Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2023/March

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Flow

Latest comment: 1 year ago23 comments3 people in discussion

@Bbb23: Regarding your revert, on the talk page you say "putting parts in different places" is a bad idea. I completely agree. I see my edit as moving (1) a sentence giving one reason to not revert (another editor may do the revert for you) to join (2) a sentence giving another reason to not revert (administrators will look at the talk page discussion). Result: both parts are in the same place.
Please let me know whether you agree that the two sentences discuss the same topic (reasons to not revert). And, if you don't, please tell me why. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I request the courtesy of a reply to this post. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@Bbb23: The first rationale you gave for your revert is "as I said on the Talk page, the flow is better if this sentence is left at the end." I have responded with an explanation of why I believe my edit results in better flow than the original text. You have replied with silence. Pursuant to WP:NOTSILENCE, I am notifying you that I am construing your silence as agreement with my explanation. If I don't hear otherwise from you soon, I will proceed to respond to your second rationale ("you didn't get consensus for this change"). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

My silence doesn't mean agreement, and this has been discussed elsewhere. You do not have a consensus for making the change.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Please direct me to the discussion "elsewhere" regarding whether this particular edit does or does not improve the flow of the text. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [@Bbb23: since I created the ping in this post by editing, I'm not sure that it notified you, so I'm pinging again. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)]
It appears that you believe you don't need to discuss your revert because the edit you reverted does not have consensus. I've started a section to discuss that issue below. Let's come back to this "flow" issue after we've resolved that one. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

No consensus as a rationale for a revert

@Bbb23: I have previously alerted you to the policy that states:

. . .you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it either in your edit summary or on the talk page.

You have since conceded that this is "superficially true."
Ah, but I hear you say, "that only applies if no one objects and I have objected." That brings us to the policy that states:

When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense . . .

In short, a reverting editor has a duty to engage in a good faith discussion. They may not (a) revert, (b) refuse to discuss, and then (c) fault the other editor for a lack of consensus, that would be classic status quo stonewalling.
Please let me know if you disagree with this analysis. If you don't, please reply above and explain why you believe the the edit you reverted harms the section flow. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Changes to "How to avoid an edit war"

Taking the advice within the "How to avoid an edit war" section, let's discuss this proposed change. The first paragraph is discussing what do when a dispute occurs: start a discussion, don't edit war, and add a cleanup tag. I think it would be a digression to bring in the possible actions of others into this paragraph. Thus I do not support the change.

The clause starting with "if a revert is necessary..." isn't really about avoiding an edit war, but demonstrating there is evidence that one editor is editing against consensus. Perhaps the entire sentence would be better reworded as something like, "If you reverted a change that you feel was against consensus, and it is re-inserted, don't revert again: let someone else consider if the change has consensus support." isaacl (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for discussing the substance of this edit.

I agree that the sentence can be improved wherever it ends up. But the question I'd like to discuss first - if you're willing - is where the recommendation (however it is worded) should go in the section. Presently, it's after the "what to do if discussion stalls" paragraph. That doesn't seem right. Maybe after the "Some experienced editors" paragraph? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Okay, so the sentence doesn't work well in the first paragraph. But is the second to last paragraph (where it currently resides) the best place for it, or should it be somewhere else in the section? (I'm suggesting after the "Some experienced editors" paragraph.) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest merging the content with the second paragraph. For example:

Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of reverting only edits covered by the exceptions listed above or limiting themselves to a single revert. If the change is re-inserted, instead of reverting again, they let someone else consider if the change has consensus support. Reverting only when necessary, preferring to discuss disputes, and seeking feedback from more editors avoid making the problem worse by escalating into a revert cycle. (If necessary, request page protection to break the cycle among uncooperative editors.) This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, resulting in more frequent edit warring.

isaacl (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That works for me. Let's give @user:Bbb23 a couple days to weigh in before we make this change. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, all interested parties are welcome to provide their feedback. isaacl (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Issacl: I need a little clarification about what you're proposing before commenting. Are you proposing any changes to any other paragraph in the section or only the one paragraph?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Issac1 will tell us whether I'm right or not, but I think the content their text merges into the second paragraph is "if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without prompting), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action'' from the second to last paragraph. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I am proposing to remove the paragraph starting with "Rather than reverting repeatedly...", and replacing the second paragraph with the text I suggested (thus merging the essence of the removed content into the second paragraph). New record: three typos in two references to my user name! isaacl (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about misspelling your username, Isaacl. Other than merging content from the first to the second paragraph, you are also removing some things completely and adding some new things. You are removing (1) the first sentence about edit summaries and Talk page discussion, (2) the part about cleanup tags and deadlines, and (3) the last sentence see also. You are adding the part about page protection. I'm not sure if I picked up on everything because I had to keep flip-flopping back and forth to see the old and new language in the second paragraph and the first paragraph. Did I miss anything?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't make any suggestions with respect to the first paragraph. Here are the proposed changes in a side-by-side diff format:

isaacl (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think your changes are an improvement on what's already there?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe the fourth paragraph covers the same ground in the second paragraph on not reverting repeatedly and on discussing disputes with more editors. Thus I feel this aspect can be covered within a single paragraph. This reduces repetition which saves readers time. isaacl (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that. First, you've eliminated one paragraph but made another paragraph longer, so there is just as much for the user to read. Second, as I tried unsuccessfully to explain to Butwhatdoiknow (and finally gave up), the flow is better in keeping the 4th paragraph, and it builds better to the conclusion. There are other quibbles I have with your wording, but I won't get into those as even if you fixed them, I would oppose the changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that you do not feel the changes are desirable. (I have read your previous comments.) Thanks for the feedback. isaacl (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Current text paragraphs: (1) Discuss, (2) Revert only when necessary, (3) What to do when discussion is not producing consensus, (4) Don't revert repeatedly, (5) Bottom line.

Do you agree that paragraphs (2) and (4) deal with similar concepts? If so, why is it better to put paragraph (3) between (rather than after) paragraphs (2) and (4)? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

3RR: Reverting disputed material VS. reverting any material

Latest comment: 1 year ago71 comments18 people in discussion

Hello. I recently came into dispute with another editor who accused me of edit warring. That editor provided five diffs of my edits to the article in question. In dispute was the addition of a notability tag to the article. However, the five diffs showed three different things being edited: A notability tag, a plot length tag, and passage in which an another editor added detail to the lede that I thought was excessive. Of these, the reverts to the notability tag numbered two. Both editors stated that 3RR prohibits any three edits to the article, regardless of whether the edits are to the disputed portion under discussion, or some other portion of the article, and cited the text on the policy page that states this:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.

I was suprised to read this, since the 3RR discussions I've observed (and I admit I don't have a photographic recall or links to specific ones) have indicated that the community addresses reverts only to the portion of the article under dispute -- specifcally that which undoes another editor's edits. If the interpretation given by those other editors, and the text above, indicates that this is not the case, then that means that if one of the editors finds a cool link that would make a good addition to the External links section, or thinks of a category that could be added to the bottom of the page, or takes a photograph of a biographical article subject and adds it to the Infobox, that this would be edit-warring/3RR as well. This does not seem reasonable, nor make sense.

In addition, the text that follows that which I quoted above above text appears to be self-contradictory:

The term "page" in the three-revert rule above is defined as any page on Wikipedia, including those in talk and project spaces. The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material...

An edit that reverses or undoes the actions of another editor is one thing. But saying, "whether involving the same or different material" does not. If it's "different" material, then we're not talking about the material over which the multiple editors are disputing. Again, if two editors are arguing over the lede, and I add a category to article, that's edit warring? That would mean that any edit during a dispute is edit warring, which again, is not what I've observed in discussions to date.

Can we clarify this? How does this make sense. Shouldn't the policy only restrict itself to the material under dispute, and not unreleated material in the same article? Nightscream (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I think current policy already allows for editing unrelated material that is not under dispute, as long as that editing is not a reversion that undoes the work of another editor. Adding a category is fine (assuming no one recently removed the category), but removing a tag someone just added is not. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand why Nightscream is trying to compare adding new material with a revert. It's a false equivalency. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not comparing adding new material with a revert. I'm comtrasting reverting disputed material with material that is not in dispute. The fact that the example I used above involved new material is incidental. The point is that the disputed material should not be reverted. Material that is not part of a dispute between the two editors is not what the policy applies to, which is pretty much what Firefangledfeather's statement above corroborates. The revert of the plot length tag, therefore, is not a 3RR violation. The only two edits that were of the same material was the notability tag, which does not violate 3RR, since two, by my rough estimate, is not three. Nightscream (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You're wrong. The edits you did at The Worldwide Privacy Tour were a clear violation of 3RR. You did 4 reverts all subject to the EW rule. As for your notion about the plot tag, that tag was added on March 4, and you removed it on March 5, which was an obvious revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're reverting a change because you disagreed with it, then by definition you're disputing the change. The goal of avoiding edit-warring is to spend time discussing proposed changes and establishing consensus if it hasn't been done already, rather than just repeating pairs of edits and reverts. The total number of reverts is less important than engaging in discussion. isaacl (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Nightscream: Material that is not part of a dispute between the two editors is not what the policy applies to You're wrong about that. The rule says "revert", period. The permitted exceptions are listed, and say nothing about "under dispute". Paradoctor (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

So if two editors are having a dispute on say, the level of detail in the lede, and one of them, while waiting out a discussion on the matter, notices that another changed a photograph further down in the article that they don't think is a better choice, or maybe added inccurate/uncited/POV info to the caption. They revert that edit. And maybe they also notice that a redundant category was added to the categories. You're saying that those edits go to 3RR? Do you really think that was the problem that the community intended to address? Nightscream (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. As everyone has already said, those are reverts, and thus they contribute to the count of 3RR. If I find three different issues, and revert each of them 2-3 times, that's 6-9 reverts all in the same article, and thus that's absolutely the problem that the community intended to address. -- Alex_21_TALK 02:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Nightscream: The problem addressed is avoiding edit wars. If reverting would put you in violation of 3RR, get consensus first. You can also wait. Paradoctor (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That's why I'm asking if reverting a portion of an article not related to the portion being disputed would put you in violation of 3RR. Can you answer that question? Nightscream (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I also notice that no one has answered my question about the self-contradictory portion of the text I quoted. Nightscream (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If you have reverted any porition of an article, it therefore becomes disputed, even if it's not related to separate disputed content. That means that your terms of "reverting disputed material" and "reverting any material" mean exactly the same thing. Therefore, yes, it puts you in violation of 3RR, as you've been told by multiple editors. -- Alex_21_TALK 02:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Sorry. If I revert a category that someone added a month ago, or a photo that I notice someone changed a year ago, that is not what the word "dispute" is used to refer to on Wikipedia. A dispute in this context refers to an ongoing disagreement. It does not refer to any ol' revert. No one on Wikipedia uses the word "dispute" in the way you describe. Nightscream (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Sorry. Those are reverts; you've clarified this yourself by saying If I revert. What you consider a dispute is irrelevant to the nature of the revert. For example, you performed five reverts within 24 hours on one article; what material is concerned is irrelevant. -- Alex_21_TALK 02:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say they're not reverts. You said that it "becomes disputed". The word, especially as it is used in pertaining to editorial disptues and 3RR is not used to refer to such things.

And yes, what the editing community considers to be a "dispute" is indeed relevant. That's why you said it was a dispute above. Nightscream (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If you revert material, you are disputing it. I'm not sure what's not crystal clear about that. -- Alex_21_TALK 02:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure. There is too much detail. CastJared (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Since you asked ... in the time since I began regularly reviewing reports at ANEW, 3RR has indeed been applied this way—a revert of other material in the article after the third revert of the same material, within the 24-hour period, has been so counted as a violation.

I know it's not quite in keeping with how everyone understands the rule, but I understand how it is in keeping with its spirit.

First, the damage unrestrained edit warring does to the project goes beyond the refusal to strive for consensus. It permits an environment in which, basically, might (or rather tenacity) makes right, which is not how encyclopedic content ought to be produced. "Two falls to none" is not sufficient to settle the question of God's existence, and tugs of war are best left to fire department charity fundraisers where it doesn't matter who wins.

It also puts some teeth in WP:OWN by making it harder for a determined editor or editors to assert de facto control over a page by making other editors decide it isn't worth the trouble to challenge them. We already block editors who game the system by only reverting two or three times total within a particular day; it would by extension make sense to block editors who, having reverted one editor on the same thing three times, reverts another one on a different thing one or two times. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: You're not answering my question. If a revert is made to a portion of the article unrelated to the portion being disputed, does that count toward 3RR in your view? Nightscream (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nightscream: Your question was answered a long time ago by a lot of people, including me. Your interpretation of the policy is simply wrong. Your continuing this discussion and canvassing of many other editors has become disruptive. You should drop this.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

In your opinion. You do not speak for the entire editing community, more than one member of which has expressed views that match my own on the matter, as seen below.

The question is a valid one to discuss, which is why editors have every right to raise the discussion and invite many others to join it, whether you like it or not.

And btw, canvassing requires four criteria to be met. Three of them are objectively defined, and are not met any stretch of the imagination here. The fourth pertains to the number of editors contacted, which is also not defined. So your accusation is a false one, and a violation of WP:AGF. Nightscream (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend you talk to the administrators of Wikipedia more civilly if you want to get a point across to edit a policy. -- Alex_21_TALK 07:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Depends on the revert. One covered at 3RRNO obviously shouldn't count. But if the revert is within the 24 hours and the action being reverted is also recent, and isn't something like removing unsourced content (to which 3RRNO only applies when it's BLP-related) where there's no need for consensus, it probably should. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

if reverting a portion of an article not related to the portion being disputed would put you in violation of 3RR I'm beginning to see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The policy states it explicitly: the same or different material (my emphasis). Paradoctor (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nightscream Is there a basis or reasoning for the 16 editors you've personally reached out to regarding this discussion? -- Alex_21_TALK 03:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're asking why I asked so many other editors to join, it's because it's my practice when starting a consensus discussion, because it's easier to discern the general consensus of the community with a larger sample, and because you never know which ones are going to respond, and which ones aren't.

@Daniel Case: Thanks for commenting. What is your position regarding the second part of my first message above, regarding whether the quoted text is self-contradictory? Nightscream (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I came here because I was invited also. Honestly, the wording seems quite clear to me. This discussion seems too hung up on the number of reverts. When I block a user for edit warring, it's for edit warring regardless of the number of reverts. It could be as little as two reverts. The purpose of the 3RR policy is to provide a measurable guideline for a violation, but as far as I'm aware, administrators don't block for violating 3RR specifically, they block for edit-warring, using their own judgment depending on the situation. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thanks for responding. Do you consider it edit warring if during a dispute, one of the editors spots some unrelated portion of the article that needs improvement, and changes that, thus reverting a different editor not related to the dispute?

Do you agree that the quoted text above is contradictory? Nightscream (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't consider it warring if an unrelated improvement was made. And no, I don't consider the text quoted above contradictory. Context matters. Administrators are trusted to judge the context of an edit and determine whether it constitutes edit warring. An editor who is warring in another area will be blocked for that reason. If the unrelated edits were disruptive to make a WP:POINT, then the editor will be blocked for that additional reason. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I was invited to give my opinion as well and I agree with Anachronist regarding how I interpret WP:EW, however Daniel Case is correct as to how WP:3RR can, and has been, interpreted. Then again, edit warring and 3rr are two different things, so I don't think the text is necessarily contradictory.
The way I see it, edit warring focuses on the specific dispute and is disruptive regardless of the number of edits or the period in which they have been made. I have blocked editors for engaging in slow-moving edit wars, whereby they made the same edit over a period of days, because they should have stopped and followed WP:DR, for instance.
Also, per policy, for an editor to be edit warring, it's not necessary that their contributions should be reverts, whereas 3rr only focuses on reverts, which means, for instance, that the original addition of controversial material counts if we are talking about edit warring and doesn't count if we are talking about 3rr. —

Salvio giuliano

08:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Do not confuse self-contradictory with one not agreeing. The spirit of "whether involving the same or different material" is that if one finds themselves constantly reverting others' edits, it's time to step back and start a discussion. Period. Discussion might come to the conclusion that only one of the areas being reverted is problematic and the others are fine, but that's better decided on the talk page than with persistent reverting. —Bagumba (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I read that the same way I did before. It applies to reverts or undoes, not additions. An editor's actions independent of a content dispute should not be counted against them for 3RR/EW purposes, not that it stops people from including such edits in their lists of reverts at ANEW and then getting mad when we decline them as "no violation". I don't find it self-contradictory so much as vague ... it should probably make clear that maybe only reverts of editorial actions within the preceding 24 hours, or that have been the subject of past edit wars, should be counted. Things like a removal of a tag placed ages ago after the issue has been addressed should not be counted as "reverts". Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I do actually think this could do with tightening up in the definition. Because "reverses other editors' actions" means, in theory, that ANY removal of content counts toward 3RR (all content was added by an editor action at some point!) I think the spirit of the policy (being about edit warring) would apply this to 'recent' editor actions, e.g you are reverting editor actions from the last 24 hours. This actually meets the pattern of what I would call 'Edit warring'. (Note that removing lots of old content against consensus when you've been asked to discuss it first might still count as disruptive editing) JeffUK 14:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. What you're saying, if I'm understanding it correctly, appears to pretty much dovetail with what I've been saying. @JeffUK, Bagumba, and Salvio giuliano: Do you think it be okay if I edited the text to clarify this, placing emphasis on not reverting the disputed material, and not on reverts of other portions of an article unrelated to the dispute? Nightscream (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I stand by my previous comment, and don't see how charges are needed. —Bagumba (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I would heavily disagree with this particular editor being able to edit the policy, given that the desire to do so seems to be born from being confronted for violating 3RR directly, misinterpreting the policy, and pushing this discussion to the point where an administrator has said to drop it.

On top of that, concerning the comment not on reverts of other portions of an article unrelated to the dispute, this is not what has been said at all, and it's even more concerning that the editor refuses to acknowledge this. -- Alex_21_TALK 19:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Nightscream has also, through implication, painted the situation as one in which s/he made a couple of reverts of my work (the dispute) and the remainder of reverts were outside of any dispute--as if they were just maintenance or something--and, therefore, s/he didn't really violate 3RR or edit war. In reality, of Nightscream's five reverts that day, two undid my edits and the remainder deleted templates placed by other editors--one notability template was reverted twice and one plot-length template was reverted. One can tell from Nightscream's edit summaries--"The plot length and its detail are fine for a reader's understanding of it. Removing tag by Alex 21, who has not bothered to open a discussion to elaobrate on their view. Plot guidelines are just that: Guidelines"; "there are plenty of secondary sources cited in the article that establish notability"; "Revert per WP:NTVEP, which states "Multiple reviews or other reliable, independent, non-trivial commentary demonstrate notability for a television episode." This article includes mutliple reviews. No other required criterion is mentioned"--that s/he was disputing edits other than mine. Nightscream was warring on three fronts simultaneously. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Anecdotally, admins do seem more willing to enforce reversion restrictions when the edit being undone is fresh, though I'd say it's more in the "past few weeks" range than "twenty-four hours". I've consistently seen admins reject the suggestion that removal of content added years ago counts as a revert. In the grey area, edits by a user that re-do something they did months ago are sometimes counted, presumably because the user knows they are taking a second bit out of the apple.

If the community could agree on what exactly counts as a revert, I'd be all for clarifying that in this policy, but I am skeptical. I wouldn't favor a change without wider input (this page has relatively few watchers compared to its impact on the project), and I don't think the situation at hand is a good case study for improvements. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: If the community could agree on what exactly counts as a revert I think the problem here is terminology. A better term would be "(potentially) contentious edit". In theory, I could make a dozen reverts, as long as nobody objects. The way I understand it, 3RR exists to remind editors to carefully gauge whether their edits have consensus or not. It's not an automatic block. Paradoctor (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Paradoctor Pinged the wrong editor; the quote above was from @Firefangledfeathers. -- Alex_21_TALK 07:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry about the friendly fire. Paradoctor (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Paradoctor, I think repeatedly making contentious edits without doing any reverting is sanctionable in other ways. Disruptive editing comes to mind. I do think there's something particularly anti-collaborative about repeatedly undoing others' good-faith, recent work (with exceptions). It's good to have a policy focused on this in particular. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

"is sanctionable in other ways" That is the point. Reverting is disruptive editing, and already covered by existing policy.

Unless I have missed something, 3RR adds nothing new to the toolbox by way of changing standards of evidence, or prescribing/allowing different sanctions. So, any effect it has is limited to focusing attention to a specific type of DE. Paradoctor (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus that only reverts to changes to the page made in the preceding 24 hours count as edit warring. I have frequently heard the view articulated that what changes are considered "recent" depends on the level of activity on the page, so that on an article where editing is not active even material added weeks earlier may be considered "recent" or not part of a "stable version". Basically, my own view has been that if it is easy to identify how recently something was added, its removal counts as a "revert" (sort of a "mists of time" effect - though the structure of WP:3RRN filings tends to support this view, since it is not possible to report an edit as a revert without locating a diff that shows the text/absence of text reverted to - and I have yet to see an article version from years before presented as evidence of a revert...).

Many editors, including myself, have been surprised at one time or another that seemingly uncontroversial changes - such as replacing text or pictures in a section of an article unrelated to a dispute - count as "reverts" and count "against" an editor as 3RR. My own primary irritant is that changes that represent an editorial comprimise and reflect Talk page discussion typically count as reverts (e.g., an editor replaces word X with word Y, someone reverts that, and then following discussion, an editor replaces word X with word Z - the latter edit is always a revert even if it reflects explicit Talk page consensus).

However, it seems to me that the point of having a bright line is much more simply to have a bright line than to put the bright line in the right place. The current 3RR text, which typically allows multiple reverts but is very inclusive about what counts as a revert, does a reasonably good job of slowing disputes when editors keep the rule - and the principles underlying the rule - in mind. Could a hypothetical alternative rule, allowing fewer reverts but being more restrictive in what counts as a revert, target problematic behaviour more precisely? Maybe, but it is almost certain to be require more interptetation than the current language and would inevitably require that administrators (and others) learn a new rule, which makes it most unlikely to be beneficial in a reasonable time frame. Newimpartial (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Some have answered with the strictest most literal interpretation. Taken literally, just actively doing gnome work one day on an article that hasn't been edited in 10 years could technically be considered a 3RR violation. Surely some consideration for it being something in dispute or somewhat recent is intended. Without that the policy would be too easily weaponized. North8000 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

No, North8000; what this means is that each editor should limit themselves to up to three sessions of consecutive edits on a page per day (since any number of consecutive edits only count as one revert). The corollary to this would be to avoid gnoming pages that are being actively edited at the time (to avoid accidental non-consecutive edits). Both of these strike me as best practices regardless of the perceived likelihood of enforcement (whether weaponized or otherwise). Newimpartial (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I was talking about what-if taking it literally and I don't see that in there. But taking it that way would seem the other extreme. Multiple controversial reverts in different areas of the article would count as only one revert if they are consecutive edits. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't considering the any number of consecutive edits only count as one revert rule to be honest, that answers my concern in almost all cases, so I agree it's not worth re-wording. Also considering the 'rules only apply if you draw the attention of the enforcers' rule (I made that one up..) the likelihood of it causing a good-faith editor to be disadvantaged is vanishingly small JeffUK 09:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

...just actively doing gnome work one day on an article that hasn't been edited in 10 years could technically be considered a 3RR violation. No. Assuming the current edits weren't part of some past campaign that went dormant, the initial edits in the present are bold edits. It's when someone else contests the bold edit with a revert, that it can devolve into an edit war if more reverts persist. —Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I've asked about this before and never received a satisfactory answer. It's particularly pressing now that WP:1RR restrictions are so common; with 3RR it's relatively rare for this to matter (since it's honestly not that common, outside of a dispute, for someone to have four non-consecutive edits to the same article in the same day), but for 1RR it can happen very easily. OTOH it may simply be that there's no concrete answer that wouldn't be gamed somehow. --Aquillion (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

As this relates to a cartoon episode (The Worldwide Privacy Tour), I'd recommend the best solution to end a content dispute between two editors, would be to open an RFC on the disputed topic. The more voices, the greater a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You're two days behind. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Topic closed. CastJared (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The more voices, the greater a consensus. And if the editor who started this finds themselves edit-warring in an article on three separate disputed fronts again, then perhaps they need this advice more than ever. -- Alex_21_TALK 07:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You have not established edit warring on "three" fronts. There were disputes to two different parts of the article, and I did not continue reverting after the second revert in each case. The discussion here is whether those should be treated indivdually, or whether all four edits go to 3RR, a point on which there appears to be disagreement here, hence the discussion. Of those two, you appear to have dropped your position on the one in which you were involved (the matter of the notability tag) when I debunked your rationale for reverting.

As for the second matter, which was about how to describe the "royal family", I stopped reverting, whereas the other editor in the dispute, Miesianiacal, continued edting the disputed portion of the article, even after a discussion on it began on the article's talk page, something I did not do, and which you strangely have omitted from your rant. If you're not merely carrying on a personal vendetta against me, then why exempt that editor from your complaint, when reverting during a talk page discussion is unambiguously considered edit warring, and a blockable offense?

As for the third matter, regarding the plot length tag, I believe I reverted that once. How does that constitute edit warring? If that matter is a point of dispute, and reverting it constitutes edit warring, then why did you revert it yet again just two days ago? Does this mean you are edit warring? Or you do you exempt yourself from this accusation? Nightscream (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:TLDR; I'll be more than happy to answer without the wall of text, if you'd like to try again. Cheers!

-- Alex_21_TALK 20:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

As far as the "bright-line" 3RR rule is concerned, I am not seeing any ambiguity: it operates at the level of a page (whether in Article space or elsewhere) and not at the level of specific article text/"parts" of an article. For purposes of 3RR, it doesn't matter whether the reverts are within the same part of an article or address the same "issue", or not. In fact, I think it safe to assume that part of the way the bright-line rule is intended to impact on editing is precisely to discourage editors who have reverted to their preferred version of one passage of an article from reverting to their preferred versions of other passages as separate actions. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that 1RR page restrictions would having their intended effect if an editor only had to worry about multiple reverts for each passage of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

This editor seems to still be having trouble understanding what edit warring is. Can anyone else help guide him/her? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I've already advised opening an RFC on the content dispute-in-question, but to no avail. Therefore, I've called in more input from WP:TELEVISION, to help break the logjam. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This is the talk page for WP:EDITWAR. Please stop trying, in multiple places, to reignite dead content disputes. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The content dispute-in-question appears to be still active, at the cartoon episode page. As for this discussion on WP:EW? The entire thing has run its course & should be hatted. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Does it, though? When's the last time the content in so-called dispute was edited? You've brought this to the EDITWAR talkpage when there's no edit warring to speak of. And have you actually kept up with what's been discussed between myself and Nightscream over the past few days? By doing so, have you noticed I reply to less and less of Nightscream's bloated comments? Did you note that editor seems to have a tendency to argue for the sake of arguing (as if the whole thread above didn't make that clear)? Or did you just see a wall of text and assumed the wording presently in the article is being challenged? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Individual cases should follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.—Bagumba (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that most of the replies either say or acknowledge that the particulars of the specific case and the overall principles of this overall policy matter rather than there being defined by simple clear slam-dunk definition of 3RR, and that the latter probably doesn't exist. And that this forum is not going to make a determination on the particular case. And with the case sort of blended in here, nothing much additional is going to come out of this regarding the policy in general, so IMO this is best closed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I too find the definition of "revert" confusing. Any word in any article was obviously written by someone. The definition of a revert is An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Based on the plain text, removal of any word would be a partial undo of something done by someone and would therefore be a revert. But no one seems to interpret it that way. I agree with North that a slam-dunk definition likely does not exist. But might there exist a definition that is closer to the way it is actually applied? Adoring nanny (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't get too hung up on whether the first edit is a bold edit or a revert. Edit warring is clear when a bunch more are done consecutively in the absence of consensus. —Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba: The original question I raised concerned whether a revert to different parts of an article would count toward 3RR specifically, and not just edit warring in general: That is, if an editor does two reverts to a disputed passage, and then reverts a completely separate portion, does that count as three for the purposes of 3RR, in your opinion? Thank you for your opinion, it is most appreciated. :) Nightscream (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

As I did with Euphoria and House of the Dragon, both owned by HBO, It could count as the purpose of 3RR. This is an example on multi involvement of content dispute. CastJared (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

See my previous comment at 10:35, 7 March (UTC).—Bagumba (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

BTW I meant only what I wrote. I didn't mean that this isn't a good topic for discussion. Like most things in Wikipedia a better rule would acknowledge how well meaning Wikipedians actually operate. Including taking multiple things into consideration such as:

Was it contentious?
Is the person engaged in a battle at the article?
How recent was the edit that it reverted?
How clearly was it a revert (vs interpreting any change to existing text as being a revert)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)