Wikipedia talk:Edit warring

WP:3RR and reverting bots.

Does the 3RR / 1RR apply to reverting bots? Should it apply under certain situations and not others? (eg. it might apply to reverting a bot because you disagree with the basic premise of what the bot is doing, especially if there's a clear consensus backing the bot's actions, but not because you think a bot did something in error.) For the 3RR this might not come up often, but it can come up more easily with pages under 1RR restrictions. The specific situation that came up for me just now was that I removed a low-quality source on a 1RR-protected article, but neglected to notice that it was used elsewhere in the article; AnomieBOT stepped in and salvaged it in that other place by expanding the reference. I then removed it there as well (since we were already citing a higher-quality source), but realized after doing so that that could technically be described, under the current wording of 3RR, as a revert, since I was reverting AnomieBOT's automatic expansion of the source. I don't think that it actually qualifies (there was no dispute, and I don't think AnomieBOT counts as a user for 'no intervening edits by another user' anyway), but I thought I would ask the question here, since I'm not 100% certain whether bots count as "editors" or "users" or the like for the purpose of policy. And either way, if not, it might be worth clarifying unambiguously. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Reinstating documented consensus

I previously opened a section at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring/Archives/2021/January about this. @Ritchie333: is the idea of reverts to enforce an established consensus, eg that documented in an RfC, actually controversial? I see it all the time, and there's rarely ever blocks for the reverter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I think we just need more discussion into it. One of the potential problems is this feud (one of several drawn-out discussions involving infoboxes) which was accompanied (if I recall correctly) by some edit-warring. Editors could have pointed to this policy and carried on reverting, "because it's consensus". However, the consensus ultimately did change. So this should only be policy if this is a widely-accepted standard without any issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: That's fine (starting an RfC) but I'm just trying to understand your concern here, so appropriate wording can be drafted to mitigate it. Looking at that discussion, it seems there's a close saying the infobox should be uncollapsed. So then I'd say anyone reverting to reinstate that consensus is in the clear, right? If the close is bad then it should be appealed at AN but users can't just pretend like it doesn't exist. (Unless I'm misunderstanding the issue here?) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)