Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2022/March

Revert of March 8

The edit summary for this revert does not provide a substantive objection. Does anyone have one? (ping User:Bbb23) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Tags that have zero benefit for readers and in fact cause them to scroll even more and are simply intended for editors should be used very sparingly.... we should not encourage there use as a policy endorse step. Editor's should do their best to solve problems behind the scene without interruption to the article or flow of the article for readers WP:ADMINP

.Moxy- 03:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a substantive concern. With regard to that concern, I wonder whether you'd agree that there is a more than "zero" benefit for readers to know when content is in dispute. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Who dunnit and when

Here is a Q. At what step the edit warring started in this example? And who started the edit war?

• Step 1: Editor A adds something.
• Step 2: Editor B reverts it.
• Step 3: Editor A adds it again.
• Step 4: Editor B reverts it again.
• Step 5: editor A adds it again.
• Step 6: Editor B reverts it again.

Had to ask from the experienced guys to be sure. Venkat TL (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The question "who started it" is irrelevant. Editor B has reverted 3 times and Editor A twice.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Thanks for the reply. I agree. Allow me to follow up, lets assume, that only step 1,2,3 have occurred so far. At this point is it right to conclude that Editor A is edit warring here without generating consensus for his addition? My intention for asking this question is to understand at what point is it appropriate to call the reverts as Edit warring. Venkat TL (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: I asked essentially the same question a while ago and obtained an interesting answer here. Basically, if I interpreted the response correctly, the exact point at which edit warring starts is debatable; the three-revert rule indicates that edit warring has already started at least by that time, but does not exclude that it may have started earlier. LongLivePortugal (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Need more facts. Assuming blank or meaningless edit summaries (shame on both editors!) and no talk page discussion (shame on both editors!) the edit warring started at Step 3. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow lets assume that other things are not problematic, i.e. edit summary was provided, as is given generally. No talk page discussion was started. @LongLivePortugal, thanks for linking the previous discussion. My understanding is that the 3RR rule (bright line) is clear indication that block is imminent. Admins if convinced that black is needed can block before the 3RR is crossed.

There is a practical need to get this question answered, that is "When to give the edit warring warning". If both users are considered to be edit warring after the same step, then the person warning the other is guilty of the same offence he is warning the other guy for. I would prefer to not be in such a situation. @EdJohnston: how would you answer these questions. Thanks. Venkat TL (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Edit_warring#What_to_do_if_you_see_edit-warring_behavior: Avoid posting a generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself; it can be seen as aggressive.—Bagumba (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, edit summaries are not an exemption from edit warring. The earlier a discussion is started, the better.—Bagumba (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Bagumba points out the value of the advice at Wikipedia:Edit warring#What to do if you see edit-warring behavior. Be aware that it is easy for the closing admin to perceive that one party is being more diplomatic than the other. So if you can obtain any advantage in terms of diplomacy or cooperativeness, treasure it! Be more polite, or more thorough in looking for sources or precedents. It is unfortunate that a confrontation tends to produce bad attitudes on both sides. Try not to be the person with a bad attitude, and seek out any reasonable options for WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The easiest way to avoid all the technicalities and the whims of the patrolling admin is to place a self-imposed WP:1RR on oneself.—Bagumba (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Both may still be warned or even banned, but they also might be subjected to exemptions. The application of this policy vary considerably and depends on many circumstances. If they eventually engage on the talk page it's highly likely that nobody is going to be sanctioned. I would direct you to archives at 3RRArchives to learn more. You may also look at this history Code reuse AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree that edit warring is bad and disruptive, but our policy on this terrible. Let's say in the example offered Editor A adds something that's obviously undue for a lead and B reverts it, and once it gets to step 6 it's not A that's in the wrong it editor B. That doesn't make any sense, this edit warring should begin at 3 or 5, imo. Also the 3-revert rule applying to any content is also bad. If 4 editors make stupid edits on one page in a 24hr period and I revert them all, that shouldn't be edit warring. The 3-revert rule should apply to a particular content change not to a page in a 24hr period. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC) The policy should say: If an editor makes a content change and it is reverted by another editor, the original editor can reinstate in once more, and if reverted again can not reinstate it in a 24-hr period. For example: Editor A makes a content change → Editor B reverts it → Editor A reinstates it → Editor B reverts again → Editor A reinstates it, at this point editor A is edit warring. This only applies to changes to specific content changes in an article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree to both points you said. One of the editor I was having content dispute used this to file a malicious ANEW report and added diffs 4 of which were reverts of COPYVIO even though COPYVIO reverts are WP:NOT3RR. The rule as it stands gives power to file fake reports. your illustration proves it. Venkat TL (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree as well. I have raised this precise question earlier, as mentioned. The policy should state explicitly that, in case of edit warring, the status quo ante bellum prevails, and editors trying to restore it are not edit warring. But I have no idea as to how to promote a policy change... LongLivePortugal (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Until it does say that you've got the option marking the disputed text with {{Template:Under discussion inline}}. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow: I did not know that template! Thank you! Why do we not add that information to this policy page? (Or is it there and I missed it?) LongLivePortugal (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's intended to be used on articles. Usage says to use on project pages (such as policies and guidelines)}}...no mention of articles. Schazjmd (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Good point, now that you mention it. If you're not into wp:Ignore All Rules then maybe {{Template:Disputed inline}} might be more appropriate. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's a collection of tags to consider: Wikipedia:Dispute tags. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Since people seem to agree the current 3RR policy is bad can we change it? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  The proposal can stonewall discussion, encouraging reverts to maintain the status quo.—Bagumba (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

What "proposal" are you talking about? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)