Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2018/June

Need a clarification of a 1RR

The policy says:

"A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."

In connection to that, I am wondering if:

1. If removal of some part of the text added to the article long time ago is considered a revert?
2. If removal of two independent parts of the text when no other user is working on that particular section is considered two reverts?

I am asking because if all answers are "yes", it creates a huge potential for gaming a system. Actually, it a situation when two good faith users are working on the same article in parallel and independently or in a collaborative manner, their combined activity may be considered an edit war by any user who wants to game a system.

In connection to that, my third question is:

3. Can a modification (not removal) of some existing text be considered a revert? If it can, that is again a huge potential for gaming. If it can, then any active collaborative work becomes virtually impossible on the articles that are under 1RR, because even a single faith user can easily disrupt it under a pretext of a formal 1RR violation.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe the answers to 1 and 2 are "no". I can't parse 3. Is there a missing word or two? SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a key word was missing :-) Added it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I has been advised to take a look at this discussion , and I think that discussion was inconclusive. We should either add to the 3/1RR policy that a common sense should be applied to its interpretation, and to make a reservation that gaming of 3RR (i.e. false accusation in 3RR violation under formal pretext) may be considered disruptive, or to make a policy more precise. I think this policy may be partially in a conflict with WP:BURDEN: if I see some unsourced material, or material that clearly violates our other content policy, I can and should remove it, but if I see more than three different pieces of text, I need to wait more than 24 hours if another user edited this article (totally independently) in between my edits. That sounds ridiculous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Upon having read this old discussion again, I came to a conclusion that by saying that "1RR has a 24-hour window" Ivanvector make a very good point. We must separate 3RR limit and a sluggish edit war. 3RR/1RR are needed as a first formal barrier to prevent an ordinary edit wars, but I doubt any formal rules can be developed to prevent slow edit wars, and it the latter case only common sense is applicable. In connection to that, I propose to make a correction to our policy, and to specify the definition of a revert as follows:

"A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the recent actions of other editors made withing last 24 hours, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. "

I believe that the meaning of "recent" is intuitively clear: if I remove some material that was added one or three years ago, that is a normal editing. If I remove something that was added few days or weeks ago, that may be considered a revert.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The policy does not tell "recent" for a number of reasons, such as, (a) Restoring a very old version, i.e. undoing a significant number of edits by many contributors can be viewed disruptive, unlike undoing a recent addition by someone per WP:BRD. (b) In certain areas, like US politics, people can argue to infinity what does it mean "recent". My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, in that case, a direct formula "1RR has a 24-hour window" should be made a part of the policy. A revert is literally a revert, i.e. undoing a recent contribution made by some particular user. A spirit of 3RR is prevention of edit wars, which starts with a revert of some recent edit. Removal of old material should be considered an edit, not a revert, per this old discussion . However, since the current policy allows different interpretations, it should be made more clear.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess it was intentionally left vague ("any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors"), so this remains on discretion by individual administrators. My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

A vaguely formulated strict rule is an oxymoron. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, since this question is being repeatedly asked, and to avoid new discussions similar to this one, I think the word "recent" should be added to the definition of "revert". If there will be no rational objections, I'll add it to the definition.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If you intend to change the wording of WP:Edit warring, you should get wide consensus. At a minimum, posting at WP:AN should occur, and probably an WP:RFC. The risk is that someone will simply undo your change, and then you'll be called on to explain why you believe a project-wide consensus exists. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

EdJohnston, that is something I don't understand: the page notice says: "You are editing a page that documents an English Wikipedia policy. While you may be bold in making minor changes to this page, consider discussing any substantive changes first on the page's talk page." If adding even a single word requires a discussion somewhere else, why that information is not added to the page notice?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

When I compare our writing to our actual practice I often feel like we are assembling a complex imported product with badly written instructions translated through five different languages and alphabets.... They might say to stick the shaft through the open hasp of the inverted retaining clip.... but somehow us Wikipedians still end up with reasonably attractive serviceable furniture. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The term '1RR' gets about 250 hits in the archives of WP:Arbitration enforcement. A search of the admin boards for 1RR gets about 2,000 hits. Any change to the written policy on WP:Edit warring that causes impact on routine enforcement will have wide repercussions. Small changes to policy don't need wide discussion, but this one would be different. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

EdJohnston, as far as I understand, not only 1RR, but many other aspects of this policy have a wide impact. That means, a page notice should be added to the article to inform users that a talk page discussion might be not sufficient, and a wider discussion is needed, as you wrote above. I think I am not the only user who takes a current page notice literally.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the proposed change. Scenario: Editor A adds a sentence to the lead. Editor B reverts. Editor A re-adds. Editor B reverts. Editor C re-adds. Editor B reverts. Editor C re-adds. Editor B removes content from body that supports the new sentence, arguing that it's not a revert. They're going to get blocked for violating WP:3RR. Please also note that prior discussions about "longstanding content" touch directly on discretionary sanctions and arbitration enforcement which is a related, but separate, matter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have posted at AN to give more publicity to this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, you may disagree, but there is [another interpretation: 1RR has a 24 hour window, which means first removal/modification of some old content is not a revert. As far as I understand, 3RR/1RR's purpose is to prevent an edit war around some concrete statement. It is impossible to make a universal rule that prevents all edit wars (unless we decide any user may make just one edit per day :-)). I can give you a contrary example: what if a user B decided to remove content from body that is totally irrelevant to the subject of the dispute? In that case, they are acting as a purely good faith editor: an edit was has ended de facto, but the user B should be blocked according to your interpretation. Doesn't it discredit the whole idea of 3RR/1RR?

Remember, besides this policy, we have WP:BURDEN, which says: burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. That means, if some content is not adequately supported by reliable sources, I can and should remove it. Your interpretation of 1RR makes admin's life easier (less page activity), but it prevents us from cleaning Wikipedia from questionable materials. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Paul Siebert Your example is why admin judgement is called for when processing edit warring reports. The proposed addition will cause more reverts and edit wars, not less. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, with due respect, I do not want to be dependent on admin's judgement. I don't want to be distracted by false accusations of edit warring when someone decides to game a system. I need clear, logical and non-self-contradictiory rules to observe them, and I want to be sure my good faith actions will not be interpreted as edit warring. We are not kids to depend on someone's judgement.

And the amount of reverts depends on what you see as a revert. "Revert" is literally a revert: I did that - you undid - I added back, and passions started to escalate. When I or you change an edit made one months or two years ago, I am not reverting anybody concretely: this is a edit, not a revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Your own proposal is not "clear" and may not be considered "logical" by some editors. What is "recent"? Who decides on the timeframe? Does it vary from article to article? And the policy definition of revert does not match yours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I would prefer a formula proposed by Ivanvector during the last discussion: "1RR has a 24-hour window", which means the 3RR/1RR count starts when someone reverts the edit made during last 24 hours. Actually, I would prefer this wording, because it covers 99% of real edit war cases.

In addition, most edit wars occur around the articles that tell about some sensitive subjects, and, as a rule, these conflicts start when someone adds an unsourced or poorly sourced statement. Current 1RR helps to preserve this questionable content, although Wikipedia in general will benefit if removal of such content will be easier than its addition. And that would be in accordance with WO:BURDEN--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You are simplifying/misconstruing what Ivanvector said. The 24 hour counter for an editor starts when that editor initially reverts. It has nothing to do when the edit being reverted was done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure. He says: "making a subtractive change to something that somebody else contributed is not automatically a revert, that's just how editing works", and that is exactly what I mean. Indeed, I believe you agree that 3RR is needed to prevent a conflict between two or more concrete users, which means the war starts when someone makes some contribution (removal or addition of some materials). The next action is is a revert, but the first one is not (by default). Again, independent on what Ivanevector says, the wording I propose helps those users who are trying to clean Wikipedia from various garbage, whereas your interpretation facilitates overloading it with questionable content.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I should have known. All this is because of this warning given by a very experienced editor for an article under discretionary sanctions? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly. All of this because of a long and sluggish edit war that lead to a full protection of this article for 6 years (sic!). In addition, I am equally experienced user, and I know that removal of one unsoursed statement and, after that, some weasel words has nothing to do with edit warring. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In my fairly uninformed opinion, the 3RR guideline is meant to stop specifically the kind of disruptive editing where an editor tries to protect their version of an article by repeatedly undoing edits by other contributors. It's a bright-line rule: an editor may revert on any page three times within 24 hours, then they may not revert again within that time period, irrespective of the actions of other users (noting the exceptions under WP:3RRNO). And that's all that 3RR is: any single editor may not revert more than three times within 24 hours. Edit warring is not a bright-line rule. Editors should recognize that if they disagree with another editor they should start a discussion on the article's talk page and work to a resolution; when they just undo each other's contributions instead without discussing then an admin may need to intervene. In cases like that I prefer protection, or in very rare cases I've blocked everyone, but I would never block only the edit-warrior who was the first to break 3RR. I can't define here exactly what an edit war is: there is no "clear and logical" rule for this, and there should not be, because such rules are easily gamed by disruptive editors. It should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

I guess this argument is also why I spend very little time patrolling the 3RR noticeboard. I think 3RR is a silly rule, to be honest: you should just not edit war, and if someone suggests that you are edit-warring then you should stop. But that's very idealistic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'm no expert in this policy at all, I just happened to comment on it one time, and then have it pointed out that my view was probably at least partly incorrect. Don't rely on my interpretation of policy too strongly! ;) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:Admins are not mindless blocking machines. We can think and look at a situation to see if something looks like it violates the policy or not, and decide whether a warning, block, or protection is better. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If admins are not mindless blocking machines, why do we need a rule that looks strict and concrete, but its application is de facto at admin's discretion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, the link in your post is dead. Which policy are you talking about?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Every rule written must have some room for discretion. Your proposal leaves room for discretion as to what "recent" is (BLPs can be recently deceased for up to 2 years...) Keeping it this way makes room for less wikilawyering and respects that admins are not in fact mindless blocking machines.

The link is a red link on purpose. It was a joke meant to prove a point. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

As I already explained to NeilN, I actually prefer a 24hr window: a revert of any edit made withing a last 24 hours is considered a revert, for longer edits is it just a normal editing (changed the text of the proposed changes accordingly). In other words: I added/removed - you reverted (at that moment a 3RR counter started) - I reverted - and so on. This is a quite strict rule, and it allows us to stop real hot edit wars. With regard to sluggish edit wars, we all agree that on universal rule can be proposed to stop them.

This change is important, because currently many good faith users may find themselves in a situation when their normal editing process, when no edit wars occur, becomes a formal violation of 3RR, and they should rely on vise admins who may pardon them. Meanwhile, a normal situation should be totally inverse.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Tracing this situation back, I find that you and the editor who gave you the edit warring warning a few days back were embroiled in a dispute almost seven years ago that led to the full protection of the article. [1] Fully endorse the status quo which allows admins to use their judgement and discourages wikilawyering. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your argument: I would never start proposing any policy improvements if the current policy fully satisfied me. Surely, any proposal of that kind are associated with some concrete dispute. With regard to the concrete collision, it fully demonstrated my point: a poll on the talk page demonstrates that overwhelming majority of users do not consider the version that contains the disputed statement a stable consensus version, this version clearly violates NPOV, as many reliable sources demonstrate, but a user whom you are talking about keep restoring this non neutral statement because 1RR is easy to game. Is that wikilawyering what you endorse? --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: A significant change to policy is wholly unnecessary to address this. If you can point to a consensus, head over to WP:AE and file a report on the user consistently violating consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, I am experienced enough to resolve my problems with Collect by myself. The dispute with Collect demonstrated the global flaw in the current definition of "revert", which I want to fix. The problem with all of you is that you look at this situation from admin's point of view, and, yes, this version of the policy is definitely more preferable for those admins who are enforcing 3RR. However, other users may think otherwise, because the spirit of the law is to prevent real edit wars, not to give a freedom of manoeuvre for various wikilawers and POV pushers, and to equate those who made a bold addition of some content and boldly removes something.

Indeed: if I add some statement to a stable version of an article, no 3RR clock start to click. However, if I remove some text that was added more than 24 hr ago, 3RR counter is set to "1". Why?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: This is a fundamental application of WP:AGF AND WP:BRD. We assume all additions to articles are improvements. Reverts needs to be accompanied by a reasonable justification. We don't want articles to become frozen just because an editor decides the current version is "good enough". I fully realize that this sometimes means leaving articles in a suboptimal state but if the material added is truly poor, other editors will get involved. And this isn't an admin vs. an editor thing. One of my RFA noms did the work and found I had 237 edits to WP:ANEW as an editor. I fully supported the current definition then as I do now as it seems to me that it strikes a good balance between stability vs. article calcification. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, bold removal of some material is equally good faith editing, especially taking into account that Wikipedia articles have a tendency of uncontrollable growth. Right now I am working on cleaning of another article that inflated to almost unreadable state, and our edits are aimed to remove redundant materials. I am pretty sure we are violating 3RR rule, because we are modifying different parts of the article, but there is no edit war between us.

Another example: a removal of a long standing unsourced text: it is frequently as bold and as good faith edit as addition of some text. In general, when Wikipedia becomes older, cleaning articles from redundant or poor quality content may become more importangt than addition of a new content. Think strategically.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

And again, admin judgment plus policy. "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." Are you disagreeing about content and overriding each other? No? Then why are you going to get reported much less blocked? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, alas, that implies all parties assume good faith, however, when an edit war starts, at least one side does not assume it. Consider a situation when two users are working on the article collaboratively, but one more user wants to disrupt their work. This user accuses them in 3RR violation under a pretext that they make interleaving edits (which include removal of some material). Of source, a wise admin will resolve the situation. (I myself resolved my last collision with Collect even without that, and the changes I wanted to implement are currently implemented). However, I cannot understand any rational reason behind the old rule.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, just for the sake of pointing this out, XRR is not a right. We can and do block for edit warring for less when it is clear the intent is to have a win at all costs attitude or one that has been slow burning. Further changes to this could be interpreted to imply a right to edit war over old edits, which is not the case. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, I understand that. I do not understand why a person who does not start any edit war may found themselves guilty because the rules are awkwardly formulated. So far, I got just two arguments in support of an existing version: (i) we cannot change a rule because the removal of old material may be used for edit warring (which assumes bad faith, because any edit may be used for edit warring) , and (ii) we, admins, can decide if we can pardon some violations. (The argument that I proposed this change because of my dispute with Collect is not serious, because, as NeilN correctly noted, if I wanted Collect to be blocked or topic banned, I could go to AE (especially taking into account that the article is under DS).

I am thinking strategically: Wikipedia is gradually inflating to almost unreadable state, and removal of some material may be more noble task that addition of fresh content. Think about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Having only read this page I get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that you lost a dispute and rather than take the learning experience you're off to try and codify a specific interpretation in policy that perscribes and circumscribes definitions over Edit Warring so that it limits Administrators hands. Admins are given a wide latitude because they've been scrutinized and their permissions can be pulled relatively quickly when they do go off the reservation. I'm speaking up as a second voice that your proposals open a can of worms that make it much easier to wiki-lawyer about definitions. Feel free to launch a proper RFC as your proposal has wide ranging implications and at minimum needs to be advertized at Administrators Noticeboard, Village Pump, and Centralized Notices. Hasteur (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hasteur, I am not sure I can take any learning experience from this dispute, because the only argument that I fully understand is that those users who add a new information are by default treated with less suspect than those who remove it. I pointed your attention at the fact that if this attitude will not change, WP may become a garbage bin (although it may be totally free of any edit wars). This argument was fully ignored, and I think the reason is that admins devote more time and efforts to administrative tasks than to editing. That is perfectly ok, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedy, and admins are not creating any content (by that, I mean that when a user is acting as admins, they do not create any content, and when they do create content they are not considered admins). Actually, admins are just service personnel whose goal is to create normal working conditions for us, and if they fail to create a logically non-controversial rules, or at least to explain them properly, something is wrong, because when the summary of most responses is: "We admins know better", it is not helpful.

If Wikipedia will die, it will happen not due to edit wars, but due to a gradual decrease of content's quality. You all are telling about a can of worms, but I got absolutely no rational explanation, what kind of worms will be released as a result of that.

PS. I already wrote about that, but it seems it needs to be reiterated: if modification of a policy page requires posting at AN, RfC, etc., may be it makes sense to add this information to the current page notice? At least, if I read that before I started this thread, I would act accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Uncontentious modifications to policy pages don't require advertising. See the history of blocking policy for example. Contentious changes generally do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Why doesn't the page notice inform about that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It does. The second box on this talk page contains a link to WP:PGBOLD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"Obvious" vandalism

On List of people from Brno, an IP has been replacing one of the entries on the list with a redlinked/unlinked name, presumably their friend or suchlike. If I revert this, does it count as reverting "obvious" vandalism? Jdcooper (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Your edit summary says “revert non-notable”, which sounds subjective. It would be more straightforward if you contested it as “unsourced”.—Bagumba (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The general inclusion criteria established for this list and many others is that they are blue links. The editor is replacing a blue link with a red link. I therefore wouldn't say that my rationale was subjective. Jdcooper (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:REDYES says red links are OK if the subject should realistically deserve a page. In this specific case, someone w/ more hockey knowledge should double-check if this is a hoax. Initial hits I am seeing are solely from Wikipedia.—Bagumba (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If the anon IP was just adding a red-linked name I would be more sympathetic and circumspect, but the fact they are replacing a real person with a red-link with no sourcing is a red flag for me. Jdcooper (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Circular redirect

Should [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule]] be changed to [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#The three-revert rule|Wikipedia:Three-revert rule]] in the see also section to avoid the page loading again? Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 13:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)