Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2024/April

WP:1RR and WP:3RR as applied to WP:CTOP editor restrictions
My understanding of our current policy is that in situations where there are editor restrictions as a result of a contentious topic restriction, reversions of violations of those editor restrictions do not constitute an exemption to the WP:1RR/WP:3RR (whichever is applicable to that article). For instance, on an article subject to the following restrictions: "1) You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days; AND 2) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)", when an editor who does not meet those criteria (say, only has 50 edits) decides to edit that page, reverting their edits would still be subject to the 1RR. Is that correct reading of policy? If so, why shouldn't enforcement of bright-line arbitration restrictions constitute an exemption? I get why maybe it wouldn't be helpful in situations where interpretation or discretion is required, but for many editing restrictions it's an objective, binary status: either you meet the quantitative requirements or you do not. If the edit is objectively disallowed, why would we say it's OK to revert it one time, but not OK to revert it a second (or fourth, as applicable) time? ⇒  SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 05:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * If the whole article is subject to the 500/30 restriction, it should be extended-confirmed protected so that no violations are possible. If the topic is under the ArbCom extended-confirmed restriction or the community's similar version, there's a line saying "Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring." Part of CONTOP also says "Edits that breach an editor or page restriction may be reverted." It's unclear if that's actually a 3RR/1RR exemption, and I haven't seen that clause pop up in any "case law". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah that's what I'm getting at -- "Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring" states an exemption from the policy that isn't actually listed on the policy page's list of exemptions. I think we should harmonize this and match the same WP:ARBECR language here on this policy. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 15:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would favor adding to the list of exemptions. Specifically ARBECR violations, which are the most clear about the existence of an exemption. I don't feel confident enough in adding 1RR, since the whole point of the restriction is to reduce edit warring, and adding an exemption is likely to increase edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's my fault for being unclear in my initial post -- I did not mean to suggest this as a general exemption to *any* WP:1RR scenario, but rather solely those arising out of enforcing WP:CTOP restrictions. I suspect that primarily would be WP:ARBECR (where it's already defined as not edit warring, as you pointed out) but possibly other administrator-imposed restrictions arising from WP:CTOP. That said, though I'd prefer to see it at the CTOP-level, I'd be satisfied if we started just with ARBECR since, as you mentioned before, it's the most clear. ⇒  SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok! How about adding the following as WP:3RRNO #9: Thoughts? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely worth adding. While everyone should avoid edit-warring in general, the 1RR is restrictive enough that if reverting violations of page restrictions wasn't an exception, people would often be reluctant to do so (and it's important for them to be reverted quickly on high-traffic articles if the restrictions are going to remain functional, since it gets dicier once other editors start to edit something that was added in violation of the restriction.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, and what you're describing is literally the exact scenario that prompted me to ask the question. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think:
 * In my opinion, whether the reverting editor also has other motives shouldn’t matter, and suggesting that it does could cause issues in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do think that's much cleaner language. I got the "solely" from CONTOP, but there's no reason the community can't go wider than ArbCom. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agree with BilledMammal, it's a enforcing a bright-line rule that says "don't do this", so the intent of the reverting editor is essentially irrelevant. Either version is fine but this one is cleaner.  ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Applying this to all extended-confirmed restrictions would be a substantial policy change that shouldn't be decided by a handful of editors. I think for now it should be limited to reverts which ArbCom has explicitly permitted. For example, part (D) of ARBECR says "Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring." We could ask if we aren't sure, but my understanding is that "are not considered edit warring" implies "don't count towards 1RR". By mentioning this situation here (best wording?) we would be just explaining the current rules and not changing them. Zerotalk 05:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by "Applying this to all extended-confirmed restrictions". Are there extended-confirmed restrictions that don't include the edit warring exemption? All the ARBECRs use the same language, and the community-imposed ones I'm aware of (WP:GS/AA, WP:GS/KURD, and WP:GS/RUSUKR) have the same line. Or are you making a point about the "solely", as above? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not making any point about "solely" and agree that word should not appear. I don't know if there are e-c restrictions without the edit warring exemption, but if there are any do we want to add it? Maybe there's a reason it isn't present. But this is not just about existing restrictions; do we want to pre-emptively add this exemption to apply even if ArbCom decide to not include it in future rulings? Zerotalk 08:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What about adding "Reverts that are specified as not edit-warring by an applicable ruling such as the ArbCom extended-confirmed restriction." ? Zerotalk 08:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate that personally I'd like to see an exemption for enforcing any editing restriction on a designated contentious topic, to include the standard restrictions. If it's an unambiguous scenario that the restrictions apply, and they were duly authorized, then we should be able to make whatever reverts are necessary to enforce those without fear of running afoul of this policy, even if the original remedy imposing those restrictions failed to explicitly specify them as exempt. If the concern is that could increase the number of edit wars, limit the exemption to uninvolved administrators. However, consider me happy with whatever incremental, iterative gain we get towards that (meaning I would be satisfied with any of the above suggestions from y'all.) ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do really like Zero0000's proposal above though, and would suggest maybe modify it to just "Reverts that are specified as not edit-warring by an applicable ruling" (and remove the reference to ARBECR), I think this is an neat, discrete little package that unambiguously solves a problem (the discrepancy between the list of exemptions within the policy, and rulings that specify something isn't edit-warring). Boom, nice, let's carve that portion off and set it aside for a second and now we can craft separate language to deal with the secondary issue of "Reverts made to enforce an editing restriction". Again, I think we could go more broadly there, since we would have already addressed the scenarios for which an applicable ruling defined them as non-edit-warring, and as Firefangledfeathers pointed out previously, it seems like all the ARBECRs and community sanctions include that definition. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason I added the example of ARBECR is that inexperienced editors might not know what "applicable ruling" means. Also because ARBECR is (true?) the most common example and this would make its inclusion clear. I don't agree that including "any editing restriction" would be good. For example, in the Polish-WWII area there is a ruling about using stricter than usual definitions of "reliable source", but it isn't algorithmic to the extent that grey areas are removed. If editors can revert without limit on the grounds that they think a source is not strong enough, wars will break out and noticeboards will fill up. Zerotalk 03:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Would wars break out though? The existing definition of edit warring already states "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring" -- and since we'd be specifying this as one of those overriding policies, it definitionally wouldn't increase edit warring. Semantics aside though, it's operationally inherently a one-way policy -- using that example you mentioned on the Polish-WWII area, reverts to enforce the stricter sourcing definition would be exempt from the rule, but reverts reintroducing the material or downgrade the stringency of the definition would not be. If there's a remedy on enforcing a heightened sourcing standard, it should be enforced. If someone is edit warring against that, they should probably be warned and/or blocked for disruption given that they're doing so on a Contentious Topic where we go out of our way to specifically warn them through multiple templates to 1) take extra care and constructively edit, 2) refrain from disruption, 3) follow all policies, guidelines, and best practices, 4) comply with any restrictions, and 5) to err on the side of caution. If they're unwilling to work towards consensus and discuss with their fellow editors after all that, on what we're telling users is the subset of articles they're specifically required to be on their best behavior for, we're not looking at multiparty edit warring so much as we're looking at a single user causing disruption and others repairing it. We specifically disallow "gaming the system" -- if tendentious editors could use the edit warring policy and 3RR to essentially force other editors to cease enforcing a valid editing restriction (because without the exemption, to do so would cause them also to be edit warring), it defeats the entire purpose of both the restriction and the CTOP procedure.  ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Disputes over whether a source meets RS are already a major cause of edit wars, but in that case both sides of the dispute are subject to 1RR/3RR. If there is a different definition of what source type is allowed, there are still disputes over whether particular sources meet the new definition. In terms of disputes, it's much the same situation but just with the boundary set in a different place. Giving the "no it doesn't" side the advantage of 1RR-exemption while the "yes it does" side is still subject to it is a bad idea, because there is no reason in general to believe that the "no it doesn't" side is the side most adherent to policy, even on average. It isn't a bright-line restriction like ECR adherence. I don't disagree with most of what you write but it is mostly about things that should be enforced by uninvolved admins, not by the parties to the dispute. Zerotalk 05:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Would that concern be mitigated with something along the lines of Exemption #9: "Reverts that are specified as not-edit-warring by an applicable ruling" (w/ room for improvement/wordsmithing of that language re: "applicable ruling" per your above comment about inexperienced editors) and then Exemption #10: "Reverts made by an uninvolved administrator to enforce an editing restriction on a contentious topic"? ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that uninvolved administrators are subject to 1RR/3RR restrictions at all when they are engaged in policy enforcement. So I don't see the point of #10. If it belongs anywhere, it should be on a page about the rights and duties of administrators. Zerotalk 07:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there a policy somewhere that states that uninvolved administrators aren't subject to restrictions when engaged in policy enforcement already existing somewhere? I'm not aware of one. If something does already cover that, then sure, there would be no need for #10, but I don't believe that's the case at present. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know of one, but I also don't know of any case where an administrator was brought to account on the grounds that they reverted too many times in order to enforce policy. I can't even imagine it. Administrative actions are generally regarded as distinct from ordinary edits. If you think that is unclear, we could ask ArbCom for an opinion ar ARCA. Incidentally, look at the first sentence of WP:ADMINGUIDE/R (a page that needs updating). Zerotalk 10:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As an admin (or rollbacker), you may spend much of your time reverting changes made to pages. -- what am I supposed to be looking for out of this? Regardless, I'm not sure if asking Arbcom for a clarification is a better place than adjusting the policy itself to include that exemption; but personally it feels more appropriate here. And if it's that unthinkable that it shouldn't happen, presumably it shouldn't be difficult to gain consensus to formally exempt it either. ⇒  SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that restrictions on administrative actions belong here at all. This is not a page about administrators. Moreover, once we start adding exemptions for administrators it will be taken as an implication that further reverting by them is not allowed. Here are two examples of edits that admins have always been allowed to revert without limit but which are not (and shouldn't be) in the list of revert exemptions: (1) edits that are clearly disruptive/trolling but not "obvious vandalism"; (2) edits of socks of users that have not yet been blocked or banned. If there is a need to make this clear (I'm dubious) we should find a page about the rights of administrators and add it there. It does not belong here. Zerotalk 04:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct, it's not a page about administrators. It's a page about edit warring, and the exemptions thereof, and we're specifically referring to creating such an exemption. Again, can you point to a policy that explicitly states that administrators are allowed to unlimitedly revert "edits that are clearly disruptive/trolling but not "obvious vandalism"? or for "obvious socks of users that have not yet been blocked or banned?" Because the very existence of the exemptions to the edit warring policy, and the lack of inclusion of any exemption covering what you're referring to, pretty definitively points against that being the case. So yes, it absolutely does belong here. There's literally no other place it would belong. And, if you're absolutely certain that such a policy already exists, it should then be uncontroversial to explicitly call out those exemptions here.  ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it is stated anywhere. I believe it is an accepted principle, since the beginning of the project, that administrators doing administrative actions are not restricted by the same limits as restrict ordinary editors. You are welcome to provide contrary evidence. Also, it is not true that there is no place other than here to clarify this issue; there are several sections in WP:ADMIN devoted to limits on administrator behavior where it would fit. Zerotalk 01:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's an accepted principle since the beginning of the project, then shouldn't it be non-controversial to explicitly call it out as an exception? I simply don't understand the argument that WP:ADMIN is a preferable location to codify an exemption to the edit warring policy than the edit warring policy page itself (which even has a specific "administrator guidance" section). Under that same reasoning, why is exemption #7 here and not on WP:BLP since this is not a page about BLPs? Why is exemption #8 here and not on WP:CSD since this is not a page about G11's? This page isn't about banned users either, but exemption #3, etc. And even if it was found in both places, so what? As long as there's no substantive differences between the text, how would it hurt anything? As for providing contrary evidence to a policy that isn't stated anywhere (because it either doesn't exist or I somehow missed it in the last 17 years since I became an admin), the best that I can do is point out that I myself am that evidence -- I brought this discussion up in the first place because I felt uncomfortable making multiple reverts to enforce editing restrictions on a CTOPS covered article, in absence of a policy statement anywhere that says doing so wouldn't violate 3RR, 1RR, or any other aspect of the edit warring policy. If there was no ambiguity, I wouldn't have felt the need to ask. ⇒  SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's an accepted principle since the beginning of the project, then shouldn't it be non-controversial to explicitly call it out as an exception? I simply don't understand the argument that WP:ADMIN is a preferable location to codify an exemption to the edit warring policy than the edit warring policy page itself (which even has a specific "administrator guidance" section). Under that same reasoning, why is exemption #7 here and not on WP:BLP since this is not a page about BLPs? Why is exemption #8 here and not on WP:CSD since this is not a page about G11's? This page isn't about banned users either, but exemption #3, etc. And even if it was found in both places, so what? As long as there's no substantive differences between the text, how would it hurt anything? As for providing contrary evidence to a policy that isn't stated anywhere (because it either doesn't exist or I somehow missed it in the last 17 years since I became an admin), the best that I can do is point out that I myself am that evidence -- I brought this discussion up in the first place because I felt uncomfortable making multiple reverts to enforce editing restrictions on a CTOPS covered article, in absence of a policy statement anywhere that says doing so wouldn't violate 3RR, 1RR, or any other aspect of the edit warring policy. If there was no ambiguity, I wouldn't have felt the need to ask. ⇒  SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as this discussion has died out, I'm boldly going to insert Exemption #9: Reverting edits that have been specified as not edit-warring by a policy or applicable Arbitration Committee ruling. This should be non-controversial, as it's literally just codifying as an exemption things that have already explicitly been declared "not edit-warring" by either policy, or ArbCom, so it does not actually constitute any substantive change in policy. ⇒  SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 15:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * -- if you're going to just revert my addition within seconds based on insufficient discussion, perhaps consider joining the discussion that's been ongoing for nearly a month now? ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I object to the change on procedural grounds. As I said in my detailed edit summary, it requires a formal discussion that is advertised so that more than just a few editors are likely to contribute. As an aside, if you decide to start such a discussion, I would probably oppose it substantively because I don't understand it, and it's important that editors understand the exemptions. As it is, too many editors invoke a particular exemption incorrectly, and I find that the other exemptions are far clearer than this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)