User talk:Alexia Death/Accusations of collaboration: 3RR hurts Wikipedia

Please let me know what you think!--Alexia Death the Grey 08:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

About numbers and not content

The above is a catchy phrase but I think it misses one key point-3RR blocks are meant to diffuse a spiraling situation, not to substitute as mediation. In a way, I think "content" is being considered but not article content-rather the content of the communication between the editors involved in a dispute. If you have two or more editors who are simply clicking the "undo" button then the well of dialog and communication has obviously dried up with little hope for a civil resolution. A responsible admin's duty is to step in and stop the spiral before it gets more out of control and an effective way to do that is to block for 3RR with a short "cool down period" (Maybe a couple hours). The encouragement of 3RR is to get editors talking to each other about the article content rather then simply revert the changes. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 09:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendeum I will note that I do believe that 3RR should be expanded to include a "group" of people on a page rather then an individual editor (Maybe 4RR?) so that the situation is less prone to canvassing for help to avoid breaking 3RR. Such actions break the spirit of the rule as well as subverting the letter. However that change would require far more discussion.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 09:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

They may be meant so, but they are not working, because there can be a major scale revert war and by 3RR all is fine. The problem is that the current rule is sensitive to canvassing or simply steamrolling by a certain minded and outnumbering party. Making the revert count apply per edit and not per editor addresses exactly that point. It would force mediation or just talking things though instead of going into and elongated edit war.--Alexia Death the Grey 09:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

To the spirit of that sentiment, I agree, and would support opening up the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR to reporting a group of editors reverting the same "edit". I think that smaller change would be more effective then a wholesale reshelving of the 3RR system.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 09:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

May it be noted, that the proposed expansion to "groups" would have exactly the same effect as limiting it to the edit but by taking an edit as the base unit with a bit less of an ambiguity. It can be served as an expansion on the current 3RR. It is certainly not incompadible. --Alexia Death the Grey 10:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem with groups is that people don't take kindly to being grouped with random people. Their reasons for engaging in this activity can differ...--Alexia Death the Grey 10:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand and I suppose I'm advocating a smaller focus for this essay. I think starting from the title 3RR hurts Wikipedia, this essay appears to want to advocate a complete refitting of the 3RR system which I don't see as very prudent or practical. I think starting with Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule and Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, you can put the proposal to change 3RR reporting to a group of editors reverting or making the same edit. It's a smaller scale but I think it would have some of the same thrust that your proposal wishes to have-namely to curb groups of editors trying to "game" the system.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You may be right about it not being prudent, I guess I pushed it a little to gain a reaction. The aim is to fix the 3RR system, not to shelve it.However, I cant agree to groups being a better wording over limiting to edit. It is ambiguous and perhaps just as divisive as the current system. if three people revert war over the same edit then one can claim that 2 belong to a group and third does not thus, 2 get slapped with a short block while others don't. It also creates a possibility for different treatment for sides in an edit war. Limiting 3RR to an edit is free of those faults.--Alexia Death the Grey 10:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

IT also would clean up 3RR violation reporting. Per editwar there would be just one report, regardless of the side.--Alexia Death the Grey 10:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That is true and I think per standard reporting protocols there would be links to the diffs of the "same edit" being done by each member of the group-the proof in the pudding. Now obviously the "red flag" will be the article's talk page because if there is discussion and consensus emerging on the page then this random "group" could just be inputting consensus. I think any proposal advocating a change to the 3RR system should show the absence of discussion on the talk page in order to be a valid report. Just as we don't favor meat puppetry and canvassing to "game" the current system, it's the same evil to draft a proposal that will allow a single edit warrior to now be able to "game" the system by fighting against clear consensus.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Thats why after last revert starting dispute resolution in talk MUST be mandatory! Another fault of 3RR now is that it does not do that...--Alexia Death the Grey 10:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

3rv/OPINION, not 3rv/person (nick)

Sorry for not reading the stuff above, (and maybe I just repeat someone) but I think the best way to prevent those nasty games is to renew the 3RR policy in this way: 3rv/OPINION, not 3rv/person (nick). Yeah, it means if A run out of three rvs, and calls his buddies to continue his crusade against the evil, his buddy will be blocked if makes a 4th revert, no matter, if it was his/her only "contribution" to that page. (Did you noticed, that such guys (usually 3-5 users) are always fighting against the evil himself based on an ideology? Always against nationalists/chauvinists, ateists/fanatics etc., sometimes against 20+ users? :) ) --Ezsaias 06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No you are not repeating anybody yet. There was one that wanted to extend the limit to "groups", but separating people by opinion is just as ambiguous as by some perceived "groups". Different opinions can cause same actions. And what if one reverts without actually expressing an opinion?--Alexia Death the Grey 07:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that one makes a mistake, and became the victim of the system :)) I tried to say, that if A makes an edit, B reverts it, than A back, then B,A,B - all reach 3-3. But then B calls his buddy(-ies) and the buddy does nothing but makes the 4th revert. Well, this buddy should be punished. Buddy simply "continued B's opinion". Hope I'm clear now :) --Ezsaias 17:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you like to, we can call the opinions A and B "versions of the page". --Ezsaias 17:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Which takes the ambiguity I was complaining about out of the picture and takes it back to the edit level I was talking about, but your wording might very well be clearer than mine...--Alexia Death the Grey 18:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm...huh? :)) --Ezsaias 19:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

D it turns out were talking about the same thing after all;)--Alexia Death the Grey 04:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Mandatory after editwar dispute resolution

This dispute resolution may need a clear structure so a validating admin can clearly see, when a consensus is achieved.--Alexia Death the Grey 10:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No

No need for an additional rule. All it takes is one observer to request page protection and immediately stop edit-warring. THF 11:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Page protection results in random content and makes later inserting consensus difficult. The protected version is always The Wrong Version(TM) So that cannot be solution!--Alexia Death the Grey 11:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with page protection is that the party whose version is protected has no incentive to discuss changing it while protection is in effect. Sometimes page protection can work as a "time out" to cool tempers a bit, and stopping the edit warring itself is definitely to be sought, but protection addresses the symptom of edit warring without changing the cause. It only really works when there's a single crank pushing his ideas who loses interest when the protection goes into effect -- but in such cases it's the individual who should be addressed, not the article.--Father Goose 16:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, thats why this proposal aims for a way to stop edit wars without page protection.--Alexia Death the Grey 17:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

1 revert rule

When something gets reverted 3 or more times then there is something completely wrong. I prefer one revert rule. If page has some sort of state, which can be considered current consensus, someone edits it and is reverted, then there should be no more reverts involved, before it is discussed.

The editor who made the edit which got reverted should explain why they think the edit is better. Just like WP:BRD explains.

Revertwarring is useless.

But in case where:

1. Editor A comes and makes edit
2. Editor B reverts him
3. Editor A starts discussion.
4. Editor C reverts editor B.

Editor B should have the right to revert editor C and F and D as long as the new consensus haven't been found. He also should call the new users for discussion, not call them vandals. Suva 11:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For enforcement, having some slack is good. However, making a requirement of starting a discussion at revert one makes sense.--Alexia Death the Grey 11:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I definitely see an enforcement problem with this proposal. 3RR is enforced by blocking users who break it individually. Would blocks be used against anybody who did even one revert, even the first that subsequently led to a chain of reverts? Your suggestion seems right in principle but difficult to enforce justly.--Father Goose 16:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? One warning and restoration of previous situation if violated once, if repeated a notice to to the 3RR board resulting in a short block, perhaps just a few hours. If reverting in violation has no chance to stick the there is no reason to do it. This is another a fault of the system now. A revert on Xth time has just as good chance to stick as 1st. As long as you keep at it you can win. No need for seeking consensus.--Alexia Death the Grey 17:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to add that to your spec then: no reversions by an individual after a warning has issued to them. And unless your proposal is also combined with mandatory page protection past the third revert, the incentive to sock will be as great as ever. And if the goal of one party is to disrupt the article, page protection disrupts it just as badly as edit warring. I understand what you're seeking here but the solutions you propose would have to actually work. As yet, I'm not convinced your proposal will change much, aside from the total number of reversions performed (maybe).--Father Goose 17:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The goal of this proposal is to avoid protection. Warning is not needed if the revert point is already marked and dispute resolution started. If somebody engages in reverts after it is clearly indicated that the limit is reached is either a disruptive editor or a sock and assuming good faith not needed. It actually makes it clearer who is up for disruption and who creating content. I firmly believe that this limit paired with mandatory dispute resolution would work and have a lot less options for being gambled.--Alexia Death the Grey 17:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Involvement of neutral parties is the best answer

Disputes should not be ended by "turning off" the wiki (i.e., page protection), or by punishing individuals involved in disputes just because they are in disputes. The best solution is to bring in neutral parties to mediate or arbitrate. Wikipedia is severely lacking in this facility, but that's no surprise: mediation and/or arbitration are time-consuming, and mediators/arbitrators have to be patient, wise, and fair. Such true dispute resolution is Wikipedia's last resort, because of the amount of attention it requires, but it's also the best resort. But before things can reach that stage we have to rely on more expedient solutions: imperfect rules enforced by imperfect people.

I personally would like to see Wikipedia's true dispute resolution outlets increased tenfold. More third opinion, more wikiquette alerts, more mediation, more editor assistance, and more arbitration. I would include requests for comments in that too, but RFCs are rarely neutral and just result in the dispute playing out publically.--Father Goose 17:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why just neutral parties? If it wasn't for 3RR, involving others who agree with you, who help with sourcing and argumentation would not be bad. It would help in discussion. I do agree that more dispute resolution is needed but having mediation happen on every editwar automatically would not work for lack of mediators. However a noticeboard for running disputes active according to rules of 3RR would benefit getting neutral parties to come along. If 3RR had a built-in system for seeking resolution running in the articles talk many conflicts would be stopped at root.--Alexia Death the Grey 17:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Theres also the fact that once a person forms an opinion on the dispute, that person is no longer neutral and if there is no top limit on reverts, one side gains an edit warrior with a whole 3 reverts.--Alexia Death the Grey 17:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There is also such thing as WP:3O. This is less time consuming, yet not as effective in large disputes. Suva 18:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Making 3O listing mandatory under 3RR would be another thing that might help to find resolution instead of editwar.--Alexia Death the Grey 18:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

("Why just neutral parties?") Because non-neutral parties just widen the dispute. Having one team of advocates duke it out with another is exactly the kind of thing I think you are trying to get rid of here. A neutral party is one who hasn't been involved in the conflict (and does not have an existing bias regarding the matter), and who furthermore does not join the fight even if they come out in support of one side or the other. When a neutral party offers a clear and reasoned opinion, it should be heeded, or else things progress toward arbitration, which is a binding neutral opinion. (If multiple neutral parties disagree about the situation, then it is simply a thorny issue -- but things should still be compelled in the direction of discussion instead of edit warring. Multiple parties warring violently over a thorny issue can all be subject to prohibitions or blocks.)

Suva: note that WP:3O was the first DR process I linked to.--Father Goose 19:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Widen? how? More parties means more opinions. The mater under dispute stays the same. If 3RR would not depend on numbers, their involvement could only bring better arguments. What I am trying to eliminate are elongated edit wars where winner is determined not by the quality of your sides arguments but the number of people you can muster. More people discussing can only improve the situation where as in current state of things, more people pushing their side can only worsen the conflict.--Alexia Death the Grey 19:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Theres also another problem with involving neutral editors. Neutral editors themselves are not interested in getting involved. If they have no opinion to begin with, they must not be interested in topics under dispute. If hey have no interest, they will not get involved instead of contributing in matters that do interest them. No, neutral editors are not the answer. Making sides talk and devise neutral wording or establish relevance is the only way to go. --Alexia Death the Grey 19:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed the problem with truly neutral parties: they have to get involved not out of interest in the matter, but out of an interest in conflict resolution in general. Like I said, it takes a certain type of personality to be a good mediator or arbitrator. But we should increase our focus on recruiting just such personalities, and broadening the use of dispute resolution on Wikipedia.

You still haven't mentioned whether your proposal would be enforced by mandatory page protection.Oh, wait, you did. If not, dynamic-IP socks (or meat puppets) still rule. And if it does involve page protection, that's harmful for other reasons I cited. "Making sides talk" is the best answer, sure, but try telling that to any two warring nations. "You must talk instead of edit warring" is existing policy, but your proposal doesn't specify any new means to enforce it. Who gets blocked, and when?--Father Goose 21:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If Ip socks are used to vandalize after limit markers are set, then semiprotection is enough. Meatpuppets

and socks is exactly what the idea is meant to solve. Lets have a little play through scenario.--Alexia Death the Grey 07:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Example cases and how tho handle them

Please add here your hypothetical scenarios of how things may work or not work.

Best case working scenario

1. Editor A adds some content
2. Editor B thinks its inappropriate and reverts
3. Editor A disagrees and reverts again
4. Editor B finds A-s content still inappropriate and reverts
5. Editor A finds that B must have some POV issues and reverts
6. Editor B finds A-s inserted material continuously unsuitable and reverts

Heres where the policy kicks in. There have been now 3 reverts on the inserted material. Neither side can no longer insert and revert. Any further reverts by either side will be undone and they slapped with a block. From here there are several ways to proceed. Either A takes it to talk, finds a consensus end gets his content inserted or along comes previously uninvolved editor, restores A-s edits, marks them according to policy with an appropriate tags and starts dispute resolution in talk including listing the dispute on appropriate page for recruiting neutral parties. Revert without starting dispute resolution at this point is a block offense.So are reverts after tags are in place and dispute resolution is running in talk. If consensus is found ands acted upon, it must be clearly stated in talk so that the enforcer can differentiate acting on consensus from one-sided POV pushing.

Critical aspect of this system is set rules for dispute resolution when limit is pushed so that it becomes mandatory up to involving an neutral mediator to make the decision, if consensus fails to form.--Alexia Death the Grey 07:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Some criticism

I have a few criticisms to make of this proposal, but let's start with this one for now. You're correct that asking people who agree with you to get involved in your editing disputes is called canvassing and is frowned upon. But you're missing the already existing solution, which is to contact uninvolved editors by way of a neutrally expressed message. This can be done by making a request for comments, or by leaving a simple message on the talk page of a related article, noticeboard or WikiProject. In my experience, the problems come with editors who are unable to express the dispute neutrally and who cross into soliciting support for their point of view. But that's their problem and not a problem with Wikipedia's methods. --bainer (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It does not work. Even if the message is neutrally worded accusations of canvassing will rise if there is reason to believe that the person notified shares your opinion. I participate in debates where the division runs on ideological level and in debates sides are usually predictable from previous encounters. One of the motivators of this proposal is the fact that this system does not work and has ended with an Arbcom case against a group that simply agrees in these matters due to sociological factors and watches the same articles. As to your criticism, I would love to hear it so I can address it.--Alexia Death the Grey 11:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A request for comments have to be made using neutral words, such as "There is an ongoing dispute on whether to consider English language as related to Old Frisian". No one would ever accuse you of canvassing for sticking to this format. Regards, --Asterion^talk 17:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good essay!

Just today this happened to me. I have had similar problems two times before. In all these cases, I was reported for 3RR violations for tactical reasons. The 3RR rule as used by established editors against other established editors is almost always nothing more than just another tool in the edit war that they fight.

So, we need to take away this abuse of 3RR and look at the edits themselves to see if the editing is done constructively. Of course, there will be some disputes during editing of politically charged subjects. That's only natural. Any policy must take into account this reality. What matters is if editors are talking to each other via the edit summaries and the talk page. You can have a number of reversions during which editors are giving arguments why they disagree with the arguments of the editor they are reverting.

If this reaches a stalemate, then there is a problem and some intervention is needed. But if no stalemate is reached, as in the case I was reported for today (see above), then the discussions during the reversions can lead to constructive edits. At some points, an editor then says: "Ok, you have a point, so, I've edited in this way to take that objection into account". But according to the 3RR rule this could count as a further partial revert. Of course, the other editor would still not be happy and would make other changes etc. etc. But at the end of the day you could well have a good compromise (as in case of the incident I was reported for today).

To give another example of my experience, not so long ago there was a dispute on the Hamas page on whether or not we could say that "Hamas is best known for suicide bombings" without qualifications or that we should say that this is the case in the West and Israel. No polls have been carried out, but it is a statement that you can read in some sources. I came up with the following solution. Why not mention that Hamas is responsible for suicide attacks, as there is no dispute about that fact. So, I made that edit. However, an editor (surprisingly a pro-Israeli editor) reverted me and warned me on my talk page that I am close to violating the 3RR rule.

So, in conclusion, my experience is that the 3RR rule doesn't work for established editors, especially not in case of politically charged subjects. The 3RR incident I was involved in today, proves that relaxing this rule can make a group of editors with opposing viewpoints "collaborate" using (partial) reversions and edits to deal with each others objections, leading to good results. Count Iblis 01:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alexia

I've barely had time to skim your essay, but I did get the idea. I also hadn't time to read this discussion here, so I may repeat something already suggested; sorry if I do. Anyways, I think it's an absolutely excellent idea, a way of forcing discussion to take place, regardless of the number of editors involved, or their cabal affinities. :)

On the other hand, I feel you are completely wrong in presenting it as a radical change (or even a simple change) to Wikipedia policy. As you may or may not know, things like 3RR have taken years to become what they are; they aren't going to change overnight, and for good reason.

However, if you began proposing this as an 'editing guideline', I think you might have a lot more success. That is, suggest that, if all editors involved in a contentious article will agree to abide by 3RR+1, it could substantially help reduce edit-warring and conflict. In particular, the ppl at the conflict resolution and mediation groups might find this proposal very interesting. Good luck, and thanks for contributing your idea! Eaglizard 13:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Your idea is absolutely splendid! Indeed, as a mutually agreed guideline thats a bit more restrictive than current 3RR it has much higher probability of becoming accepted than as a radical change... It was written at the spur of the moment more as an essay to start people thinking, that there may be better ways... And starting as a guideline, It might claw its way up to the top. My biggest concern is that as a guideline it will not reach those who need it most, people trapped in group edit wars... I must think about this a bit more. Thanks for your feedback:D--Alexia Death the Grey 14:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I promised to comment your essay - but when I got time to do so, I found that other editors had already said all that I wanted to say. However - one thing, perhaps not directly related to 3RR - I propose, that unless {{disputed}}, {{totallydisputed}} and other similar tags are not justified on the article talk page within 30 minutes, they can be removed without counting it as a revert. As you know well, there are editors who run amok in Wikipedia, tagging the articles they don't like with those tags. In some ways I find it a worst case of violating NPOV guideline. Sander Säde 15:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a notification: discussion here. Sander Säde 09:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict with Consensus

I'm not so sure that 3RV/Opinion works well with WP:CONS. Take the following situation for example:

1. After several weeks of debate, a particular group of Wikipedians (let's say, WikiProject Pokemon) comes up with some sort of compromise or consensus (let's say, a merger of the separate Pokemon articles into lists of twenty) and implement that.
2. Some few days later, one single editor decides that he does not like that consensus and goes against it.
3. The larger group reverts for the first time.
4. The single editor reverts for the first time.
5. The larger group reverts for the second time.
6. The single editor reverts for the second time.
7. The larger group reverts for the third time.
8. The single editor reverts for the third time.

At this point, the larger group which had achieved consensus is stuck and the single, disobedient editor has his way.

You Can't Review Me!!! 21:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If that large group of consensus holders is larger than 3 editors or reverts so far have been made by single representative of the same group under 3RR+1 can revert just more starting DR on talk page. If there is already a consensus in the matter then the single person has no chance. If it is a matter that already has a prior dispute resolution process with a result an the talk then reversion is allowed with the reference to the discussion. Forcing a DR is integral part of making this scheme work.--Alexia Death the Grey 04:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, if our present 3RR was in place, the situation would go as follows:

1. After several weeks of debate, a particular group of Wikipedians come up with some sort of compromise or consensus and implement that.
2. Some few days later, one single editor decides that he does not like that consensus and goes against it.
3. A member of the larger group reverts for the first time.
4. The single editor reverts for the first time.
5. The larger group member reverts for the second time.
6. The single editor reverts for the second time.
7. The larger group member reverts for the third time.
8. The single editor reverts for the third time.
9. A second group member reverts for the first time.

In that situation, consensus is preserved because the single editor cannot edit again without breaking 3RR. Now, let's place socks into play.

1. After several weeks of debate, a particular group of Wikipedians come up with some sort of compromise or consensus and implement that.
2. Some few days later, one single editor decides that he does not like that consensus and goes against it.
3. A member of the larger group reverts for the first time.
4. The single editor reverts for the first time.
5. The larger group member reverts for the second time.
6. The single editor reverts for the second time.
7. The larger group member reverts for the third time.
8. The single editor reverts for the third time.
9. A second group member reverts for the first time.
10. The single editor makes a sockpuppet, which reverts for the first time.
11. The second group member reverts for the second time.
12. The sock reverts for the second time.
13. The second group member reverts for the third time.
14. The sock reverts for the third time.
15. A third group member reverts for the first time.

...and so forth. After a while, it will become obvious that the bunch of newborn opposers are socks. Obviously, things won't be cut so neatly, with people reverting in random orders and such and the existence of genuine supporters of the "single" editor. Regardless, I find it more appealing than having a single editor trump consensus. You Can't Review Me!!! 21:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly whats wrong with the current system. It makes numbers matter and it does not DEMAND dispute resolution.--Alexia Death the Grey 04:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we're looking at different situations here. In my scenario, dispute resolution has already taken place, hence the formation of a consensus. In your scenario, it seems as though there was no prior attempt at consensus. Sorry for the misunderstanding. My concern is that a single, disobedient user can disregard a difficultly-achieved consensus if the rule is three reverts per idea, whereas multiple users can overturn a single disobedient user under the current 3RR. In my opinion, numbers do matter because a significantly larger number signifies relative consensus. As it is currently, dispute resolution is still called for, since edit wars can still get pages locked; it's called for, though not necessarily taken up, and I'm not so sure tweaking the rule will tweak mindsets as well. You Can't Review Me!!! 04:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, you see it right. This proposal (?) will emancipate the opinions. No matter how many share them, it counts one, as it's opposite. Of course, if there's a "deal" or a (reached) consensus about a particluar question it is a different topic, called WP:POINT &/or WP:NPOV. We're not talking about the same thing :) --Ezsaias 08:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)