Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2011/June

Edit warring without breaking the 3 revert rule.

I find that very frequently editors who have been blocked for edit warring make unblock requests and talk page comments in which they protest vigorously that they were not edit warring, because they have not broken the three revert rule. Sometimes it can be very difficult, or even impossible, to persuade them that it is possible to edit war without breaking that rule. It seems to me that a major cause of this misunderstanding is probably the fact that the three revert rule is given considerable prominence in the policy, including a paragraph in the lead, whereas the fact that edit warring may take place even if the 3RR is not broken is not given such attention. In the interest of making it clearer what the policy is about I have added this sentence to the lead: "The three revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." JamesBWatson (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable addition. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with addition and endorse. — Becksguy (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Good addition.   Will Beback  talk  20:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely required. The essence of an edit war is the character of the editing not its frequency. A "slow burn" edit war can be vicious for weeks without ever going over 1RR. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Concur, edits might be spaced days apart. Everything needs to be consider in context. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. --Elonka 16:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Could I suggest a rewrite of the language (not intended to change the focus, only the style):

"Note that, while the three revert rule is a convenient benchmark for situations where a dispute is progressing rapidly, it is not the only definition of what constitutes "edit warring". Editors are advised that it is possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so."

Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I like that wording, but I would like to see something to the effect of "it is the aggressive nature of editing, not its frequency, which ultimately defines what is an edit war" HominidMachinae (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of certain 3RR points

Hi. I wonder if the following points could be clarified in the explanation of the "3RR" rule:

1. Is the rule deliberately designed to favour the person making a change that someone else disagrees with, or is this just a side-effect of "well, we have to do something to stop endless ping-pong, and this is the best anyone can think of"? For example, suppose person A makes an initial change to an article. Person B reverts. Person A re-applies the change. Person B reverts. Person A re-applies. Person B reverts. Person A re-applies. Now person B can't revert, so person A always "wins" (for a while, at least).

2. Is re-applying a change that has been reverted itself a revert? For example: person A makes an initial change. Person B reverts. Person A re-applies. Person C reverts. Person A re-applies. Person B reverts. Person A re-applies. Person C reverts. Person A re-applies. Now, has person A violated the rule? Do his re-applications count as reverts of the reverts?

81.159.104.207 (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the rule isn't deliberately designed to favour the person making a change, though it can often have that effect. (I don't know how much thought went into this rule when it was introduced - I suspect it was more like you surmise, the "is this the best anyone can think of?" situation.) As to the second question, yes, A's reapplications would count as reverts.--Kotniski (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not that it automatically favours one person or t'other: it depends on what the initial action is. So if the initial action is me adding a sentence which is removed, I will "win" the edit-war because the original addition wasn't a revert. Whereas if the initial action is me removing an image, say, then the other person will "win" because I'm already one revert down by its removal. So it's not as if it's always the person who starts the edit-war that loses, basically. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 12:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, in (1) I mean that A makes a change that isn't itself a revert. Otherwise A would be B, if you see what I mean. 86.181.170.47 (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an issue that comes up periodically among serious editors, usually with some puzzlement. For me it has been particularly problematic as it seems to be at odds with WP:BRD, which suggests that the status quo anti on an article should stand until consensus is clear. In a lot of cases the article ends up with some change against consensus and the editor making a controversial change "wins". A particular issue where the same change is carried out on a lot of articles or the editor does not engage fully in talk-page discussions. It would have been better if it was the three change rule, not as catchy and I very much doubt there is any chance of getting the policy to change to that, but it would make a lot more sense.--SabreBD (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)