User:Cpiral/R3R/theory

The third revert process

R3R is a simplified version of the Third-Revert Rule explained here differently than explained at Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule or at 3RR Administrator instructions mainly by focusing exclusively on just precisely what the third revert is, in theory. (You may now skip directly to the simplified scenario and be done here.)

R3R will appeal to editors concerned only about content, looking to ease unreasonable contention levels. It uses the edit warring & 3RR noticeboard in a process that can take ten minutes from the start of filling out the forms to the outcome of an arbitration result. It maximizes the potential for keeping on a steady and peaceful pace of content improvements, mainly by waving editors of the winning and losing parties to keep moving on.

Like discussion pages the R3R context is directly content-oriented (except for filling out the administrator request form). If there must be some departure from the context of content, then a resort to filling out forms more effectively returns the context of content than might a civil appeal to talk page guidelines. (In fact comparing those two options is a category error.) Both discussion and R3R are civil devices, but by comparison arbitration far out-classes continuing an ineffective discussion. Just about anybody can count to three at any time. Wikipedia administrators can surely fix content contention without resort to the personal level, thus fulfilling the original intent of discussion's role in meritorious content, and maintaining the original vision of a wiki. File and see.

The Wikipedia project uncovered a challenge to the usability of a public wiki. A wiki designers original vision for garnering meritorious content was based on the many participants' reasoning on discussion pages. "Before a contribution is finalized, there can occur an obligatory call for explanation." But it was discovered that the disruptive emotions cast by a contagious warrior type would burst the firewall that is the Save page button; it was discovered that when the power of reason is paralyzed by the casting of dispersions Wikipedia content could itself weaken, and that many of the most reasonable and intelligent editors were often too sensitive and tempted to abandon any "contaminated" public wiki. R3R is the inoculation.

Wikipedia has perfectly addressed the edit warring situation. An administrator's duties promote edit war arbitration work, and edit war arbitration work can be as simple as the 3RR policy is clear. Why is R3R a crowning achievement never to be surpassed? Because it solves three big problems in one step that are analogous to unemployment, a crumbling infrastructure, and social unrest. It does so by redesigning the implementation of the two original ends of a wiki: meritorious content and civil debate. R3R depends on understanding the wisdom of BRD because R3R wisely stretches BRD to BRRD. (See section Counts.) R3R wisely allows for a request for an explanation to be brushed off twice in a kind of invisible body language. Where the the criticism is a ghostly silence indicated only by the pushing of the revert or contribute button, believe wisdom pushed the wiki button, not that a warrior pushed a psychological button. This is a lot to ask, but accepting it will enforce the original vision of taking content explanations to the talk page while minimizing the need to do so; and it clarifies the execution of the option to abandon a poor discussion and just proceed to confidently fill out the forms. Content will be decided by an experienced editor who is also an expert in policy. Just presume the war ends before it starts, and meritorious content prevails, perfectly as planned.

R3R affects peace by adopting WP:AGF to mean "tolerate two reverts by holding a belief that the other could be wisely considerate in this case". The natural stress of contention is meant critically to strengthen the good and weaken the bad, and so it would defeat the purpose of R3R to worry about the lack of wisdom in a button, a discussion, or in an arbitration form. Arbitration is a perfectly natural and simple mechanism: one, two, three: Happy editing! In this theory is the simple counting to three, and an objective judgement upon the merit of the contribution in question. Also offered is a belief in peace, and some clarity as to the ease of the process of operating a civil device. These in turn confer the power to finalize content decisions quickly and without personal emotional involvement.

R3R is a guiding mindset for editors at all levels in terms of a soothing reassurance of order and civil justice. It's a road map to peace and light, through ordinal rationality. For a content editor it's like the thumb for the hand. Its compass points to the noticeboard no matter which contributions they face. Test drive R3R like a Porsche 911, for it does for Wikipedia what 911 does for civil society. R3R eliminates the civility dilemma on Wikipedia. File and see. It will return a wiki to its usefulness as originally intended; the beatific vision was civil discourse resulting in meritorious content, the merit being sound reasoning about the content while respecting opinions of all sorts, and learning what sorts really are about, existing.

Simplified scenario: one bold edit

In order to zero-in on the gist of R3R, assume there was just one bold edit that changed one word. When does R3R apply? Let us count the steps towards the critical "R" of "3RR". The procession unfolds like this:
(Z) steady state status quo
(1) a Bold contribution
(A) a mere Revert
(2) a Bold Revert
(B) a doubly Bold Revert
(3) a doubly Bold Revert
(C) a third Revert
(4) a third Revert
(D) Z

The 3RR noticeboard adjudicates as follows: 1)If the bold edit had merit, the ruling goes against the defender at C. 2)If the bold edit did not have merit, the ruling goes against the contributor at 4.

Today's administrator considers their known and tested content policy and editing policy, becoming chief editor and magistrate for a minute, reasoning as follows:

The first revert said "Think again". (BRD)
The second revert said "Think even harder". (OK, Fine.)
The third revert broke the peace. (I police here.)

Now, when it could be the case that clearly and simply

The definition of "revert" is revert.
Discussions are not deemed relevant.
The only (experimental) variable is the one bold contribution at 1.
The 3RR noticeboard is at thumb.

then the following facts become, in the scientific spirit, exceedingly clear:

The main thing to the notice is the merit of the bold edit at 1.
Each bold revert was more of a personal gamble on personal opinion of the merit of the bold edit at 1.
The third revert (Which one of the two?) is the violating revert. There is no "think hard again" option.

The violating revert therefore occurs at either C or 4, when the noticeboard is called to observe. If at 4 the offense by the contributor is badgering. If at C the offense by the defender is loitering. An arbitrary arbitration then statistically proffers the deciding judgement upon what is precisely equivalent to the original issue (content). (Remember our necessary assumption: discussion style is neutralized as a polarizing issue.) Judgments carry light sentences (if you will that, gulp, a 48-hour block on certain articulation is "light").

The description is simplified for the reader. Judgements are want, by arbiter necessity, to be simplified so as to be quick, affective, efficacious. The rationale for this simplification—no editing, no attitudes, no discussions, no "priors"—is this: what precisely is the third R of edit warring? (Really "What is 3?") The R3R concept should now be clear. It is now so clear it could be automated except for the human judgement needed to classify the edit as meriting Wikipedia:content or not. The modern wiki admin's vision: Editor name, number of reverts (now an uncomplicated count), perceived quality of the contribution at 1. Compute... Done. (Next.)

In this way R3R focuses on content at every step: 1, A, 2, B, 3, C, 4 dramatically exploding NOT, all the way to the board walk.

Counts

R is for revert. BRD and RRR are TLAs. R3R means RRR from a single editor. On the other hand BRD implies two editors. BRD is the parent of R3R. B means bold, and D means discuss. It is a category error to count the three R's of R3R the same way as the three letters of BRD.

The defenders R are forcefully given at A, B, and C, and forcefully received at 1, 2, and 3. The contributors R are forcefully given at 2, 3, and 4, and forcefully received at A, B, and C. An aloof contributor should directly feel BRRR*, where * is a bad word from the board. B does not count as an R. An aloof defender should directly feel RRR*. R3R is about the third forceful application upon another editor to "think harder again", and it is wrong.

From a BRD POV involving two editors, a R3R stretches a BRD to a maximum of BRRRRD. There is a fourth revert because there are four R's there. But from a purely R3R POV the term fourth revert is confusing, inconsequential, and irrelevant.

From a R3R POV involving the contributing editor, the correct limit BRD can be stretched is BRRD. There is a two R limit. The loudest message that can remain civil is a "Think harder" message to a defender. From the defender's POV they feel those two R's but must tolerate those two R's against themselves for the sake of peace, BRD, and the practice of AGF.

3RR might mean the "RR RR RR" of two editors, but that formulation turns out to be inelegant. No, the second R of 3RR is for Rule, hence the choice of labels for the rule are {3RR, R3R, RRRR}.

Reality

3RR is filed under edit warring because of wikilawyers and tendentious editors. (See #Subversive tactics below.)

Personal maturity and editor faith and retention may matter very much. (In fact personhood may matter more than any wiki; it may have the highest priority imaginable.) Yet these are not the purview of the noticeboard for edit warring. Instead, a justly perceived ruling for the quality of "their content" is the probably the main thing on their mind. And to be sure, they as a group are as honorable as it gets. And remember also that it's a volunteer job, and that they are probably a very busy person, so would probably rather not get personal if they can resist it.

R3R is integral to reality, being a kindred spirit to being bold, the bold-revert-discuss process, talk page etiquette, having no rules, and the "assuming good faith", all of which are also instilled in the administrators at the noticeboard, (a bastion of open-minded skepticism that includes all those plus a keen grasp of the core content policies concerning situations perceived as "neutral point of view", verifiability, or "original research" issues). The noticeboard has an especially keen grasp of the language both of the content and on the talk page. Statistically, they will choose who and why based on the language involved.

R3R does have warlike characteristics:

R3R as a whole is a line in the sand.
The third R means war, but R3R does not condone that disagreement be perceived as entrenched before then.
It plays the peacekeeper device in a climate of frequent edit wars. When crossed there is quick and decisive action of a volunteer army of many hundreds of admins at the noticeboard, eager to just get things done by applying Readin', 'Riting and 'Rithmetic, and with minimal psychological detective work.
R3R treaties cannot support leaving an article in a contentious state.
R3R is a contributor's bane. The onus is on the contributor to explain if asked.
R3R is a defender's best weapon against an unwanted change of any word.

A winning defender will perform the first R and the last. (Wait for it. Arbitration must rule first.) A winning contributor will fit their expectation of the bold edit. (And that according to any noticeboard). In short, don't talk, revert. If reverting means being noticed, and for that reason you don't want to, either you must have studied Wikipedia:How to not get_outed_on_Wikipedia, or you simply aren't confident that reality is truth.

Not an edit war

Assume two highly capable editors respecting WP:AGF, one expertly defending an article, the other a green but well-intentioned contributor. Both use good edit summaries, but are too wary of discussion and style issues because TPG and MOS are ignored for one reason or another.

Say the contributing editor exercises WP:BOLD, but innocently stresses the WP:BRD process past its R3R limit of BRRD, and onto BRRDR. Say the defender yawns and fills out some boring noticeboard forms for the umpteenth time. The board is is called by the defending editor relying on R3R to win a favorable decision in a quick "Board V. Green" war. It never really becomes an "editor V. editor" war.

Assuming good faith, a conscientious, protective watcher, deeply considering the contributing editor's actions at 1, 2, and 3—which could include the observation of sincere efforts to reform rewordings of 1, 2, or 3, and including many edits— finally chooses to react with a revert (at A, B, or then C). That watcher practices the tolerance of being overridden while exercising hopeful patience. This also really happens.

Dispute resolution boards want proof of discussion, because the board is also busy, but there are no rules.

Resolutions

The merit of R3R is that it is a guide in the manner of BRD and AGF. The goal is not to eliminate the contentious energy inherent in civil debate, but rather to insure a confrontation-free route for editors. The goal is to squelch complaints and increase editor retention.

3R3 is perfectly clear but may be impossibly simple. A complementary process is required, which is a new kind of arbitration that is a mixture of the styles of our current 3RR noticeboard with Arbitration Committee. The new 3RR forms for R3R will have no comment section. It will offer the immediate and binding resolution by the policy expertise of any admin, but remove the comment phase in the 3RR process now permits.

An R3R noticeboard will be the same thing as Arbcom, only much lighter in nature and much more prevalent in activity. It will put peace loving scholars with peace loving admins. An admin's mood will determine whether to arbitrate 3RR, or to arbitrate R3R.

3RR policy has an unclear terminology and a harsh style. This is no doubt because the setting is the dust and smoke of war and wikilawyering.

When the purview of this clear and simple R3R scenario is exceeded, there is 3RR and an edit war. When R3R is offered as an alternative, there will be a wave of arbitration calls, a wave of rulings, all of which will contain light punishments, all of which will educate. The punishment is for exceeding the allowable stretch of BRD to BRRD. The punishment is for an inability to discuss, for any reason. If the discussion phase of a WP:BRD process is met without the etiquette rules in Talk page guidelines, the further counting of reverts is irrelevant, and the R3R noticeboard can be called before the war starts.

It is 3RR judgement time when simplicity fades, and the human spirit is called to make wisdom.

the clear number of reverts exceeded three
the number of editors exceeded two
the civility of discussions is reprehensible

It is complexity that is required when encouraging effort or diffusing discouragement.

The remainder of the page is theoretical or thought-experimental construction material:

Another way to resolve the situation without war is somewhat unruly, but possible. Say two busy and savvy editors use only edit summaries to communicate, and that they show progress in mutual understanding of the constructive intent, so that there is no discussion on the talk page. In this case the reverts occur multiple times, stretching the concept of BRD to BRRRRR (that's five reverts between two editors). Assuming good faith in both dispositions, the patient teacher protecting their well-known article from a visitor can think to themselves "think even harder this time, my friend" into multiple reverts, and all the way to the board, where they turn the visiting student in for wasting time. The violation: peaceful "loitering".

Speak softly but carry a big stick. Knowing human nature and using the board in a wise manner prevents wars. The second amendment to the constitution assures us that properly maintained guns (the board) operated by trained and sober individuals are in the interest of peace. Know your 3RR forms and how and when to file them. Then sit back and protect your articles or your "well-established" contribution to an article. That's what 3RR is about: keeping the state of mind of an editor peaceful because they have civil recourse and they know how to use it.

According to Broken Windows theory, wars are bad for the business of constructive economy. The spirit of Bold, Revert, Discuss and its descendent, the Three Revert Rule is "fighting the good fight" in the presence of a "healthy stress", such that a subjective peace is not only possible, but economic. Then there is no edit war, unless we are assuming bad faith in the mind of the other editor; but if this unfortunate assumption has evidence, try the board immediately; if not be patient.

The onus is not on the admin of 3RR to preclude some sophisticated sabotage, because although 3RR offers a sufficient method to sabotage, it is not sophisticated, and the sabotage is an edit war involving the BRD process and the noticeboard, which for our purposes in discussion, is the purview of other pages, not 3RR as I will explain. Let's keep it simple where there is one 3RR violation by each editor. I will show that the 3rd revert at (3) cannot be a trap, and that the 3rd revert at (C) cannot be a trap. And my premise will be made sound: the user of this page, 3RR, will be preoccupied by the numbers of R's for peaceful reasons and not for sabotage. The sabotage I describe is efficient, exposes any ethical weakness, and does not exploit 3RR; it does exploit the noticeboard. The sabotage you seem to see implements policy with a despicable "letter of the law" approach, but the noticeboard page I will describe in the edit warring process is judicious persons, and those people effectively diffuse either wikilawyering sabotage began at 1 or cabal sabotage sitting on 0.

Say some cabal does lie in waiting for the other to fall into the 3RR trap that is the violation of the 3rd revert at (3); they have done no wrong yet, and on principle we must assume good faith (WP:AGF). The cabal could only: force the respectful bold contributor into BRD discussion to avoid violating 3RR, and in the edit war, that is the purview of talk page etiquette, not 3RR. If the cabal reveals their gall in said discussion, and that causes the respectful editor move to go to (3), then the cabal will is rooted out at the noticeboard for etiquette violations and thus a 3RR sabotaged on principle, not policy wording. So 3 cannot be a trap because the villain at (0) who set the trap will be uncloaked at the talk page. The respectful editor "violates" 3RR, calls the noticeboard, and holds discussion page ammunition, foiling any cabal sabotage by proving there was "no real discussion". Meanwhile the article sits at 3, the contributed version. And if not at 3, the doomed cabal plot went to C and violated both 3RR and talk page etiquette.

Now say I am protecting Neil Postman as a respectful editor preoccupied with counting R's. But I only want my enemy, who appears as an inept editor at (1) and who is corrupting my protected article, to violate talk page etiquette at B (after my bold revert) so I can safely make my 3rd revert at (C) confident the war at the noticeboard will vindicate my 3rd revert to (0). It will not work as a trap because my civil discussion is not a trap, the enemy's own poor discussion etiquette is falling into there own trap, to be rooted out at the noticeboard, and if discussions don't start, both 3 and C are violations, but then it is a trap I fall into at C by my own ignorance; I should have stopped at 3 and instead reported the incident at the noticeboard if I had understood 3RR clearly. So C cannot be a trap because the villain at (1) will be uncloaked at the talk page.

I came here new and confused and believing I was the main audience. Unless I can read clearly that the first violation occurs occurs at (3), then I can neither ensure my peace-tactic at the article, nor argue the case at the noticeboard for my deliberate violation at C (as explained), nor can I fathom BRD discussion page tactics relating to 3RR. I must say this to defend my premise: the noticeboard is an integral aspect of protecting articles, and my condolences go out to them for there constant need to read emotional and intelligent appeals that they must quickly strike down because they perceive an orchestration, while avoiding a temptation carry out policy that is so obviously being exploited that they hand a false victory to a perceived gloating wikilawyer.

I have claimed that C is not a trap. But in a way it is. Flailing in a foggy 3RR for too long does mean I am called to a kind of initial defeat by draining my time in a just war I have to learn to fight quickly and so eventually with little effort. But as I have explained, such a war master cannot be a villain of 3RR. It is a never-ending, defensive war, not against an adept 3RR-based saboteur, but against an inept-discussion-page, pseudo-editor. I may seem like a cabal saboteur, or like a wikilawyer becoming this policy expert for my own devices, yet I am a highly respectable editor.