth revert. The issue must be debated in the talk page whilst the controversial edit, which may perhaps violate Wikipedia's policy, is visible to everyone. After 24 hours, any attempt to redo the cycle while respecting the three-revert rule will continue to allow the page to display as User A wants it, rather than as it used to be.
 * I don't have any answers, but I've always wondered about this, too. Some1 (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The actual practical answer is that both users are edit warring, and that both users may well need to be blocked especially if "redoing the cycle" is else to be expected. The three-revert rule does not prefer any specific revision; that's up to the page-protecting administrator's discretion per WP:FULL. The three-revert rule defines a bright line that, if overstepped, removes any doubt and ambiguity about the statement "User X has edit warred". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response! But it's still not clear... If both are edit warring before they reach the 'three revert' limit, then what exactly is the limit? Why is the phrasing of the policy so rigorous if my listing of actions suggests that the point at which the editors must stop is not so clear after all? LongLivePortugal (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , there's no fixed limit. The phrasing of the 3RR is rigorous in one direction: Exceeding it is edit warring. Your implicit conclusion that not exceeding it isn't edit warring is a logical fallacy (Denying the antecedent). Face-smile.svg ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah! I see what you mean now. Thank you for your clarification! :-) LongLivePortugal (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)