Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2022/September

Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users.

This is a bit vague and needs more clarity. Obviously, banned/blocked editors can't be making new edits. As stated, it might allow anyone to edit war and just say they thought they were a sock. Logic dictates there is no reason to edit war over 3RR with any sock unless the edits are BLP violations, etc or meet the other criteria, making this rule unnecessary. Reverting after they have been blocked is of course fine, but that isn't a 3RR issue. Flat out letting editors edit war with (for example) has a topic ban or is a sock, when the edit isn't contentious, is bad policy. We want to deal with the sock or tban violation, but letting editors edit war over it isn't helping the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's a valid 3RR exemption unless the account has been blocked as a sock already, or the edits are vandalism. Report either to AIV, or to SPI, and if they are blocked then revert them. If you aren't confident enough to report, you shouldn't be confident enough to revert; if you report and they don't get blocked, you shouldn't be reverting. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this came up at ANI, and I didn't block the guy because he felt it was allowed (in good faith). This exemption really makes no sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Reverting actions by users already blocked as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. makes more sense, as a final act only, even if it breaks 3RR. THAT is what the exemption is really for. "Banned" doesn't even matter. Just want feedback before changing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would love to solicit more feedback. We've heard from Girth Summit, but would it be reasonable to post at WT:SPI to get thoughts from more people who are experienced in anti-sockpuppetry work? I'd also like to post at WT:LTA, as I usually see edit wars with socks when it's obvious because they're LTAs and people know them right away. Checking first to make sure I'm in the clear per WP:CANVASS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Go ahead and cross post it. It isn't canvassing until you are giving your opinion in the post. I was an SPI clerk for some time, but it really isn't an SPI issue, it is a pretty standard admin issue. I will post at WP:AN. That should be enough, but I won't stop you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Btw, this is the case that caused confusion and raised the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Change to "Reverting actions by users already blocked as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet."

• Support as this more closely aligns to the goal, and avoids confusion by editors who edit war with someone they think is a sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Folks who revert socks relying on this exemption do so at their own risk. The exemption protects only those who are actually reverting socks; there's no "but I thought they were a sock" exemption. If I genuinely but wrongly think someone is a sock, and I breach 3RR in reverting them, I can – and should – be blocked. Same goes for those who wrongly rely on the other WP:3RRNOs: for example, shouting "but I thought it was BLP" won't prevent a block if the thing you're removing isn't a BLP violation. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The thinking someone was a sock has caused annoying enough problems that this clarification helps. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support; edit warring with unblocked socks is usually a bad idea if no other 3RRNO criterium applies (and sometimes even then). Note that Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors will also need adjustment; removing and without regard to the three-revert rule should do the trick nicely. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Innocent until proven guilty applies- drop the stick and report to SPI if you feel like someone is a sock instead of trying to edit war with them. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. After further thought, I feel like this change to the wording would cause issues for cases of WP:DUCK. Considering the rather considerable backlog at SPI, a sockmaster could theoretically just constantly throw new accounts and IPs at an article to push their preferred version through and an individual editor would not have any real ability to deal with it until the page is semi-ed or an admin cleans up the socks. Either situation would be annoying to deal with and hamper their ability to combat socking. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - the reverts against a sock prior to their being blocked should likewise not be considered edit-warring after the fact. Making this change makes it too easy to game changes in through socking. That said, I dont think you are excused from edit-warring because you think somebody a sock, but reverts made prior to the sock being blocked, provided they are eventually blocked, should also not be held against you. nableezy - 16:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  You are misunderstanding the exemption. If they get blocked, then any revert ever made against them is already covered, with either version. You are looking at 1% of the circumstances, we are trying to address the 99%. If reverts against a sock are exempt, then how do you define "sock"? An unsubstantiated claim? Or by a block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Reverting actions by users already blocked as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. would seem to apply only to the reverts that took place after the block, not retroactively exempt those that occured prior to the block. I get what youre trying to accomplish, but I think this proposed change makes things too easily gameable. And as somebody who has primarily edited in a topic that has been literally infested with socks for years and years and years those 1% of circumstances to you feel more like 60-70% to me. nableezy - 17:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Re: If they get blocked, then any revert ever made against them is already covered, with either version - are you sure this is what you mean? So the reverts made by the editor whose case you linked above are covered, because the account they were reverting was blocked as a sock the day after the ANI? I'm afraid some kind of grandfather paradox may come of this... Newimpartial (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed change empowers banned people who would suddenly be able to reign over their topics of interest by creating an endless stream of socks or IPs. I'm deeply involved in this area of the wiki, and I assure you the proposed change would effectlvely tie the hands of vandal fighters. Our gears move too slowly to prevent the disruptive block evaders from causing much more disruption. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, such a change is a giant green light for the various vandals and pov pushers who lie behind many of the recurring sock farms, many of whom are already adept at manipulating our permissive editing system. SPI cases, even really obvious ones, can languish for weeks, or even months. In the meantime deleterious changes, even vandalism, sits in articles, and can even become embedded into them as further edits are made. This turns anti-vandal fighting from a relatively simple task of reverting into a much longer chore of waiting for a block (or waiting for the SPI case to be closed as "too old, no action taken"!), going back to the damaged pages, and then sorting between diffs if you want to keep any later constructive edits. As Binksternet notes, this proposed policy change ties the hands of patrolling editors, and makes cleanup harder, while providing no new tools to handle the problem. CMD (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. At utter least, the exception should also include reverting not-yet-blocked socks of the type so obvious they can just be reported to WP:AIV (under point 6) instead of WP:SPI. AddWittyNameHere 21:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't quite make sense. If they are vandalizing, then you are already exempt from 3RR by virtue of the fact that you are reverting vandalism, whether you report it or not. This doesn't change that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes and no. 3RR exemption for vandalism requires obvious vandalism that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism. But vandalism by sock is not necessarily that kind of obvious, especially when it comes to LTAs and other vandal sockmasters with a bent towards subtle vandalism and hoaxing that aren't obvious to people less familiar with the subject. Such edits can be innocuous when seen on their own--and thus don't meet the necessary bar for the exemption--but become much more obvious, to those familiar with the situation, when seen in the light of previous similar subtle vandalism/hoaxing by the sockmaster on the same or similar articles.

But at the same time, I do see your point that the rule as it is written currently is not fantastic, and I'm not against tightening it in some way; I just oppose a tightening as rigorous as the one you're proposing.

To draw a comparison: it would be a problem if the exemptions would allow people to shout "that's vandalism" at any and every edit they dislike to make themselves 3RR-exempt.

But that doesn't mean there's no exemption for vandalism-by-not-yet-blocked editors. It just means there's a bar to meet first: it needs to be obvious vandalism (defined as "edit any well-intentioned user would agree is vandalism"). My suggestion for the sockpuppet exemption was meant along the same lines as what was done for vandalism: keep an exemption for sockpuppets, but raise the bar to these socks needing to be obvious.

This was also what my mention of AIV#6 ("reports of sockpuppetry should be made at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations unless the connection between the accounts is obvious and disruption is recent and ongoing") vs SPI was trying to get at: if the account is so obviously a sock one could reasonable expect it to get blocked at AIV, it's obvious enough for the 3RR-exemption. AddWittyNameHere 03:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Anyone can claim they're reverting a sock puppet. Filling up article histories with pointless back-and-forth reverts does nothing to stop sock puppetry, anyway. Law of the instrument applies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am convinced by the arguments made by others that this does not work well when dealing with WP:DUCK socks and long term abusers. If an editor is reinstating the same edit repeatedly with multiple accounts, I should be able to revert them before a block is issued. I am not opposed towards a rewording to where it should be used for reverting obvious sock-puppetry. 0xDeadbeef 07:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this is a step in the wrong direction and could tip the scales, at least a little, in favor of long-term abusers, off-wiki canvassing campaigns, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for two reasons:
  1. Reverts of topic ban violations do occur, and while it's rare for someone to violate their TBAN in a way necessitating four noncontiguous reverts, consider a situation where User A has reached 3RR on one matter on a page, and User B then comes along and drops a blatant TBANvio on the page. User A should not be prohibited from reverting that. Further consider that many DS pages are under 1RRs. If a user reverts a minor change to Jerusalem, are they to then be barred for 24 hours from reverting edits by someone TBANned from ARBPIA?
  2. Not all sockpuppetry results in blocks. Some sock accounts are locked by stewards and the reviewing admin declines to block locally. Some sock IPs are bouncing around fast enough that there's no point in blocking them by the time an admin reviews (not even a backlog thing; this could be on the order of horus). Some stale sock accounts don't get blocked, but rather an SPI clerk or admin might issue a finding of fact that the account was a sock. I suppose "blocked" in this proposal could be changed to "already established", but I still don't see the benefit in that. But I've got more thoughts in the rewording section.
• -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are cases where an account is very clearly violating a block or ban, and it would not be edit warring to repeatedly revert those edits even if the user is not blocked yet. Rather than requiring the account be blocked, the key here is that the case needs to be obvious. If the account in question is not blocked, then it needs to be clear enough that any reasonable editor would agree that the account is indeed violating a block or ban—otherwise, you do risk being blocked for edit warring. I would support a clarification along these lines instead. I also agree fully with Tamzin's comment below. Mz7 (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, whoops, I had that in the wrong section. So, now it's above instead of below. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for substantially the same reasons ably put by @Mz7 and @Tamzin. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The issue here is that editors will sometimes blatantly sock and revert-war (or call in a horde of meatpuppets) in order to get their preferred revisions in; in fact (contrary to the argument above) I would say that this, above all else, is the real reason for the exception - if it was just for already-blocked editors who are not further evading their ban to engage in sockpuppetry, waiting 24 hours to revert them (or less, if someone else passes by and sees an obvious problem) would not usually be a huge deal. But editors repeatedly evading in order to revert-war is a big deal and we need an exemption to prevent people from benefiting from doing so, even temporarily. It is true that there is notionally some room for problems when one editor accuses another of sockpuppetry based on insufficient evidence, but in practice I don't think this is a real problem - like the WP:BLP exemption, the WP:BLOCKEVADE exemption is an "are you willing to stake your editing privileges on this?" sort of thing, and because of that is usually only invoked when an editor is completely certain and the sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry is so unambiguous that they can be confident that WP:ANI / WP:AE will back their judgment up. Editors who prove to have poor judgement in that regard are quickly taken there and sanctioned. --Aquillion (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Discuss change to "Reverting actions by users already blocked as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet."

Is there really an issue of people reverting editors they just claim are socks but have not proven so? I think the meaning of what we have currently is aligned with the change as it stands. If there actually are people trying to justify edit-warring with unblocked accounts on that basis sure, but to me this says that if you revert an edit of a user after they are found to be a sock of a banned user then that revert is not considered a revert for the purposes of the edit-warring policy. I see the thread linked above, but once the user was confirmed I think ex-post facto all the prior reversions are fair as well. nableezy - 15:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. It means any editor can say "I thought he was a sock" and use it as a "get out of jail free" card. I linked the most recent, but this is common enough to be a problem, AND the goal was never to allow people to edit war just because they thought someone was a sock, only to undo what a blocked sock has done, even if it violated 3RR. As an admin, the current wording is very problematic as it really doesn't reflect the initial and current consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I dont think thats what it means though. Thats on the order of "I think it is vandalism" as an excuse. If it isnt vandalism then nope you are not excused. I see this as closer to the BLP exemption, you can make the revert but if you cant prove that it was a violation then you may well be blocked. If you do prove it a violation then the past reverts are not edit-warring. Same for a claimed sock. If you cant prove it then youre going to get blocked. nableezy - 15:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

If no other exemption applies (or example, they are fighting over what year an album came out), then there isn't a valid reason to edit war. Whether Kansas' Leftoverture came out in 1976 or 1977 isn't a valid reason to edit war whether the person is a sock or not. If they are blocked as a sock, THEN you can revert back to 1976, even if it is a 4th revert, as an exemption. To say to an admin "I say they are a sock, so prove me wrong" as an exemption is not sustainable. In fact, I will likely block you and then let you prove they are, unless it is blindly obvious they are a sock. Exemptions are exceptions, not the rule. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I dont think I disagreed with that? "I say they are a sock, so prove me wrong" is only not sustainable, it isnt an exemption. They have to actually be a sock, not just somebody think they are a sock. But lets say, for example, I revert sock a once, editor b once, sock a a second time. I then report sock a and that user is blocked, but editor b reverts once more. Are my two reverts of sock a from prior to being blocked counted against me? Does editor b prevail because a sock puppet supported their edits? Exactly this has happened previously (to me in fact). nableezy - 16:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You wait. Again, how do you define "sock", by simply claiming someone is a sock, or by a block that demonstrates they are indeed a sock. Too many people just saying "Bob is a sock!!!!" and use that as an excuse for all kinds of bad behavior. The key is the threshold, what "officially" makes someone a sock according to policy? I say, a block or other admin action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Wait for what? Im saying Ive made 2 reverts against an editor that has since been blocked as a sock after my reverts and one against an editor in good standing. That editor in good standing revrts once more, are the two edits against the now blocked sockpuppet counted against me for the purposes of edit-warring? Or do I only have 1 "revert" against the editor in good standing? I think the latter is correct, both in policy and practice. nableezy - 17:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

If they are blocked for socking, then it doesn't matter how many times you reverted them, it's automatically exempt. You would be 100% free to revert them. It's very simple: Don't break 3RR if they are NOT blocked. If they are blocked, you are exempt. If they are blocked, the count before and after the block means nothing, its exempt so it doesn't matter. And vandalism & BLPvio is still exempt either way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

How would this work for socking with dynamic IPs, let alone proxy ones? Blocking such an IP has only a limited effect, to the point where they often just aren't blocked at SPI. Any new IP will be not technically blocked, and thus under this proposed rule not able to be reverted. Come to that, if new accounts keep getting created, then each new one won't be able to be reverted under this proposal. Old one gets block, new one gets created, and now they have reversion immunity. CMD (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

If admin see multiple IPs reverting or new accounts, the article get semi-protected, so it's moot. IPs are always handled a bit differently, and most often when IPs are swapping and reverting, it falls under one of the other exemptions, so again, moot. These are outlier issues. Admin aren't dumb, we know when it's a new user trying to game the system and will protect and block, which stops them in their tracks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

What other exemptions do IPs fall under? Unless it's "obvious vandalism", I don't see what else deals with them. This is also not an outlier issue, it's a reasonably common occurrence. (Isn't this policy proposal addressed at an outlier issue?) As for the final line, I can only say I've seen multiple instances where this hasn't been the case. CMD (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Let's walk through the law of unintended consequences here. What this change in wording, as evidenced in Girth Summit's remarks, is saying is: if I come across an editor who is acting like a sockpuppet, report (or block) them and then revert their edits after they are blocked, rather that reverting their edits and engaging to gain more information. Are we, as a community, happy with a change that will likely lead to more IP editors being blocked for (apparent) sockpuppetry? —C.Fred (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  You can revert them, 3 times in fact. You just can't the 4th time until they are blocked. Typically, they are reverting the exact same material back and forth, so there isn't a lot of data to collect. I'm not sure how that will result in IP's being more likely to get blocked. This clarification just means you can't edit war with the IP over trivial changes to an article. The other exemptions still apply, so if it is a BLP violation or vandalism, this clarification changes nothing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  What Dennis said. If you think an edit is suspect, you're entitled to revert it regardless of whether or not it's a sock. If they're vandalising or ignoring the BLP policy, you can revert until necessary. What we're saying is that you can't ignore 3RR because you think an account might be a sock. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Why does removing information added by blocked socks need to be 3rr exemption at all? Imagine the following situation: a sock edits a page, editor 1 reverts it as part of cleaning up after them, but then editor 2 (who is in good standing) comes along and says "despite being made by a sock that was a good edit and should be kept" and reinserts the edit. Why would it now be appropriate for editor 1 to repeatedly remove the content from the page? At this point this is a standard content dispute that should be resolved through discussion and consensus building, not repeated reversions and edit warring. "Edits made by sock puppets can be reverted without discussion" is a sensible policy, "reverting edits made by sockpuppets is exempt from edit warring restrictions and can be done despite the objections of other editors" seems counterproductive. I guess that what I'm trying to get at is that the policies on cleaning up after sock puppets belong in the sockpuppetry policy, rather than the edit warring policy? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Because otherwise you are allowing people to force through their favored version through socking. nableezy - 16:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I haven't thought about this. Thanks for the comment. 0xDeadbeef 16:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

That means the sockpuppeteer is warring. Could we then specify that it is fine to revert a sock only if the sock was warring? I don't see any good cases for why people should be exempt otherwise. 0xDeadbeef 16:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't follow what you're saying here. My point is that if the new policy is "you can only revert once the account is blocked" then it makes no sense for this to be a 3RR exemption, because the account that inserted the edit can't re-add it (since they are blocked). The only people who are going to be re-adding the content are other editors in good standing (in which case edit warring away on the basis of a 3RR exemption doesn't strike me as a good way of dealing with what is now a content dispute) or other socks, which should be blocked then reverted like the first account. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

If your previous reverts are counted against you after the sock is blocked then you are allowing those reverts to tip the scale to their favored position. nableezy - 16:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy What I'm trying to say (in probably a very confusing and poorly worded way, for which I apologise) is that I think a single use "you may revert edits made by a blocked account regardless of whether doing so would cause you to violate any policies" policy seems like a better way of dealing with sock edits than an edit warring exemption. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, then the approach you describe is already essentially current practice: I've seen the 3RR exemption and WP:BE invoked in cases where the sock was repeatedly reverted, but I don't recall ever seeing anyone citing them in order to justify reverting a good faith editor who had reinstated a sock edit. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. If there is no inherent problem with the edits that the sock made (which would then be subject to other exemptions) I do not think reverting them should be exempt. Another timeline of events could be: Alice makes an edit, Bob reverts, Alice reverts, Bob reverts, Alice reverts, and then Alice gets blocked as a sock puppet, then Bob claims the exemption to revert the third time. In my opinion they should only be exempt if another exemption applies. 0xDeadbeef 16:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef My thought was that policy for cleaning up after socks should be something along the lines of "When an editor is blocked as a sock you are allowed to revert any or all of their edits once simply on the basis that they are a sockpuppet, regardless of whether doing so would cause you to breach any page restrictions, edit warring restrictions, sanctions etc. If another editor in good standing reinserts the edit normal editorial and consensus building policies apply." 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

. Is there a case to be made for an exemption for LTAs? Reverting the random edits of someone who is suspected of being a sockpuppet seems distinct from reverting the exact same nonsense from a selection of know IP ranges.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, as mentioned above, SPIs can last days or weeks without updates. I remember when I was accused of being a sock, I wasn't cleared until several days after the case was filed. This means that in the case of an actual sock, their edits could last days or weeks before they're eligible for removal, and by that point the bad edits may be left behind. —VersaceSpace 🌃 20:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think you have my question back to front. I was asking whether we should have an exception from 3RR for reverting LTAs, separately from what every comes out of the RFC. A new user adding contentious material to an Armenian article could be a sock or just a new user, but an IP geolocating to Brazil and changing dates is a known LTA. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Once upon a time, there was an editor who persisted in making specific types of edits to articles related to a favourite subject of theirs. By consensus agreement, the edits were not supported, and so I was able to revert their changes, pointing to the consensus discussion. Then one day they got blocked for their continued edits along that same theme, and they started to insert the changes as a non-logged-in editor. This put me back to square one: for every edit, I'd open a discussion, so the anonymous editor would be warned about their edits and given a chance to respond. I appreciate the principle that I oughtn't be trusted to determine on my own that the anonymous edits were evading a block. (In this case, one of the category of edits involved regularly updated content, so the longer they stayed in place, the harder it would be to untangle the effects from subsequent edits.) But the net effect is that it would have been easier to keep the editor unblocked, thus failing to give them timely feedback of the undesirability of their persistent, repeated edits. Additionally, having to monitor a broad spectrum of articles that relate in some way (even sometimes wholly tangentially, as the editor would insert mentions of their favourite subject into articles related to the associated city), continually open discussions, and follow up on each individually drains all the joy of editing. Following the rules takes up so much more time than it took the block evader to reinstate an edit. isaacl (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Other suggestions for rewording

My original proposal has met with a tepid response, but some of those do see the current wording could be improved. Then to what? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a great proposed wording, but it might be nice to echo the BLP exemption by warning that relying on the exemption might be controversial. We might include a warning that misuse can lead to a block. The text could also suggest that SPI be used in cases where it's not clear that the user is a sock, or if the content is not particularly objectionable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Those sound like sensible suggestions. We want to avoid messes like this [1] where repeatedly reverting a sock was orders of magnitude more disruptive than the sock edits themselves. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps "Reverting actions by obvious or already-blocked sockpuppets and meatpuppets?" AddWittyNameHere 18:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Or alternatively, if we wish to retain an exemption for banned users--agree it's not going to be relevant in case of site-bans, but can be in case of topic-bans, "Reverting actions by banned editors made in violation of a ban, or actions by obvious or already-blocked sockpuppets and meatpuppets". AddWittyNameHere 18:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That works, I also like the "you do so at your own risk" disclaimer. I don't want to take away editor's power to deal with socks, but all too often, crying "sock" is used as an excuse to edit war. Plus, there is an old rule from SPI, "if you are going to call someone a sock, then file at SPI, or don't call them a sock", as that is a civility issue. IF you are going to use 3RRNO exemption, you need to be willing to immediately go file at SPI, you can't just use the claim of sock as a get out of jail free card. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we pretty much agree: if you are going to use the "this is a blatant sock" exemption, that sock had better be a. already blocked as such, b. obvious and already reported, just not yet handled by an admin, or c. obvious and you're on your way to bring them to admin attention after reverting. Not sure how exactly to word that part though, except that I'm not a fan of specifying that it should be SPI specifically where they're reported, because while that's always an appropriate venue to report sockpuppetry, it's not always the only appropriate venue, and occasionally not the most appropriate venue either. (E.g. when it comes to known sockmasters best denied as much attention as possible, opening a full-blown SPI case for their newest quacks-like-a-duck sock is not necessarily the best way to do it) But yeah, I can definitely agree that if you don't feel strongly enough about the editor's sock-ness to ensure they are brought to admin attention, you're not feeling strong enough about their sock-ness to rely on it for a 3RR exemption, either. AddWittyNameHere 22:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

id be on board with all parts of that. nableezy - 23:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Support. 0xDeadbeef 05:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Denial of attention and minimizing the need for anyone else to spend time on counter-to-consensus edits from constantly changing IP addresses is why I didn't file any sockpuppet investigations in the case I described. Much like it would have been easier for the editor to remain unblocked, it would have been easier if they continued to evade their block from the same IP address, in any case. isaacl (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think we're going about this the wrong way. There's two sources of disruption here: 1) Reverts of editors who are not clearly sox; 2) Edit-warring with sox when one should really just let it rest and wait for the block. I know I hate seeing a page history where the last 50 edits are BRV reverts of a sock adding a comma. I would suggest two corresponding changes (I seem to be doing everything in 2s today):
  1. Append to exemption 3: Note that baseless accusations of sockpuppetry are considered [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], and reverts made based on them are not covered by this exemption.<ref>It is best to wait for a sockpuppet to be blocked before reverting. Reverts of users who are not blocked should usually be accompanied by a report to administrators; where that is impractical (e.g. for IP-hopping long-term abuse cases) users should still be prepared to justify their actions with evidence that would suffice at [[WP:SPI|SPI]].</ref>
  2. Append as the last sentence of 3RRNO: Repeatedly reverting a user under these exemptions, when one could have instead waited for the user to be blocked, may nonetheless be considered disruptive editing for its effect on watchlists and page histories, particularly when the content being reverted is not egregiously problematic.
• -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

A little wordy, but I agree with it. The key issue is there, ie: edit warring over a comma really isn't exempt, and as per SPI, if you're going to claim they are a sock, you need to be willing to file at some admin board if you want to claim exemption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the second of these. I think point #1 is already covered; as I mention above, thinking someone is a sock isn't a defense to 3RR if it turns out they weren't actually a sock. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding point number 2: I would go so far as to say that overabundant 3RRNO-related reverts are indeed wrong, and not just regarding suspicions of sockpuppetry. A quick block would be better because it would prevent the negative effects to the page histories and the watchlists, and the block would be more professional than an edit war. Nevermind, these things can be resolved as normally through the conventional means since there are rarely issues. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC); edited 15:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

A special thank you

I would like to personally thank the good maintainers of this policy, because I now see that this is a policy of friendship. That is an excellent thing, and I hope it sees the best going forward (even if the policies change for whatever reason). Best regards, Altanner1991 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I have composed my best suggestions against edit warring behavior, to clarify policy especially for newer editors:

Do I honestly believe that I would be joined by other editors in the event of re-reverts? This is the crux of any revert/3RR activity: are you acting with or against the views of the experienced editors and the administrators? They usually know best and regardless it's better not to rush! Wikipedia:No deadline (see also User:Uanfala#Edit warring questionnaire) Altanner1991 (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

(I believe that 3RR should be replaced by 0RR. I am a pacifist.) Altanner1991 (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)