Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2017/January

Letter vs Spirit of the rule discussed at WikiLawyer essay

A common misperception is that eds get 3 free reverts before they have to discuss. Among other places, this might be inadvertently implied by current text at the Wikilawyer essay. I attempted to delete the 3RR example but another editor reverted (thereby preserving the text). The other editor has appeared at the talk page but only to ask a question and express their hope that others will offer their thoughts, and some are starting to do so. I've explained mine in more detail at that venue. Please stop by and chime in! The thread is Wikipedia_talk:Wikilawyering#3RR_example ....... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Definition section

In the section titled "What edit warring is" we never say "An edit war is X." We bury an awkward and implied definition in the third sentence, which tells us when an edit war might "arise". It isn't obvious that this is where we're trying to define it. The intention is understood by experienced eds but we could make it much easier for newbies to comprehend in a single reading. In my view, this section could be improved as follows (except for wikilink tweaks, suggested changes are shown in strikeout and underline)

WHAT EDIT WARRING IS Edit wars are a series of back-and-forth edits called "reverts" that tend to cancel each other out and are made without discussion between the editors. Wikipedia encourages editors to be boldmake bold edits, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, any edit may be reverted by another editor who has legitimate concerns about it may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) or one of its constructive alternatives, but an edit war may be starting if an editor restores their desired text by reverting another's revert without prior discussion.An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts "Nevertheless, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring: Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. However, edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism § Types of vandalism and Wikipedia:Vandalism § What is not vandalism. Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required. Reverting edits by banned or blocked users is not edit warring. Reverting edits in one's own user page is rarely edit warring. Traditionally, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. For more information, see Wikipedia:User pages § Ownership and editing of user pages. When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. This can be done in the edit summary and/or talk page. Anti-vandalism tools such as Twinkle, Huggle and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes without an appropriate edit summary.

No doubt this could be polished further. Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a definition already: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." What constitutes an edit war is pretty much a subject of personal judgement by admins when someone reports a presumed violator to 3RRNB. This is difficult to formalize. An edit war frequently happens after discussion, hence your definition is not good. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the verbiage in the lead. However, the lead is supposed to summarize the contents of the body. In this case, the body does not actually say that. It implies it, but it doesn't say it. So the section is still deficient, even if my idea still needs work. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Improving policy pages requires a lot of knowledge and experience. Your version is not good for a number of reasons: (a) you suggest to remove "while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed" (no, that was good by indicating that finding consensus is a "trial and error" process), (b) no, not any edit may be reverted (e.g. modifying/removing comments made by another contributor on a talk page may be considered disruptive), (c) you tell "legitimate concerns" and link to WP:CONSENSUS - this is incorrect, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for specific comments.

• Re "A", good idea to insert a sentence saying Finding consensus on Wikipedia is often a process of trial-and-error.
• Re "B", that's also a good point and can be worked out in the details
• Re "C", please see new subsection for that topic below.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Linking "legitimate concerns" to the Consensus policy

In the opening section, an editor opposes linking "legitimate concerns" to WP:CONSENSUS, saying merely that doing so is "incorrect".

The reason I think this is correct and helpful is because the nutshell bubble at the CONSENSUS policy says -

"Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." (bold added)

This point is further developed in that policy's section titled "Through editing". Also, the opposite is described at the policy against disruptive editing. Editors who revert without a legitimate reason are unable to answer other editors' questions and are not engaged in consensus building -- both of which are highlighted in the policy at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. For these reasons, it is perfectly reasonable to link "legitimate concerns" to the WP:CONSENSUS policy, and the only question is whether doing so on this page will help editors understand the edit war policy or reduce the frequency of EWs.

What do others think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought that was obvious. One may revert for a number of different reasons/concerns. Was it something "legitimate" is always a matter of debate. One does not need "consensus" because the consensus may not yet be established at the moment of initial edits. What you suggested was not an improvement. My very best wishes (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

First, nothing is obvious to NEWBIES. Second, the matter already makes frequent appearance at drama boards. Third, the many related essays (e.g., WP:OZD and WP:ONLYREVERT, etc) were inspired by people still not abiding by this. Fourth, if you think it is obvious does that mean you no longer think it is "incorrect" as you said before in this the first part of the thread? And if its obvious then is their harm in saying it again here? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Telling that all reverts must comply with WP:CONSENSUS (as you suggested by linking "legitimate concerns" to WP:CONSENSUS) is obviously incorrect because the consensus may not yet be established at the moment of the initial edits. In addition, the existing version of policy (quoted by you above) tells about a number of situations when WP:CONSENSUS is not required (reverting vandalism, banned users, etc.) My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the CONSENSUS policy describes the quest for consensus as one that "addresses legitimate concerns", and this is what I think I wrote. Fact you're opposed is noted, lets see what others think. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC) PS Re your later tweak to the prior comment note that policy's very first sentence defines it as a process, not a finished product.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

While concerns and consensus might be related, they are not nearly the same thing. Therefore a link would be inappropriate per WP:EGG. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Exemptions

I'd like to ask whether 3RR applies to some certain situations, and whether it is appropriate to revert every violation of a policy.

Does 3RR apply to:

• Edits that do not adhere to the Manual of Style?
• Addition of unsourced content and original research (aside from BLP)?
• Addition of content that is clearly not relevant to the article?
• Addition of content that does not adhere to neutral point of view?

Thank you. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 19:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, generally, to the list of questions. You shouldn't need to ask this if you read WP:3RRNO.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I did read the list of exemptions, but I wanted to ask because I would've thought that clear policy violations, such as the addition of original research, should be removed regardless of how many times it is added.

Suppose, right now, a new user or IP adds the full competition results of cycle 23 of America's Next Top Model, which hasn't finished airing, to its article, with no reliable sources, and the info isn't verifiable either. I revert them and welcome them with {{welcomeunsourced}}, {{welcome-anon-unsourced}} or {{uw-nor1}}. They instantly put the info back with no sources and without responding, and I revert them again, leaving them a {{Uw-nor2}} warning. They revert again with no sources or response, and I revert them a third time, giving them a {{Uw-nor3}} warning. They revert a third time, again with no sources or response. If I revert again, I will have reverted four times, but if I don't, the original research stays on the page. What should I do then? Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 21:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

the first time they restore it without discussion they are edit warring. It's nice you give them the cautionary/educational template. If they restore it again without discussion, that is a good time to leave the text alon so that you have clean hands and remember that Wikipedia is not an emergency. The world will go on for a few days with junk in an article. It as this point that I report people who not engage in discussion. There is no need to wait until 3rr is broken before asking for help preventing problems of this sort. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Things to consider include that, in that situation, I'm dealing with A) a new editor, B) who has made one revert and C) and likely doesn't know about 3RR. It may be better to wait until they have reverted twice, after being given a level 2 caution, and report if they still have not provided an explanation or reference (I call this "drive-by editing"), but still, I don't feel it is right for me to report them straight to a noticeboard after so few edits. I don't want a long written case about a very new user at ANI or NORN, and I can't report them to a noticeboard where the problem can be dealt with quickly (AIV; edits are not obvious vandalism; or AN3; no 3RR vio yet). I'm tempted to, in such a situation, IAR keep on reverting, continuing to cite WP:NOR on their talk page, or, possibly better, just quickly tell an admin on their talk page. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 01:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Consistency with WP:BLP page

I think this minor edit makes the phrase more clear and unequivocal. I am simply using (almost copy-paste) the corresponding phrase from WP:BLP page, which is our main policy (Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately). This phrase currently used on WP:BLP is more clear because it does not use wording like "libelous" and "biased". For example, one can argue that any mentioning of crime (even proven in court) was "biased". However, it is the most important that the information about the crime must be well sourced. That is what WP:BLP tells. This is simply a matter of consistency of this page with our main policy page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternate proposal 1 it would be even more clear to drop the modifying phrase altogether. If I understand correctly removal of any BLP violation qualifies for the exemption but the current text could be interpreted otherwise. Instead of trying to refine our summary of that other policy here let's just remove the strike out text Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. Note, I left out existing wiki links here, but we should preserve them if we agree to delete the strikeout. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No significant objections from me, although I would definitely prefer to remove only two words to remind what we are talking about. My very best wishes (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Given no objections here, I made the change. My very best wishes (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Reverting without talking like here (2nd time already) is not the way of consensus-building. According to this very page, "rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others". Please explain here your specific objections to the edit. And if you do not have any specific objections, why revert? My very best wishes (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)