Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2011/May

Reverting crap from high profile articles

As a result of an ANI thread, I just blocked an editor for 3RR, though he wasn't edit warring in the normal sense, but reverting to maintain the quality of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film), an article that is at least as high profile as the average TFA, where "considerable leeway" is given to editors. I would like to propose that this "considerable leeway" be extended to other articles which are very high profile (definition to be determined by enforcing admin). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Strong support makes perfect logical sense - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 20:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In this case it seems like a fairly straightforward application of common sense. However, I'm somewhat concerned that this could be abused on controversial articles which are both high profile and prone to genuine edit warring. So maybe something along the lines of "on non-controversial high-profile articles considerable leeway is given." Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 20:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose adding anything to policy that isn't well thought out and well-defined; the current TFA exception is a bit dodgy but limited to only one article per day. Extending it creates far too much uncertainty. Support instead, for the time being at least, admins using common sense and focussing on 3RR as a preventive of edit warring. Removal of different low quality yet not vandalism contributions from different IPs or newcomers isn't edit warring even if it's done - horrors! - 4 times in 24 hours. Greater leeway should be extended in practice for high-profile articles, and also to reverting editors who make an effort to engage (welcome/help/explain things to) new users when they revert them. Rd232 ^talk 20:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Support but needs more thought for instances where something is suddenly attracting attention (case at hand is the new Harry Potter film) from new IP editors who are adding crap by accident (eg adding to the already 100k plot, inserting their own reviews), rather than vandalising the article. We don't want to semi it because maybe 50% of the edits are good, but it can leave anyone watching the article in an awkward position. Will need more clarity on the exception though, and maybe a process where the exception has to be requested at AN or ANI and gain support.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I think the block that provoked this proposal was a silly one, and that this is a silly response to that silly block. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Maybe the way to approach this is to put a clause into the 3RR rule that exceptions must be explicitly sought on ANI. It introduces more leniency into the rule without relaxing it. Betty Logan (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Far too loose elevates admins position above the traditional janitors view. Making decisions as to if it's high-profile and if the edits were protecting (i.e. making content decisions), no scope for drama in that then. Isn't the normal way to look at this, that if you are the sole person protecting the wiki from the incoming, then perhaps the issue isn't as serious as you think it is? Don't we tell people Being "right" is not an exception to the three-revert rule, and claiming that your version is the "better" version is not a reason that will get you unblocked.. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Like many of the "rules" here that's only applied to non-admins. I was blocked twice for 3RR in 24 hours only a few weeks ago, even though the article was at TFA. What's sauce for the goose clearly isn't sauce for the gander. Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thinking out loud: what about saying "for the purposes of 3RR, reverting substantially new and unsourced content from new contributors does not contribute to the daily revert count, if the reverting editor gives due respect to the edit and communicates the issues to the contributor in a helpful and welcoming manner." Even if we don't stick this in the policy as is, this covers a lot of the issues. Rd232 ^talk 21:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose. If there's a silly edit war that's not over outright vandalism, and it involves several users, the right solution seems to be page protection and talk page discussion rahter than "holier than yours" reverts. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the issue is more lots of people making good faith put low quality additions, not edit warring. Rd232 ^talk 21:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It's a wiki; one editor's crap may be another's best effort. Some of the most pernicious wikiwars have been over MOS-level stuff. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The not so probable scenario you described could also be handled by WP:FLAGGEDREVS. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't Semi-Protection be a better way to deal with that, so the issues can be discussed with the other editors? If we grant a license to edit war on one side, do the other side also become immune? Or are these good faith but low quality edits about to earn them a block? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Semi-protection locks editors out; it's not an improvement on granting a bit more leeway on 3RR, especially if the leeway is tied to welcoming editors as appropriate. Flagged Revisions is more like a solution, but it's in a bit of a limbo at the moment. Rd232 ^talk 21:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
        • So the problem is so bad with "lots of people" requiring immediate reversion and going past 3RR, but semi-protection isn't reasonable. Sounds nonsense to me, it seems really unlikely that the low quality edits you state are that bad so they can't stay around for a short while whilst discussion with these good-faith editors ensues (in which case no 3RR). If the flow is so high that reversion without discussion is the solution, I can't imagine that temporarily locking out new and unregistered users (which I am one of) would be a significant problem. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Isn't this sort of situation, in fact, the whole reason for the pending changes mechanism. Anyone can edit, but an experienced editor has to approve the changes on such articles? Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 21:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Five wikibucks question for anyone who hasn't watched the movie: is this revert improving the article (by removing crap) or not? That sums up the essence of this proposal. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • As someone who's never seen the movie and quite likely never will, I certainly wouldn't have reverted that as "crap". Seems to be verging dangerously on personal interpretation of the plot. Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• I most strongly disagree with this proposal. It would essentially enable enforcing administrators to decide content disputes, because they would have to determine which of several contested versions of an article is of higher quality. This necessarily requires a judgment about the merits of the contested content. Consequently, this proposal runs counter to what is practically a constitutional principle of Wikipedia, i.e., that administrators do not adjudicate content disagreements. Apart from that, of course, this sort of catch-all exception could be used to contest almost all applications of 3RR, and would therefore enable many more edit wars and substantially weaken what may be our most important safeguard against disagreements getting out of hand.  Sandstein  22:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• oppose - if it's a high profile article, that means lots of people watching it and lots of people can remove the crap without anyone violating 3RR. One man's crap is another man's wise insight around here.--Crossmr (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Admins already have the ability to be clement as they see fit (I know I surely won't block a user for edit warring if I'm convinced the edits they're making are unquestionably needed to maintain Wikipedia). Writing clemency into the policy seems like a really bad idea to me. The wording needs to be firm. Clemency should remain at admin discretion (and always will unless and until one day admins are required to block for certain offences) and not as an enshrined part of policy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• The fact that an admin felt moved to block someone who "wasn't edit-warring..." but was maintaining the quality of the article is far more worrying than the fact that not all bases are covered in the wording of this rule. If this is happening, then it needs to be spelt out in big letters that you only need to block someone under 3RR if they actually are engaged in harmful edit-warring behaviour. Doesn't matter how high-profile the article is - low-profile articles matter less but are less likely to have other people actively patrolling them. No-one who's clearly protecting the quality of the encyclopedia should ever have to fear being sanctioned for it (the key word being "clearly").--Kotniski (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It was complicated by the fact that the user was an admin, and the need to avoid the impression of special treatment. And a number of the reverts weren't particularly "clearly". Rd232 ^talk 09:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I don't necessarily have any criticism to make in the specific case, but the general principle should be that people are not blocked unthinkingly for technical breaches of a rule, but only if their behaviour really is of the disruptive type that the rule was designed to catch.--Kotniski (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As an non-admin editor who has attempted to uphold the standards of Wikipedia during unfolding events on a certain TV reality series I am for this proposal. I've been on the white hot line of 3RR during the broadcast period of the show several times and have informed other editors (both interested in the topic and uninvolved in the topic) regarding changes on the page to help uphold the standards. It's one thing to edit war about blatently obvious things (like one of the contestants being shoved and cooked in an oven) to 3RR cliffs about the style of the contestant progress section. I know that this may not be popular, but it would have solved many problems when the patrolling corps of editors are trying to keep the page correct and verifyable. Hasteur (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I found this topic late. As a non-admin editor of a page covering a controversial but important political topic "protected" by the 1RR, I want to add my voice to Hasteur's and support this proposal. Briefly, this rule works when several neutral editors face few biased editors, not the other way around. Remember that the "many" biased editors could be one man with several sockpuppets. Under these circumstances, the 1RR favours the biased editors. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As the editor mentioned at the top who insisted on being blocked, oppose. If it's not vandalism, there shouldn't be an exemption for reverting it. I came over here because a similar block I imposed yesterday was overturned, because of talk-page consensus for the version being reverted to. My feeling is that if there's a consensus on the talk page, there are other people available to revert to that consensus, and other dispute resolution methods to use short of edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Per Sarek and Sandstein. No one needs to save the world (or any article) from "crap" all on his own. Sarek is absolutely right that if there's a genuine consensus then there will be others who will step up to revert in that case. And Sandstein is right that admins shouldn't be expected or allowed to jump into content disputes to determine whose version is not crap, and support that one by allowing others to pass 3rr to support it. ( Imagine how that would work in the I/P wars here, or re Climate Change! ) There's a reason that 3rr is "bright line" rule, and it has everything to do with human nature: In highly-contested disputes, there absolutely needs to be a behavioural fail-safe that is not subjective or open to "yes, but" exceptions.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Mention WP:IAR, with a caveat that rule-ignorers should be prepared to explain themselves and a reminder that edit warring is not "improving the encyclopedia". --NYKevin @853, i.e. 19:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Logical "Reverted edits by User:Fanboy34525 to last version by User:blablurblee per WP:IAR". If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it. So long as you have a legitimate reason why making that 4th (or 7th in the case that prompted this discussion) revert is an improvement, you should have nothing to fear. N419BH 20:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. This is one of the more sensible employments of IAR I've seen. --Bsherr (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Support An excellent use of WP:IAR. The goal of 3RR is not meant to limit vandal fighting or the improvement of the encyclopaedia. We all can recognise the difference between an edit war and trying to maintain article quality against a flood of well meaning, but poorly wiki-educated drive-by ip editors. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 21:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that WP:3RR already has an exception for reverting obvious vanadlism? As for improvement of the encyclopedia, of course it's not meant to stop that, however there is a reasonable feeling and argument that edit wars are harmful to the encyclopedia. They do nothing to contribute towards a collegial editing environment, and in terms of an outsider looking in toing and throughing between editors isn't exactly brilliant. There is no need for IAR or additional exceptions, if it's vandalism revert and if need be block the vandal. If it's not that clear cut then temporary protection and discussion generally works. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree - it seems entirely sensible (though we must encourage the change in mentality to actually happen, not just write it here, so wider publicity is probably required for this proposal).--Kotniski (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As a non-admin editor of a controversial political subject under the 1RR rule, I am worried about ignoring rules. In political battlefields where every source or word will be attacked, the only weapon of a reasonable editor is the strict application of WP policies. The last thing we want is for extremists to evoke WP:IAR as they hack the text away, laughing at the reasonable editors rendered powerless by the 1RR. If I had to propose an alternate rule, it would be the opposite of this proposal, i.e. to invalidate WP:IAR for controversial pages, making all other WP policies compulsory for all. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Support mentioning that WP:IAR could be applied to the 3RR in necessary circumstances (eg. if there are tons of editors actively editing the page, then it's probably not necessary for you to revert) ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 17:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

cooling -> cool? (Under What to do if you see edit warring behavior)

The sentence being: Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down.

It seems more appropriate to be: Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cool things down.

changing cooling -> cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.132.145 (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Since sockpuppets of banned or blocked users are not supposed to edit Wikipedia I suggest to change this 3RR exemptions

"Reverting actions performed by banned users."

to

"Reverting actions performed by banned users, and by sockpuppets of banned and blocked users."

Although this may seem obvious (some users even believe that that is a part of policy), I failed to find that anywhere in policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That change wouldn't actually make sense. A sockpuppet isn't a "user", as far as I understand the terms. A single "user" may have multiple accounts; any one of which beyond the first is a sockpuppet account. A sockpuppet of a banned user is still the banned user, and thus falls under the exemption. For the latter part, my understanding is that socks of blocked users don't automatically trigger an exception to 3RR on purpose. In fact, it's often stated at banning discussion in AN and ANI that one of the main reasons to ban someone as opposed to simply blocking them indefinitely is to enable the exception to be applied. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, does that mean that a blocked user is still allowed to edit via his socks? For instance, if I revert four edits made by a sock of some blocked user, is it a violation of 3RR? If yes, than it is illogical, because if the purpose of block is to (temporarily or indefinitely) prevent a user from editing Wikipedia, then by removal of content added by his socks the users simply follow the purpose of the block: to prevent addition of new content by the user who temporarily cannot edit Wikipedia. In addition, if new socks of some user are being blocked, but the content they add is still protected by 3RR, the block becomes just a competition between a user's technical ability to obtain new IPs or create new accounts and the sysops' ability to identify them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• This matter has arisen again, as an indef blocked sockpuppet master is in the process of being banned so that their puppets may also be blocked without violating 3RR. Instead of having to take every indef blocked user who resorts to socking through the ban process, it makes sense to allow those socks to be reverted without potentially violating 3RR (or in the case mentioned 1RR). In the case of indef blocked users, their inappropriate use of alternate accounts clearly indicates that they are uninterested in arguing the case for a return of editing privileges but simply placing their preferred edit in an article. I propose that once an account is tagged as an abuser of alternate accounts, then their confirmed socks may be reverted without violation. My proposed wording would be, "Reverting actions performed by banned users, their sockpuppets and of tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts."
  This removes a layer of bureaucratic process in combating disruptive editing by accounts who have had their original account sanctioned - possibly for those edits now being made by their socks. Comments? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support as a way of removing a pointless loophole. There's no reason that a good-faith user should be liable to a 3RR block because a blocked bad-faith user creates multiple sockpuppets and between them goes past 3RR. If I'm temporarily blocked, I'm not allowed to edit Wikipedia under any username, and any articles I create may be shot on sight, so there's no reason that my edits should be protected from multiple reversions by this policy page. Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Not needed. Sure, if you want to spend your time adding it in, go ahead. But WP:UCS pretty much covers this. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that this clarification is needed, because the discussion from the commonsensual point of view may have the results that are not easy to predict, and some admins prefer to act purely formally. I added the LessHeard vanU's wording to the policy. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Question - "tag teaming" reversions

If two editors tag-team to produce 3 or more reversions, does this count against the 3R rule? This would seem to be an obvious case when they engage in reverting the same edit, rather than reverting different edits. Specifically, I am thinking of this [1], [2], [3], and [4] -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

From a commonsensual point of view, it should. Moreover, the policy modification has been recently discussed on this talk page[5] that would clarify this issue. If you want, you can join this discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that - we'll see where this goes, as the "D" portion of the WP:BRD process has been initiated on that article's talk page.

As for the discussion above, I'll leave it to people more qualified than myself as I don't think there's anything more I can add that hasn't already been said. Although I do agree that it should be viewpoint that matters. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that three editors oppose the inclusion of these edits. That is not "tag-teaming" anything. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 03:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

>1 editor making the same reversion .... if that's not tag-teaming ....

And I'm pretty sure that "editors oppose the inclusion of these edits" isn't an exemption under the 3R exemptions -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not tag teaming unless they've somehow conspired to work together... which is usually difficult to prove. In most cases it just means that they're different editors who have independently judged the other editor's edit to be detrimental. --Kotniski (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Not saying that it's a conspiraacy, but it definitely is a convenient way to avoid going offside on WP:3R. It's not much of a stretch that "Editor 2" saw "Editor 1" being close to the edge, and joined in to help out. IMO, what's important is the nature of the edits. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The difference between tag-teaming and consensus can be hard to distinguish, though, and it's more or less impossible to write a rule that covers this distinction. For example, let's say there is a solid consensus against XYZ source established through a highly publicized RFC with vigorous participation. Then, Editor A comes and adds this source. Editor B reverts, citing consensus. Editor A reverts back, then editor C reverts, then editor A, then editor D, then editor A, then editor E. B, C, D and E now have four reverts among them, and under a rule change that would count reverts by groups, they could be sanctioned, while editor A, who's only reverted three times, might be let off. Yet it was A who was edit warring against consensus. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there's no reason why a quick look at the recent edit history wouldn't tell you that there had already been 3 reverts before you. At that point it's then a judgment call as to whether you want to be 4th man in on an edit war. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Why should editor D need to avoid reverting at all? The material (s)he's reverting is against consensus and should be removed. If groups count together for 3RR purposes, no one can remove that material, regardless of what consensus says. More than one person reverting is one of the ways consensus in articles is enforced in some circumstances. And yes, I realize that more than one person reverting does not always represent consensus. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is that there is no established consensus, which is why I initiated a discussion thread in the article talk page as is suggested under WP:BRD. Furthermore, despite that ongoing discussion, "editor D" went and posted another subsequent revert here. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I can accept that in your case there might not be an established consensus (not saying one way or another), but in some cases there is, and your proposed reading of the rules would create the problem I've listed in those cases. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And I'm sure that the AN3 process would able to separate one from the other as long as the provision is made in the 3RR policy - I seem to have more faith in your fellow admins than you do -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Complex issues like tag-teaming are generally ill-suited to AN3 because a simple set of diffs cannot prove the intent to collude, which is really the only case it would reasonable to call multiple editors reverting "tag-teaming". That sort of thing pretty much always needs ANI, where one can present evidence of collusion. And if convincing evidence is presented, yes, admins do have discretion to sanction tag-teaming editors already, no rule change needed for that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, point taken - "tag teaming" was probably the wrong word choice given the implication it has of collusion. Perhaps "Sequential reversions by multiple editors" would be better - but my main point still stands -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a fundemental difference between Editor A being a known editor and being an annonymous editor. In the latter case it is often best to put a lock on the article in question. Martinvl (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"Sequential reversions by multiple editors" with no collusion is occasionally sanctionable, but nearly always, sanctions will be dished out to both sides in such cases, since such sanctions are issued under the broader policy of edit warring rather than under 3RR and since it takes two (sides) to tango. Something like 3RR is far too mechanical to reasonably apply to groups; the broader edit warring principle can be applied at admins' discretion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)