Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2020/May

"Override"

Bsherr, regarding this? What else could "repeatedly override" mean in this case? Even with regard to the text stating that "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.", the "whether involving the same or different material" aspect is about repeatedly overriding/reverting the person.

No need to ping me if you reply. I didn't ping you since it's clear that you watch this page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you meany by "edit warring doesn't necessarily involve reversion"? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible addition to 3RRNO

Should we add another exception to 3RRNO to say that it is not considered edit warring to reinstate a CSD tag that has been removed by the author of an article? Authors are not permitted to remove the tag themselves; we have a bot that currently does the same thing to articles listed at AfD if the deletion template is removed, but not for CSD tags that are removed out of process. It seems logical to me that reinstating such a tag would not be edit warring, but that isn't explicitly listed at 3RRNO. Any other thoughts on this? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Has anyone actually suggested that restoring a tag that shouldn't be removed is edit-warring? If I reported someone to either ANEW/ ANI for doing so I'd be laughed off, probably trigger a competency review, and would expect nothing less. serial ^# 14:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, erm, check Creffett's RfA, and the talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Check, commented; although as an expert on foul language rather than edit-warring. serial ^# 17:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I assume Ritchie was just being hyperbolic; I can't believe he actually thinks it was edit-warring.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Pawnkingthree, I think you're probably right, but there's no specific exception. I think there ought to be, so there's no ambiguity. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING contains the following text: "Note: Restoring talk page notices, even if they should not be removed, is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule."
This seems to be intentional, and there is probably no need for complicating 3RR for a similar purpose. The idea behind 3RR and the whole edit warring policy seems to be simplicity, and preventing "I did the right thing while edit warring" excuses. In an edit war, everyone thinks they're "right"; their actions are disruptive nonetheless. Adding an exception for CSD tagging dilutes the purpose of the policy by saying "edit warring is right if it is about CSD tags". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with ToBeFree's point. The simple rule is do not edit war and adding disclaimers like you can edit war if it's a good cause messes up the message. The scenario is that a misguided newbie or a banned returned user have created a junk page and are edit warring to remove a tag. The solution is to report the problem somewhere, not to have them blocked but for a warning-with-teeth. What would edit warring achieve? Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, ToBeFree shouldn't the bot that reinstates AfD tags be blocked if there is no exception for deletion tags? In truth, I'm not really imagining a scenario where it is necessary to go over 3RR to get the message across, I was just surprised to see someone describe a single instance of a patrolled reinstating a tag once, while informing the author that they're not permitted to remove it, as edit warring. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I confess that I have not looked at the reported issue, but it would be a rare day that mistakes are not made at Wikipedia so I could readily believe that responses were not optimal. My response was for the proposal to modify the policy. I don't think adding exceptions that allow 3RR is desirable because it sends the wrong message (someone reading that might think it was ok to revert ten times because the policy says so), and it reduces the impact of the simple message: don't edit war. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the desire not to further complicate the message that 3RRNO gives out, and I'd be open to alternatives that make best practice clearer. I do reiterate the point that cyberbot I routinely does this for AfD tags - it will 'edit war' with an author, and place escalating warning templates on their talk page (see the history of Sofia Pablo (now deleted) for an example). I would see this as an act of routine maintenance, whether it's a bot doing it with an AfD tag or a human doing it with a CSD tag, if either has been removed out of process. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq and ToBeFree fair enough on your point about not complicating our edit warring message but we need to offer a way to ensure that things which need to be deleted (and quite a few speedy deletions criteria need fast deleting in my view most prominently G10 and G12) are considered for deletion. I actually think the bot that does this for AfD is the right solution. But until such a bot comes along we need to support editors who are upholding our policies just as much as we try to welcome new editors who need guidance into our fold. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, a filter perhaps? Something rlike removed_lines & user_name = page_first_contributor? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I see we even have a similar one at Special:AbuseFilter/29. With an additional condition like "user_name = page_first_contributor", perhaps a filter could be created that disallows such edits when made by the page creator, for specific CSD. Removal of {{db-g13}} or {{db-g7}} would be fine, for example. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That does seem like a good idea and yes obviously certain speeds can be removed by their creators. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Prohibit_speedy_deletion_tag_removal_by_page_creator; see also Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Edit_Filter_29_allowing_more. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, I've supported the proposal at that discussion. I think this would be a good solution to the problem - keeping our edit warring message simple, technically preventing an author from removing a CSD tag out of process, and avoiding the necessity for patrollers to edit war (if that's what this would be) in that manner. Good thinking :) GirthSummit _(blether) 19:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverting the duplication of an article during an edit war

There is a user who seems to be reverting, but his reverts turn out to duplicate the article. That's obviously very bad, but not sure if its vandalism. Would reverting such a duplication be an exemption?VR _talk 00:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

3rr information

Does it mean only reverts and undo or any edits? And does it have to only be on a single user? User3749 (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Partial blocks

Now that we have WP:PBLOCK in our arsenal, should we consider making it the default option for dealing with edit warring on a single page? After all, blocks are meant to be preventative, and often preventing the edit warrior(s) from editing the page that they're reverting is sufficient to stop the edit warring. On the other hand, 24 hours is generally not long enough to resolve an issue that is under contention. So the usual way a 3RR block (for a first offense) works is this: You are blocked for 24 hours. During this time, you can't even participate in a discussion on the talk page of the article you were edit warring on, so it seems like the only reason it works is because it serves as a punishment i.e. you stop edit warring because you don't want to get blocked again. I think a better approach is to place a partial block from editing that one page, for a longer period such as 72 hours. Thoughts? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

No, because edit warring is a behavioral issue with an editor, not something limited to one article. Partially blocking editors for edit warring essentially teaches them that they can edit war as much as they want and the only result will be admins micromanaging their behavior. Blocks that serve as deterrent are perfectly valid, and in the case of first offense edit warring blocks any sort of commitment to not continuing to edit war would get the editor unblocked and allow them to participate in discussing the issue. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this will lead to perverse incentives, because we can always escalate to a full block in subsequent incidents. Because of the length of the appeal process, 24 hour blocks are almost never appealed and instead served out in their entirety. I just feel like a partial block for a longer duration will be more effective against a first offense. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)