Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2013/October

Discussion at Talk:PrankvsPrank/Edit Warring

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:PrankvsPrank/Archive 1#Edit Warring. Ross Hill Talk to me!  23:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Are 4 reverts over 5 months evidence of edit-warring and if so, should editors be topic-banned?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm not sure how many editors follow ArbCom cases, but there is IMHO an extremely troubling ruling in a current ArbCom case that I believe that the community should be aware of. ArbCom is about to rule that an editor is guilty of edit-warring for only 4 reverts over the course of 5 months [1] and are proposing that the editor be topic-banned as a result.[2] Here's the evidence that is being used as proof of edit-warring:

• 11:42, February 17, 2013
• 09:00, February 18, 2013
• 11:28, March 6, 2013
• 04:13, July 16, 2013

If these 4 reverts were performed over a 24 hour period, the clearly editor would be guilty of violating WP:3RR. However, these reverts were spread out over a 5 month period. These reverts are not over the same material so it doesn't even qualify as a slow edit war.

This seems to me to have no basis in existing policy or practice. The community has decided that 4 reverts over a 24 hour period is the bright-line in which administrative action be taken. Of course, this is just a general rule; an editor can still be sanctioned even if they do not cross this bright line. However, 4 reverts over 5 months doesn't even come remotely close to violating existing policy. In fact, this is light-years away. I am fairly certain that if an editor were to file these diffs at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring or at WP:AE, not only would the request be denied, the filer would risk being sanctioned for filing a frivolous request.

Please understand that my concern is not about this particular editor or this particular topic-space. The reason why I am so concerned is that this establishes a very dangerous precedent. If the community allows this to proceed, this means that any editor who occasionally performs a revert (less than one a month) is potentially at risk of being sanctioned. If we topic ban everyone who performs an occasional revert, there would be very few editors left to edit Wikipedia. Is this what the community wants? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be considered edit warring. I've seen admins block an editor for "edit warring" for a single edit. We should clarify the editing and reverting is part of the normal editing process and therefore single reverts are not evidence for edit warring. NE Ent 21:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would tend to agree with NYB, that the diffs linked in the proposed finding of fact are insufficient to justify a finding of edit warring. However, Arthur Rubin made many more edits to the article, 141 in total including 13 edits that directly undid an edit. This isn't the place to conduct a detailed analysis of Arthur Rubin's editing as it relates to the controversy, and without doing so, its hard to say whether the committee is justified in imposing the proposed sanction. Wouldn't this discussion be more approriate at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Proposed decision? Monty₈₄₅ 21:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I did start a discussion at the appropriate talk page and as you can see, it did not go very far.[3] I don't think that even 13 overt reverts over the course of 69 months (that's only 1 revert every 5 months) is evidence of edit-warring, and does not come remotely close to what policy says. If anything, this is evidence of not edit-warring. My question to the community is whether every editor who averages fewer than a revert per month be topic banned for edit-warring? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course not, but that's not the question. This specific editor was felt to have made a specific set of edits which met ArbCom's definition of edit-warring - a definition which intentionally allows a great deal of subjective interpretation. If you disagree with ArbCom's interpretation, then you need to take it up with ArbCom - not on a policy page, because policy is intentionally silent on the question of the lower bounds of edit-warring. For what it's worth, I suspect many in the community would agree with you that the edit-warring finding to which you refer was extremely tenuous, but opening a thread here isn't going to help. MastCell ^Talk 22:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

@MastCell: I did take it up with ArbCom.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was the right approach. I know you haven't gotten much response from them, but raising the issue here isn't going to help. MastCell ^Talk 22:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

@MastCell: I've tried in good faith to reach out to ArbCom. Since they haven't responded, notifying the editors of the most relevant policy seems like the next logical step. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the specifics here, largely because I and NYB both opposed the finding in question, but some general thoughts on edit warring and reverts may be helpful. When someone reverts another person's edits, the hope is that they will provide some explanation in the form of an edit summary, or pointer to the talk page. The general pattern that then sometimes develops is for a dialogue to take place in the form of edit summaries as reverting back and forth takes place. This has always struck me as rather pointless (though obviously better than reverts with no edit summaries), but if people can get across their arguments in edit summaries and slight changes to the text being debated, then that can settle the matter. It is usually best to go straight to a talk page, but some people do seem to prefer to converse using edit summaries. Anyway, if 3RR looms, then you really do have to go to the talk page and thrash out the differences (which begs the question why that wasn't done after the first revert). An argument could be made that if you are familiar with a topic, and have edited it and taken part in discussions previously, then a different standard applies. To return to an article and start reverting edits again is different to returning to an article and taking matters to the talk page immediately. The reason for doing the latter is because you know that talk page discussions will be needed. Unless you are upholding a previously discussed consensus, but even there it is best to refer to that in the edit summary. The key is whether discussion has taken place earlier or recently, and whether the edits are informed by those discussions. Even if edits are years apart, if you just pick up reverting where you left off last time, instead of discussing what should be done, that is usually problematic. Another example of where reverting would be problematic even if done months later would be if you reverted all the edits done over those months (e.g. reverting back to the last version you edited some months previously). As I said, none of this is directed at the specific examples that led to the questions above, but hopefully some of what I've said here will help. Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this is the right place for a discussion. While it is polite to ask Arbcom for their input, which was done, it is the community's place to set policy, not Arbcom's. They can, and do, interpret it as it applies to a specific situation (while policies are often more general), but if their specific application is materially at variance with the community understanding of the policy, then the siutation should be clarified.

Unfortunately, it is more complicated than AQFK suggests. Arbcom has stated or implied that diffs in a finding are illustrative, rather than exhaustive here is a relevant diff. Therefore, it may not be quite accurate to say that Arbcom has decreed that five reverts in four months is edit-warring. As Monty845 notes, there were other edits by the editor, so we would have to review all edits, to see if we agree that this pattern of editing is edit warring.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC - Edit-warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've opened this RfC to solicit community feedback over whether 4 reverts over the course of 5 months constitutes edit-warring and if so, should such editors be topic-banned. Please see above discussion for background.
Since a couple editors asked about this, I did attempt to bring this up to ArbCom first, but that discussion did not go very far.[5]A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
EDIT: Some editors have inquired about the context of the issue that prompted this WP:RFC. Here it is.[6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes - It is edit-warring

No - It is not edit-warring

1. No...of course it is not edit warring.--MONGO 00:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
2. As stated - clearly not "edit warring". And I would note that the 3RR rule apparently can be inclusive of even adding a space in a sentence, as interpreted by some admins -- which would mean that, using that same definition, four edits in five months could be treated as edit war, which is reduction ad absurdum territory. Collect (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
3. No, it is not edit-warring. Sanctioning editors for fewer than one revert per month has absolutely no basis in existing Wikipedia policy or practice. The 4 diffs over 5 months aren't over the same material so this doesn't even qualify as slow edit-warring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
4. No, it is not edit-warring. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
5. No. Is there anyone seriously claiming that it is? --DHeyward (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
6. No...God No. Who came up this silly idea? Why is someone trying to make this place more of a dysfunctional anarchy than it already is? PumpkinSky talk 01:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
7. Of course not. Again, where did that silly idea come from? 99.141.242.198 (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
8. No, That is absurd. Any suggestion that it is edit warring is completely wrong. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
9. No - Kinda can't believe this needs an RfC. Common sense is no longer common. Mlpearc (powwow) 18:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
10. No, obviously. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
11. Snow ϢereSpielChequers 06:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the context

• It depends on the context - It may constitute edit-warring in unusual situations, such as if an article has been in disarray due to slow-motion edit warring and the ArbCom is at wit's end. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Answering the Question of the RFC, no, if they have made no other edits. But I'm putting myself here because the controversy that spawned the RFC is not as simple as that, and I haven't done enough research to make an informed decision regarding the underlying case. Let me offer a hypothetical question: "Can an editor be edit warring without ever reverting anything?" Absolutely, adding content to an article can be edit warring just as easily as removing it, and you can certainly avoid doing anything that looks like a conventional revert in the process. Monty₈₄₅ 01:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• In isolation, no, but the behavior may be part of an overall pattern which is edit warring. NE Ent 01:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• There is no way to make a blanket statement from a broad principle like this. It could be, or it may not be. Unless the specific and full spectrum of the specific case is known, there's no way to say one way or the other. --Jayron32 01:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Contextual — If the user makes the same four edits, especially in light of another user's or users' good-faith attempts to mediate the issue, I guess it can be considered edit warring per WP:HEAR. But setting the precedent that edits over a period of almost half a year can be lumped into one group is pretty extreme. I would submit that the article should be of significant importance (eg. Barak Obama, World War II, etc.) or the info being removed be highly contentious (eg. reverting established scientific facts from Evolution). That said, if the info reverted is referenced and/or the user is a single-purpose account, it makes a much stronger case for edit warring. DKqwerty (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• There is no one-siz-fits-all formula for edit warring, but yes, we do sometimes see slow motion edit wars that can last months or even years. How long you wait between reverts does not change the basic fact that edit warring is never the correct approach and discussion is always preferred. No comment on this specific case but it can and has happened that users were validly blocked for slow edit warring over long periods. Wikipedia policies are not laws, they are meant to convey ideas, and in this case the idea is that edit warring is not tolerated. Making 3RR a policy was a mistake, it set the precedent for the all sorts of rigid thinking in this area. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Caution for no !voters Those signing in under the No section need to be aware that Arbcom has not concluded that these five edits constitute edit-warring. The diffs listed were illustrative, not exhaustive.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect. The ArbCom has, in fact, voted explicitly that the four diffs over many months constituted edit warring. Also, I think editors will find that it was more exhaustive than illustrative. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I answered the question actually asked, 'whether 4 reverts over the course of 5 months constitutes edit-warring' although I do disagree with Arbcom's apparent belief that all problems are solved by restrictive sanctions, especially if no clear warning is given. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• This. We have a bright-line rule in the form of the 3RR; I don't think we can effectively define another. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Apparent intent rules Fact this came up suggests someone(s) have not been making sufficient efforts to WP:DISCUSS with support from existing tools for dispute resolution. I agree there is no litmus test, like porn, of which it has been famously said something like, "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it". Made-up example...... Say A boldly adds "X" and B reverts. A does not bother to initiate any discussion. Instead a month later A boldly adds "X" again. In my view, A just edit warred. If B is smart, B will notice this and seek ANI support right away. But if B is asleep and just reverts again, B runs risk of being tarred and feathered along with A. The longer the pattern repeats, the worse A's intentional edit warring, and even though B might have failed to notice the pattern in good faith, B starts to look like an E-warrior, even though B in this example would not deserve to be tarred and feathered along with A. We should start the increasing-sanction routine by stiff warning to A at time of 2nd identical edit w/o discussion, even if it is a couple months after A's first attempt. But after the pattern has repeated several times, we should protect B if it looks like they were just asleep at the ANI/DR switch. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

And the example diffs given above? How would you judge those specific edits? A new form sanctionable edit warring or ordinary editing over a year? Capitalismojo (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure if the question is correctly formed. If the question is meant as "4 reverts over the course of 5 months and no other problematic activity" then I guess the answer the answer would have to be "no". But if the editor has made other edits to the article that aren't technically reverts but have a similar effect, or if the editor has made many reverts to related articles, or has shown problematic behavior in other areas such as the talk page, then the totality of all that has to be considered. Not sure what all this is about, but if an editor has been sanctioned with words to the effect "4 reverts in 5 months, edit-warring, banned" then it's possible that what have is a malformed communication rather than a malfeasant action, and the person should have said "4 reverts in 5 months, and also this is this and such-and-so, edit-warring and other bad behavior, banned". Of course miscommunication is bad, though. And I'm not saying that this is what happened; I don't know. Herostratus (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I have added three headings for !votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

General comment This RfC is an inappropriate use of this page to make an isolated protest about one particular decision in an arbitration case. Undoubtedly specific editors have been topic banned for marginal reasons (e.g. Collect and Arthur Rubin). Often arbcom cases describe borderline edit-warring which, if considered in isolation, would not normally result in administrative action. It is usually part of a broader picture involving specific users and a particular context. That seems to be the case here. Viewed from afar, the arbitration committee appears to have wished to bring new faces to a problematic article and tried a number of different strategies. Picking out individual editors was a last resort. The Muhammad images case was also driven by a wish to bring in new faces. Mathsci (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

How does that require a false accusation and falsely finding someone guilty of it? 99.141.242.198 (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• The RFC introduction asks a very broad question, but then says too look at the section above for an example. I did not and I deliberately have no idea what the underlying dispute is. Doesn't matter if we are trying to answer a broad policy question. It may or may not be edit warring in this specific case, which is why the obvious answer to the main question is "depends on context." Anyone who is basing their statements on whatever the referenced discussion is about and not on the broad idea of whether or not it is even possible that such a scenario could entail edit warring is answering the wrong question. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.