Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2022/August

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Edit warring. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Making WP:3RRNO point 7 more specific

WP:3RRNO#7:
The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: ... 7. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

It's fine for most of our policies to allow for interpretation; but the 3RR is a red-line rule that depends on being extremely unambiguous to work. You can see, here, a large number of highly-experienced editors in good standing disagreeing over whether something fell into the exception. Insofar as is possible, we should avoid that. The current "what counts as exempt can be controversial..." bit is good advice but not enough. Therefore, I suggest adding the word unquestionably or obviously (in bold) to point 7, in keeping with points 4 and 5, so it would read something like "Removing contentious material that is unquestionably libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to..." BLP-sensitive material is extremely serious, but if you're going to ignore the 3RR to remove it you need to be willing to assert that the problem is unquestionable or obvious; WP:BLPN exists specifically for non-obvious cases. --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the intent here, but I question what a single word here is going to do when 3RRNO exemption claims are so filled with wikilawyering. Currently, all you need to do to claim 3RRNO#7 is to make: (a) edits that remove content; (b) that relates to a living person. Then you argue that the sourcing is woefully insufficient and the material is biased anyhow and the content is a BLP violation. And with this change, you'd just have to add to the end of your flippant exemption claim, "Moreover, the BLP violation is so unquestionable that anyone who disputes it is simply not here in good faith". You can see in the linked discussion this sort of grandiose and deliberately antagonising grandstanding by some editors (not by Levivich, to be clear).

I would recommend changing the text instead to say "Removing contentious material that any experienced editor in good standing would agree is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to..." (changes shown in bold). If this is a narrowing of the exemption then so be it. I think 3RRNO#7 has some use cases, but not that many. An example I gave in the linked discussion is when there is repeated addition (perhaps by many people canvassed from social media) of the text "X is a rapist", with clearly insufficient sourcing or no sourcing, but this could not be counted under 3RRNO#4 (vandalism) because it is done in good faith and a plausibly true claim. There is almost never a justified reason to invoke 3RRNO#7 when you are reverting the edits of an experienced editor in good standing. — Bilorv (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I would agree to this suggestion. Experienced editors are, well, experienced, and have some advice to impart to the young 'uns here. If we can agree that xyz statement is "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to...", it would satisfy the intent of this RfC. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If you must, then you just add the word "obvious" to the exception, although it is clearly implied already. The key to the exemption is that the removal is "urgent", not just factually incorrect, which would direct you to BLPN instead of edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, "urgent" would be a good addition to make as it would bring a measurable additional criterion. But you would still see a lot of wikilawyering over it ("it is urgent to remove all BLP violations"). — Bilorv (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I think in these cases, we should apply a similar method used in American jurisprudence, the "the average person would see this as" clause. I would think this would be implied, but implied seems to be a lost idea here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Man on the Clapham omnibus -> Brit version. Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd actually rather clarify it in the opposite direction. In a BLP it shouldn't have to be clear or obvious or unquestionable to require exclusion (and justify a violation of 3RR) until whatever discussion -- at talk or at BLPN -- reaches consensus. There is no urgency to including information. There is urgency in excluding from a BLP content that is possibly harmful. valereee (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Then prepare for tons of edit warring, because everyone is going to claim that everything they want to revert out, including whitewashing or just well sourced negative material is now exempt. Just about all "possibly harmful" is already accepted as a justification as exempt, ie: committed a crime, etc. Saying someone is "pro-Kremlin" isn't, as it isn't a crime. The policy was designed to prevent this, now it would allow it. This isn't clarifying, that would be radically changing policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  Tend to agree, there is a difference between libelous/unsourced (potentially libelous) and biased/poorly sourced. Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  
  I do get that, and @Dennis Brown, I want to clarify that this opinion is separate from the other discussion. (FWIW I think the removals could have been handled better.) And of course I don't want to see tons of edit-warring. But in the case of a BLP, my opinion is always going to be that it would be better to have attention called to it by edit-warring than have possibly-problematic content included before consensus is achieved. valereee (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  Valereee, it's always a compromise. My understanding of policy, which is only given authority by consensus, is that to quality for an exemption, edit warring is only excusable when it is obvious that the material is damaging to the individual. Whether or not it is true or not isn't the point, as admin, we can't decide that on the fly. If someone is edit warring to include a new claim of the person being a criminal, for instance, we default to not include it until a discussion is had, and the person including it while breaking RR is at fault. In the event the claim is less contentious, (like the example case I'm being reviewed for), then we have to be agnostic about the content and look solely at the behavior. Being "pro-Kremlin" (or my extension, "pro-Trump" or "pro-Obama" or whatever) is not libelous. In those cases, we focus on the behavior because the "damage" to the individual is minimal. This is exactly what the talk page or BLPN is for. I can't always know what should or shouldn't be allowed in the article, so I MUST use the "obvious" standard. Some people are proud to be "pro-Kremlin", so I don't default to automatically assuming it should be excluded. No one is proud to be "convicted felon", so it's easy to assume it shouldn't be included until a discussion is had on the talk page or BLPN. The same would hold true for anything relating to sexuality or gender, so someone trying to insert that someone is gay, lesbian, trans, trans-phobic, etc would be be at fault for trying to forcibly include it over RR. To the majority of people, sexuality/gender and criminality are "obvious" exemptions to RR if not clearly supported. Political ideas are not obvious when presented with multiple references from obviously reliable sources. That doesn't mean the material should stay, (in this case, it probably doesn't), it just means that the solution MUST be discussion, not edit warring. Only by being agnostic to the edits (unless there is an obvious issue or urgency to the removal) can an admin be impartial in using the tools. The block wasn't to decide who was right in regards to the edits (which WOULD be an abuse of tools). It was to stop a particular behavior. Consensus supports this, and by extention, the written policy should as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  Well, personally I'd find being called "pro-Trump" libelous. Being called a lesbian, even though I'm not, wouldn't be libelous. It would simply be incorrect. YMMV. The admin shouldn't assess the content, just the behavior. If the editor doing the removals is not doing it for disruptive reasons, if they seem to be sincerely concerned, admins shouldn't be assessing whether they believe the content is libelous. That's a content issue, for me. The fact another well-intentioned experienced editor believes it is should be enough. JMO, and I do get that others disagree. valereee (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you are viewing this from your own eyes, not objectively. And some editors are always going to disagree, so the fact that someone disagrees is meaningless, it is consensus that matters. A consensus would agree that political affiliation is much less contentious than claiming someone is trans (or deadnaming them). It doesn't matter if you or I agree, it is the consensus that matters. As an admin, you and I are expected to use our best judgement to gauge what consensus would be, as applied to a particular case. Literally, that is the primary reason for admin: to do what a consensus would do in a variety of circumstances, and not let our personal opinions get in the way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I think we're talking past each other. I don't think it's because I'm viewing this non-objectively or through my personal opinions. If the subject of a BLP would consider the assertion libelous, and the editor doing the removals is basing their removals on that, it's a valid concern that requires consensus before including. It doesn't matter what I think or even what consensus here is assumed to be with regard to the specific assertion being libelous or not. But I don't want to bludgeon this. If everyone disagrees with me, it's fine. valereee (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps. The main difference is that I feel we have to use what consensus at Wikipedia would say is libelous, not what the individual would necessary say. This doesn't mean we are insensitive to what the person would say, but with high level of experience (what you and I should have as admin), it is much easier to determine what the community would say, whereas it may be impossible to know what the BLP subject themselves would say without making assumptions we aren't qualified to make. There isn't a perfect system, so for us to be evenhanded, we need clear lines. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I think we're just disagreeing on where those clear lines should be drawn. I'm drawing them more conservatively because I'm more concerned about protecting the living person than I am about other issues. valereee (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

(Pinging @Dennis Brown because I'm specifically interested in your opinion): What if we decided to use 'clear evidence the BLP subject considers this libelous' as a justification for 3RR vio? That is, if the editor doing the removals of content has provided in both edit summary and at talk RS supporting that the subject objects to an assertion as untrue, that's good enough to both require removal until consensus to include is achieved and to justify 3RR vio? valereee (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
You can't use 'clear evidence the BLP subject considers this libelous' as a criterial. We aren't mind readers and that would make the policy unenforceable ("Well I thought they would see it as libelous" would be the new BLPCRY). As I explained elsewhere, you have to use common sense and apply the "reasonable person" standard. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
No, "Well I thought they would see it as libelous" is not good enough. Mind reading is not necessary. RS (or in this case self-source) supporting that they do is necessary. But, oh well. :) valereee (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
That too abusable, and for the record I agree that the material in Khalek's article was UNDUE and challengeable under BLP (though not, per current policy, something to be edit-warred over). Above you raised Trump, but imagine any time he objected to some factual claim and said it was libel and editors used that claim to edit-war out material they dislike. I think you're opening the door way too wide here, David Duke has denied being a white supremacist. Is that enough to edit-war out what is our primary description of him? nableezy - 16:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Point taken, though I'll clarify that I'm not arguing we take the subject's self-valuation into account in achieving consensus; they don't get a !vote. We only need to take it into account when considering whether the material needs consensus before being reinserted and whether vio was justified. valereee (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
That is decided at BLPN and the article talk page, not by drive-by admin and not by the winner in an edit war. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

A fine but potentially important point: it is not primarily what the subject of the BLP considers libellous that matters, but what the law says. If the subject considers a comment libellous but there is no case to answer, the foundation might have to field some aggressive letters but it's not the kind of existential issue that must trump our best judgement on how to write the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I find myself agreeing with @Valereee. I think the correct reading is "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial – so don't rush to restore information that another editor believes is a BLP violation". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I would support the inclusion of "obvious" or "unquestionably" to prevent wikilawyering. If the standard is merely "I think this could be a BlP violation" then 3RR becomes impossible to enforce. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
It seems fundamental to Wikipedia functioning properly that edit warring is wrong, even if the version of the article you are seeking to restore is the "right" one. It takes two to edit war, and if you are repeatedly being reverted by another experienced editor, then perhaps that's an indication that it isn't a clear-cut violation as you think it is. In practice all the exceptions to 3RR are extremely narrow, and if we "strengthen" 3RRNO#7 to the point where saying a BLP has been described as having a political viewpoint is enough to justifying edit warring, then we will be moving to a point where anyone can edit war over a BLP at any time just by claiming a good-faith objection. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Whatever is decided. Let's be certain, that we stay as far away (as possible) from censorship, concerning what can & can't be included in an article. GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I oppose changing the language. Adding the word "obvious" will not clarify anything; quite the opposite, it will muddy the waters as to what "obvious" means. For example, adding positive material to a BLP that is unsupported promotion is a BLP violation, and, if it's promotional enough, an "obvious" BLP violation. Yet many would not find that in an edit war over such material, the editor removing it 7 times is exempt. I find that generally most admins apply the exemption in a relatively reasonable and objective manner, and I see no reason to change the language.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I agree. The policy should be clear enough as is. Adding "obvious" would be the only change I would support that wouldn't change the meaning, but again, the policy should be obvious. I'm shocked so few people have a grasp of how impossible it would be to enforce RR without that standard. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
What does "obvious" mean in practice? How does an admin evaluate whether a claim is well-sourced without making a content decision? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
The meaning of "obvious" should be obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would also ask, how does an admin know if content is obviously poorly sourced without looking at the sources? Levivich (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
You fundamentally do not understand the standard here. Admin are not going to read through all the sources and make a determination (ie: form an opinion) as to whether or not the edit should or should not be included. That is the de facto definition of "involved". That isn't how it works. If the edit is plausible (sourced and mentioned in the source) and there are no obvious problems that create a sense of urgency, then it isn't exempt. You can drag it out to 100 paragraphs if you like, but that is the standard that admin generally use, as demonstrated by the opinions of admin in the previous discussion. Otherwise, there is no way to enforce the policy. We aren't here to decide content, we are here to monitor and react to behavior. For behavior to be exempt, it must be clear and obvious that the edit is such that it warrants exemption. Otherwise, the default is "it does not", which IS the default, by virtue of the fact that ERRNO is about exemptions, not the standard rule. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I feel like it's not that your explanations are falling on deaf ears, it's that you are not answering or not articulating in response to good faith questions. What would you do if I add text saying John Doe is a convicted rapist with ten sources which just say he was charged with rape? Separately, can you explain the difference between read[ing] through all the sources and mak[ing] a determination (ie: form an opinion) as to whether or not the edit should or should not be included and determining if the edit is plausible (sourced and mentioned in the source? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
That's easy. He hasn't been convicted, and the sources would all be clear about that. Takes two seconds to verify that. Probably not the best example to prove your case. And you don't have to take my word for what I'm saying, the previous discussion had a very clear consensus on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't have a case to prove; I'm trying to understand your interpretation of policy. (In the XRV case it sounded like you blocked without reading the sources; that's why I !voted to not endorse.) So to you "obvious" means requires little to no analysis, not that you don't have to read the sources. But you would only read ten sources if the claim being made was serious enough to create "urgency". Is that correct? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
You have no interest in learning how I interpret the policy, that is clear to anyone reading your words. I interpret it the same way the majority did in the last discussion. Instead, you keep trying to twist things around to "prove" I'm wrong somehow, in spite of it being already made perfectly clear I'm not. I'm not interested in playing your games. How I interpreted it is the same as a majority of other editors. It is you with a minority view of the policy, not me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Ouch. I have no motivation to prove you wrong; I have no horse in this race. I asked a question here about what "obvious" meant,[1] and you were the one who answered.[2] It's not about you, but since you are answering I am basing my questions on your previous answers. You had said that it is pretty obvious [a rape claim] would be handled differently[3] than a "pro-Kremlin" claim, and that you can not, and will not, read each and every source to verify that (in my opinion) the prose best matches the source[4] for the pro-Kremlin, etc. claim, so I interpreted that to mean that "handled differently" meant that you would read each and every source for a rape claim but not a political claim. If I'm misinterpreting that I apologize. I'm left not knowing how you meant that a claim which is a crime would be handled differently than a political claim which is not. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Dennis what you seem to be saying is that if what is claimed about a person isn’t necessarily harmful, that is, if it’s just saying Pro-Kremlin but that isn’t sourced, then it isn’t a big deal because it’s not bad. Or saying someone is 170cm but they are actually 175cm, then there is no worry. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the BLP policy and I’m surprised to see how far you are doubling down here. If the sources don’t back up a description of a person, no matter what it is, it is inherently a BLP violation. That you didn’t check the sources to see if a BLP exemption applies doesn’t have anything to do with making you involved, but everything to do in how you incorrectly applied policy. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

A clear consensus was just demonstrated that my interpretation is the accepted one. If you can't accept a clear and obvious consensus that covered every part of the event, then nothing I say will satisfy you. It should be obvious that you are the one misunderstanding policy, and a majority of people have already said this in the last discussion. You have the minority view, not me. Understand that going forward, policy will continue to be enforced as such, as it always has. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Note: I've advertised this discussion at WP:CENT, WP:VPP, WT:BLP, WT:EP, and WT:V. Levivich (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I also lean towards strengthening, not weakening, 3RRNO #7. It's safer to exclude contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced about BLPs ("problematic BLP content") while it's being discussed, rather than to include it. Erring on the side of exclusion protects the reader from misinformation, and it protects the BLP subject from unwarranted harm to their reputation. Anyone who is repeatedly removing problematic BLP content, enough to pass 3RR, is, by definition, edit warring against at least one other editor who is repeatedly restoring the content. The editor(s) repeatedly re-adding problematic content are doing something far worse than the editor(s) repeatedly removing it. Temporarily omitting a lie in a BLP article is far safer than temporarily omitting the truth. Strengthening 3RRNO #7 will make it easier to enforce, not harder. The reviewing admin should block the editor(s) repeatedly reinstating problematic BLP content, rather than the editor(s) removing it (or block no one and protect the page). That's easier to enforce than what we have now, because admins will clearly know who to block in an edit war over problematic BLP content. I support adding "good faith" to match WP:BLPRESTORE, which states that as long as problematic BLP content is removed in good faith, it must not be restored without consensus (When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.). WP:3RRNO#7 should say, 7. Removing in good faith contentious material .... Levivich (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, I agree with your goals, but not your methods. If you notice in the discussion, all admin agreed with my interpretation, while non-admin were split. I think this is because admin are the ones that have to actually enforce the policy, and have a better idea of how impossible some ideas can be to enforce. Non-admin are split simply because good people can have differing opinions. Admin can not dig as deep you think we can into the "right or wrong" of the edit itself, or we are involved, and can't act. The only exception to this is the "what any admin would do" exception for WP:INVOLVED, which makes the whole situation very problematic to have to claim. If I have a strong opinion on a topic or the content of any edit (other than vandalism, etc), I'm not going to act as admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
What methods would work? It was obvious the content I removed was poorly sourced and didn't have consensus, and the RFC confirms that. Had I not removed it, it might still be there. That would have been harmful, to readers, the subject, and the encyclopedia. Article talk page discussion didn't stop the content from being re-added, neither did user talk page discussion, nor a report to AE. The last time someone was repeatedly restoring poor BLP content, about a month ago, I reported it to BLPN and nobody did anything at all. (I later removed it again.) Nothing works, except undo. Levivich (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
1. It was not obvious it was poorly sourced. There were over 10 sources that mentioned the topic. Not saying they were great, but deciding how great they are is NOT part of the admin job in this, only seeing that they exist. I do NOT decide the content, I only verify that the text is plausible. 2. Having consensus isn't relevant for an article that isn't restricted to "must have consensus first", which is a rule that admins can enforce, but only if the rules has been applied to that specific article via DS or GS, which it wasn't. Someone claiming an edit has consensus means nothing, people say that all the time, and half the time, they are either wrong or lying, so there isn't much we can do with a simple claim of consensus. 3. "Had I not removed it, it might still be there. " No, if it really was was a sourcing issue that was obvious enough to tell at a glance, you could have taken it to BLPN and it would have been handled in a few hours. Article talk page discussion often doesn't solve these kinds of issues, but if the BLP was really that bad, BLPN would have solved it and given admin the tools they needed to block someone trying to add it back in. As you've seen from virtually every admin that has commented, we are only going to exempt warring if it is very obvious that the addition is really bad. It just wasn't in this case. Some have argued I could have chosen to do a partial block or protected, or something else, which is true. What I chose, however, was in the middle of all the tools I had to deal with the problem. Technically, it SHOULD have been handled as an Arbitration Enforcement issue, and logged as such. That is part of what gets me, I handled it on the lighter side of what I was authorized to do, within policy, based on policy, as determined by a clear consensus afterwards, but that isn't good enough. Not sure what to say. At some point, either you accept it, or you are more prone to repeat it. I get why you don't like it, but it should be pretty obvious where consensus is, even if you don't like it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the AE report is that every diff pre-dates a BLP DS alert besides the last two. And the last two did not occur after an explicit BLP claim. The only revert that I see in the history of Rania Khalek that violates BLPREQUESTRESTORE was by Phillip Cross (sorry VM, I had mistakenly said you did too in the XRV thread, but you did not revert after the BLP claim was made explicit, only PC did). If your original revert had explicitly claimed a BLP violation, and there had been the appropriate DS alerts pre-dating a revert of that, then that should be actioned at AE. But they werent. nableezy - 18:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Right, that sort of got lost in all the controversy - Levivich wasn’t even edit warring against me at that point, he was edit warring against other users (strangely he didn’t file an AE report against them). I made my edits earlier in the week. Volunteer Marek 19:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

It would, at the absolute bare minimum, have ended up removed when the RFC closed. You could also have raised the issue at WP:BLPN. But for when you want immediate action, once it's clear people are revert-warring to put in something you consider a clear BLP violation, the best option is to request page protection at WP:RFPP; WP:PREFER means that if there's a genuine BLP violation then the admin will protect the version without it. If someone is unambiguously revert-warring to restore BLP violations you can also report them on WP:AE, wait for them to get at least told to knock it off, then fix things. But, also, ignoring the 3RR doesn't even necessarily work itself - if you're outnumbered, it could just be restored immediately, and even without that whoever you're warring with can wait a day, argue on talk, then restore it. None of those are good things but they're what happens when we try to fix stuff by revert-warring and are the reason why IMHO 3RRNO 7 is mostly for trivial cases that border on obvious vandalism. It's for when a single editor is revert-warring to put "Senator Smith eats babies" in the article with no source, not for serious disputes involving large numbers of experienced editors on each side that are being actively debated on talk. (Actually, thinking about it, I feel like directing people to the RFPP -> PREFER route might be the way to go on this page instead of just NPOVN. RFPP -> PREFER will generally get a clear-cut BLP violation removed immediately and will end any ongoing edit-warring.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I did report this to WP:AE. The last time I reported someone repeatedly reinstating problematic BLP content to BLPN, nothing happened, so I skipped it this time. The last time I reported edit warring at RFPP, nothing happened. Had this content remained until the RFC closed (and the RFC is still not closed), that would have been truly harmful. We would have said, with sourcing that everyone agrees is not good enough, that a living person's views have been described as pro-Assad and pro-Kremlin, in the lead of their BLP. That's harm. A revert is not nearly as harmful. The thesis is: ONUS, BLPRESTORE, edit warring, etc., are not actually enforced; noticeboards don't work; 3RRNO is one of the few tools available to us that actually work in keeping problematic BLP content out. The other methods are too slow and finicky. Levivich (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
For better or worse, the process not working to an editor's satisfaction isn't a reason for that editor to ask to be exempted from following it. The problem is that's not a scalable approach. isaacl (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
If you notice in the discussion, all admin agreed with my interpretation, while non-admin were split. This is not true, valereee did not, either there or here. Loki (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Although I agree with the principle that an editor adding content has the onus of establishing its suitability, I am wary of expanding the guidance for biographies of living persons such that any addition would in effect be subject to a "consensus required" restriction before being added. This may be viable for some subjects with a significant number of page watchers, but for the vast majority with few watchers, it would be cumbersome. isaacl (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
This is my concern. I've seen a number of anti-women editors who are only here to push that agenda. Some last months and some last years. All it takes is a strengthening of 3RRNO#7 for somebody opposed to the #MeToo movement to go around 200 lower-watched pages and remove wholesale all content relating to sexual misconduct allegations against a person—even where these allegations were confirmed as true by the subject or led to years of hiatus or the end of their high-profile career. A more powerful 3RRNO#7 would mean they can keep reverting past the point where things would usually stop: when 2/3 separate editors revert them. Even better: after 200 discussions end up with consensus for inclusion, at inordinate cost that wastes volunteer time, let a new editor (or new account) come along to make the same 200 removals claiming different grounds for removal. Then you need a fresh consensus with the burden still on the person who wants the content included...
People seem to be assuming here that edit wars break out over new contentious additions, but they also break out over contentious removals of previously stable content. I've been in a lot of conversations over such removals on little-watched pages where a 3RRNO#7 exemption would really stack things against inclusion of necessary content. — Bilorv (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Fair point about removals of previously stable content. I hate to even think about stipulating new additions...ugh. That's way too instruction-creepy. Hm. valereee (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. Any strengthening of 3RRNO#7 would need to be very, very carefully balanced. BLPs can be controversial, and it's not uncommon for a BLP to be subject to other discretionary sanctions like GENSEX, AP2, and others. I have a concern that any blanket strengthening of #7 could be gamed for any number of reasons in those multi-DS biographies to remove content that is either long standing or is well sourced as Bilorv suggests.

I'm not opposed to re-evaluating the exemption in principle, just that any modification to it should be handled with great care for misuse. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
It will help to have a separate page that goes into more details with examples. The original intent was blatant and crude violations I suspect, such as calling someone names. Examples of what counts, and what doesnt count would go a long way. The examples could be pulled from existing prior cases. -- GreenC 15:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the better thing to do is clarify that violations of BLPREQUESTRESTORE will be sanctioned. And add that if somebody is continually reverting with a BLP claim it is incumbent on them to open a BLP/N section on the issue to seek consensus. Just reverting and saying "BLP" is not enough. I disagree that just a good faith claim excuses edit-warring, edit-warring is damaging to the encyclopedia in its own right and needs a very good reason to do so. Just your belief contrasted with another editors good faith belief is not enough. It should be unambiguous that there is a BLP violation to edit-war, and in that case you should also be requesting outside participation from BLP/N, blocks or bans, and/or page protection. Not just hitting undo. But all that is needed to sanction an editor for restoring material that has been challenged without a consensus is a good faith challenge, and that should be more strictly enforced. nableezy - 15:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Adding "obvious" and/or "urgent" probably wouldn't hurt to help clarify that this is not a free pass to ignore edit warring rules just because it's a BLP, but I don't know that it would've prevented the current disputes (i.e. those endorsing the block already view obvious/urgent as implied, and most others seem of the opinion that nearly any challenged material in a BLP is obviously urgent). The framings like "any experienced editor would view it as..." also seem sort of implied with our guidelines and can be likewise wikilawyered. The issue here is we have a supposedly bright line rule that has an exception. There will be gray area, and any wording will have the potential for wikilawyering. So it's just about being as clear as possible. Maybe get rid of "libelous" as not having as clear a meaning on Wikipedia apart from the already-covered bias and sourcing issues, add "obviously", and clarify that "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial, and edit warring may still result in a block if an uninvolved admin does not determine the threshold to be met. Consider reporting...". That would probably better reflect the current situation. For what it's worth, I'd oppose extending this to allow edit warring for any material any editor thinks is "biased". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
The intent behind this exception is (or should be) obvious: if one editor is adding blatantly false and defamatory material and another is removing it, then the remover should be protected from edit-warring sanctions. It is not intended to be, nor has it ever been construed as, an endless-revert license for those on one side of a good-faith dispute about contentious material. Edit-warring is inherently harmful. Exceptions to this policy are therefore as narrow as possible, by intention.
In my experience, it is always a mistake to tweak policy wording in response to wikilawyering around edge cases. (I'm not even sure this is an edge case; it seems like experienced admins were more or less unanimous that the exception didn't apply, but regardless). Wikilawyers are gonna wikilawyer. The solution is not to re-word our policies to be more legalistic, but rather to disincentivize wikilawyering by reinforcing the spirit and letter of existing policy. MastCell ^Talk 16:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, valereee was not an admin at the time of that discussion but is certainly an experienced admin and soon will be once again, so it isnt quite unanimous agreement among experienced admins either. nableezy - 16:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Some editors are basically saying admin should read through the sources and determine if the statement is true or not, and that should be the standard for what is and isn't edit warring. I try to explain that essentially makes us involved and you don't want admin making decisions based on content that isn't obvious, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
This is nonsense. If someone is claiming a BLP exemption it is an administrative requirement to check the sources before blocking to see if the statements are in fact unsourced. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@MastCell, it's not that I disagree that edit-warring is inherently harmful. It's that libel in a BLP is even more inherently harmful. (Note that I'm not commenting on this case, simply on where we should be placing our priorities.) valereee (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
No one is saying we should allow libel, that's a bit of a strawman. We are saying to be exempt, it has to be OBVIOUSLY libel, and shouldn't require an hour of research to determine. If you have to explain the edit in full detail, it is not exempt. It's really that simple. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Valereee, we agree that libel is harmful. The exception exists to protect editors who are removing libelous material, and it has often been employed to do exactly that. To the extent that you're suggesting that there is daylight between our views or priorities on this, I'd ask you to re-read my comment immediately above. MastCell ^Talk 17:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there's probably as much daylight as you think I may be perceiving. My feeling is that potentially harmful content in a BLP needs consensus, and that should trump any concerns about edit-warring, but that in the majority of cases that aren't immediately obvious, just take it to BLPN. I just am very sympathetic to removal of disputed and possibly-problematic content in BLPs in advance of consensus. valereee (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

If something is questionably libel, and takes an hour to determine if it is or is not libel then it should be removed from the article and hashed out on the talk page. If discussion is ongoing the re-insertion is an obvious BLP vio under BLPREQUESTRESTORE. The fundamental intent behind this exception and the fundamental intent behind BLP is to not harm living people. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
That is the ideal situation. And if anyone is edit warring over it and breaking 1RR or 3RR, either way, they should be blocked because that is hindering discussion, not furthering it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
In BLPs there is only one right version until the discussion has come to a consensus. The one without the disputed content.Lurking shadow (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
That is a simplistic view that would cripple editing and turn every BLP into a "you must get consensus first" article, which is not the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a very quick way to whitewash every even slightly contentious BLP. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Only temporarily. If it truly is whitewashing, consensus will form to restore the content. And anyone making a pattern of abusing 3RRNO can be sanctioned. Levivich (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps you like that, but that isn't what the policy says, and there is clearly no consensus to change policy to reflect that. And we don't sanction for a "pattern" of abusing 3RRNO. That makes no sense, you either are 3RRNO or you aren't. We sanction for edit warring if 3RRNO doesn't apply, the first time, not after a pattern. People claim they are exempt all the time, and usually they are wrong. Truth be told, it is usually because they are calling edits "vandalism" that arent'. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
We can also warn or mark a report as "stale", especially if genuine concerns about the verifiability of biographical material about a living person led to the edit warring. If this isn't part of 3RRNO, people will claim IAR exceptions instead. There are also WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN for all articles, not just biographical ones. There are several possible reasons for not taking action where 3RR would allow taking action, and as we are all volunteers, all of them are valid. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that it would be temporary in all cases. The distribution of popularity across BLPs is not even, some have inherently higher page views and editor contributions than others. For the lower trafficked pages, it would be easier for one or more editors to remove contentious yet well sourced content and keep it removed due to a lack of editors to form a consensus for restoration on the talk page. While you could notify the relevant WikiProjects or noticeboards in these circumstances, that would I think eventually result in a level of issue blindness over time, due to how frequent such removals could be in contentious topic areas. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I was replying, but Sideswipe9th made my point first. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Getting editors to participate in a discussion for pages with few watchers can be very hard. Last year I came across a passage of text that I felt misinterpreted the source material and gave undue weight to the info in question. I opened a discussion and slowly talked to myself about it for over a month, as no one else responded. I then edited the paragraph in question. A year later, the original editor reinstated their change. I opened a discussion again; they didn't respond. I posted a notice to a relevant WikiProject. One other editor weighed in, agreeing with me. I waited some more, and then restored my edit. The original editor showed up shortly afterwards and reinstated a reworded version, and made some response in the discussion. I replied, and notified more relevant WikiProjects, and also posted a notice on the talk page of a relevant article. There it sits now; no one else has weighed in. The subject isn't an obscure one, but it's not the type of article to have a lot of watchers on it. Most WikiProject talk pages no longer seem to be monitored by many editors. Now this is a much broader problem than what state an article should be in while discussion is ongoing. Nonetheless, I wouldn't assume that discussion can always rapidly resolve content disputes. It's highly dependent on how many people are interested in engaging in discussion, and somehow getting them involved without inappropriate canvassing. isaacl (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The issue in question is more who should be making the determination that the text under scrutiny is harmful enough to warrant rapid removal: should individual administrators be expected to be the judge, or should the community have the opportunity to discuss and evaluate the relevant text and citations? To date, the community has preferred to keep this responsibility to itself. An argument can be made for the efficiency in administrators (or some other designated role) making this call. I think, though, the community should discuss it more broadly, and not solely in the context of edit warring. isaacl (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

“Obvious” should be in there. Here is the thing. IF you really think that a piece of text is “super bad” then… go ahead, violate 3RR and take the risk of the block. Let the chips fall where they may. You’re paying a possible cost (block, sanction) but that’s exactly what should happen to prevent frivolous abuses of the exemption. If you are correct that the text was “that bad” then you’ll have a chance to argue that when and if reported. I’ve done it before. If you’re wrong or just full of shit, you pay the cost. Usually these kinds of violations, even when the exemption was cited in bad faith result in a light smack upside the head like a 24 hour block, rather than serious sanctions (and if they do result in serious sanctions it’s always because there are OTHER, more serious problems). Volunteer Marek 19:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Think of it as “running a red light”. Most of the time running a red light (breaking 1RR in this analogy) is and should be illegal and if you do it you get fined. But there are emergency circumstances where running a red light is justifiable. Like you’re taking an injured person to a hospital. What do you do in that case? You run the red light (break 1RR) and take the risks of a ticket because those are outweighed by the risk of not getting there fast enough. You hope that once the immediate danger is resolved police and judges will be understanding. That’s how it *should* work.

What you can’t have is just letting anyone who runs a red light claim that they did so “because it was an emergency” just because. Then even having 🚦’s becomes pointless. Volunteer Marek 19:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't heart this analogy because running a red light can actually get someone killed, which obviously removing content from a WP article can't, but what if the person running the light has a pregnant lady sitting next to them huffing and puffing? Do we actually need to get out a speculum and check she's dilated 8 centimeters? We can't just for now take the driver's word that 'we're concerned about our delivery'? valereee (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it is a very good analogy. In both cases, the default is to sanction you. If the car keeps going to the hospital, or pulls over and shows a 9 month old pregnant woman (whether or not she is really in labor), then you aren't likely to draw a sanction because it is obvious there is a valid reason for an exception. If you were just late for work and there is no real valid reason for running the light other than your convenience, you can either learn from the experience, or you can call the cop a "pig", take the ticket, then talk shit to your friends about how all cops are evil. Your choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Levivich wasn't "just late for work" compared to "going to the hospital". Real-world analogies seem rather unsuitable for discussing this policy, as they direct attention away from the actual arguments, towards incorrect comparisons to irrelevant situations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Sometimes an unlikely analogy gives perspective. It isn't supposed to be an exact, identical situation, it's an analogy. That's how they work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I would not add anything — a popular user getting correctly blocked and trying to wikilawyer out of it does not change that the meaning of the policy is already obvious and has been interpreted to mean "if you have to explain why you're reverting, it is not an exemption" for years. I really do not like that we are making it seem like the policy was ambiguous in any way before now or that the meaning is unclear — it is not unclear: When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, follow the guidance below in § Handling of edit-warring behaviors. is a part of the policy currently.
If it is going to be updated, I'd prefer "unambiguous" to "obvious" or "urgent" as I think its slightly clearer, but don't really oppose any of the three. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree, this is how it's always worked for the 10 years I've been editing contentious BLPs. Many times, I have known that if I re-reverted bad BLP content, somebody would report me for edit warring. I have either started a poll on the article talk page or gone to BLPN. The bar is pretty high to remove such content a second time, and there's good reason why we have WP:CRYBLP. In most cases the issues are difficult ones involving due weight, neutrally worded prose, and lead placement -- these do not trigger the edit-war exemption. The current language works just fine in almost all cases.It doesn't feel as if there was any policy issue that would necessitate all this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 20:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

As a less experienced editor I will say that I do find it ambiguous, but perhaps because it appears obvious to more experienced folks, the nuances are not being explained clearly. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Then I will try one last time, taking your request in the best of faith: if you violate the 1RR or 3RR restrictions on an article, you will likely get blocked. Claiming an exemption under 3RRNO usually fails because editors misinterpret it. If someone adds "contentious" material, like in this case, it is not exempt. If someone adds genuine vandalism (ie: "Trump is a doo doo head"), or obviously POTENTIALLY LIBELOUS material (ie: "Bob is a pedophile" "Sally was convicted of shoplifting" and it isn't sourced by a WP:RS) then is is pretty easy to see how that would be exempted. If there is no real contention to the edit but you just don't like it, it is obviously not exempt. Stuff like "Jim voted for Trump" or "Bill agrees with Putin" is in the middle ground. It isn't obvious at first glance if it is true or not (usually meaning there is at least some source that supports it), and isn't so prejudicial as to make it "libel". Take it to the talk page, take it to BLPN, ask an admin, but don't edit war. Basically, unless it is really, really bad, don't edit war. And if you feel you have to edit war, that it meets the criteria of libel or vandalism, your first step should be to report it anyway, so that editor can be dealt with by admin. We do NOT want edit wars. Period. So the number of exceptions is very small and very narrow. Honestly, that is all you need to know, and yes, that is exactly what all those policies say. Admin don't decide what should and shouldn't be in the article. We only determine if it is reasonable to exempt breaking the policy on edit warring, then take whatever measures we need to stabilize the situation. That's all. Sometimes it means blocks, sometimes page protection, sometimes talk. The reason this case got hot is it was in the middle, and some disagree whether or not a block was needed. It wasn't my only option, but it is clearly allowed, and at the time, it was what I felt was the best solution. The previous discussion confirmed all of these things. The key takeaway is: don't edit war, as the exemptions are fairly narrow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
It has just become a relitigation of the previous case, without mentioning names, which already closed with a clear consensus. I respect the fact that someone thought starting this discussion was a good idea, but it's pretty clear that it's just a lot of people talking over each other, and not particularly constructive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
You can still prevent edit wars; you just need to target the editors re-adding the disputed content, rather than the editors removing it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Policy says differently. There are bright line rules, and we are tasked to target the editors breaking these bright lines, regardless of whether they are adding or removing material, excepting obvious violations of policy. In this case where I blocked an editor, he not only broke 1RR, he did so twice, so three reverts in 24 hours on an article he knew was 1RR. I explain it better below, but unless the material is obviously a BLP violation, we can't target people adding over people taking away. Policy simply doesn't allow that, and I would expect to be dragged into review or Arb if that is what I did. We can't make up our own policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The policy as currently written says What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption and When in doubt, do not revert. I do not find that ambiguous. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the best language but my feeling is the 3RR exception only applies to blatant cases. If a extended confirmed editor restores such content then it's probably best not to revert it again. While the BLP removal justification may be legitimate, presumably it isn't a blatant case if non-troll/etc editors are restoring the content. I generally see the 3RR as protection when dealing with a series of random IPs or unconfirmed accounts that add unacceptable material. No one should be sanctioned for removing an unsubstantiated claim of "pedo guy" repeatedly added by a random IP address to a BLP. However, to use an example from above, Editor A adds poorly sourced or unsubstantiated rape allegations to a 1RR BLP. Editor B removes them and Editor A restores. We are now at 1RR each. Editor B may be correct that this content violates BLP but I wouldn't see it as so obvious it would justify a 1RR violation. Presumably if Editor B is correct a quick trip to an admin's talk page or the BLPN should clear things up. In addition to making it clear this 3RR exception is for blatant cases, we might not that editors in good standing are presumed to be competent and thus not adding blatant violations it is recommended that editors seek additional input rather than assume additional reverts fall under the exception rule. Additionally, a pointer to ONUS or similar since any editor restoring such content should be able to show consensus for inclusion at the time the material is restored. Springee (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, partially, but WP:BLPRS makes it very clear: if material is unsourced(or poorly sourced) and contentious it should be removed immediately. If you find unsourced contentious BLP material you can remove it, and force its removal though reverts, warnings, reports, and, if someone reverts you until the resolution of the report, more reverts regardless of how many you did. WP:BLPRS says "immediately". Anything that is poorly sourced and potentially libellous is also an exception.

This is not trying to get your way in a content dispute, but simply enforcing policy.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I would go the other way. Something should only be in a BLP if it is clear that it is not a BLP violation; for example, if something is potentially libellous it should not be on the article until there is a consensus that it is not. As written WP:3RRNO #7 currently allows editors to guarantee this, but restricting it to clear cases of libel etc would proven this. In addition, the text currently aligns to WP:BLPRESTORE, which tells editors not to restore disputed content without consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I think everyone agrees that only material that isn't a BLP violation should go in. And everyone agrees that material that is blatantly a BLP violation can be removed using whatever force (even reverting passed 3RR) is necessary. The whole of this controversy is how to handle material that is potentially inaccurate, material that honest people can disagree with, and/or material that requires a discussion. You can't edit war to remove that, you have to use the systems in place to deal with it, which is why they exist. Admin can not, and dare I say, WILL NOT, jump into these middle issues and start deciding on content. Only BLPN and the article talk page can do that. So we can't allow edit warring over them. We can act on behavior, but not content that isn't blindingly obvious. That would make us involved, and make tool usage a form of abuse: picking winners and losers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
The material was edit warred back into the article, by editors who should know better. You blocked the one who actually cited policies and followed them (AGF?). That’s the core of this “controversy.” Mr Ernie (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
This is not a controversy, and WP:XRV is over there. This discussion is meant for discussing what should be done about the policy, should there be tweaks. I get that you feel aggrieved over having failed to have an opponent blocked in a different 1RR case, but that has jack shit to do with this discussion. Neither does the block Levivich received. Again, that discussion is over there, so if you would kindly stop disrupting this discussion that would be just awesome. nableezy - 01:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't speak to what the actual consensus practice is, only the policy as it is written. I'm not seeing any distinction between material that is "really, really bad" like libel or vandalism, and other less serious contentious material that is poorly sourced. 3RRNO #7 appears to be a summary of WP:BLPREMOVE. The policies say that the exception applies when the criteria "is" met and when you are not "in doubt". They do not say it must be obvious. (If it's obvious there wouldn't be an edit war among good faith editors.) Now, it does make sense to me that if an administrator reads the sources and finds that it is not obvious and would require evaluating consensus, then they could not unilaterally decide whether the exception applies. Blocking an editor who cited 3RRNO could itself be considered deciding on content (that it does not meet the exception), so by that logic blocking should only be done if it is obvious that the exception is not met. If this doesn't describe consensus practice then maybe the text needs to be changed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Obvious and not in doubt mean the same thing. nableezy - 04:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Not at all. "When [you are] in doubt, do not revert" is not the same as "when it is not obvious, do not revert". Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
synonym obvious - beyond doubt. nableezy - 14:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
"You are in doubt" is not the same as "not beyond doubt to others". Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Thats like saying if something is obvious to you is not the same as it is obvious to others. The terms mean the same thing, and if you think pedantry is a virtue then I dont really get the point in engaging with you on what things mean. We have a standard here, and it is "beyond doubt". A synonym of which is "obvious". If youd like the last word feel free, dont see the point in drawing this line out any further tbh. nableezy - 15:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

We can act on behavior, but not content that isn't blindingly obvious. No one is asking you to; we are asking you to switch from sanctioning the editor who is keeping out content unless it is blindingly obvious the content doesn't belong to sanctioning the editor who is persists in adding content unless it is blindingly obvious that the content does belong. This would be in line with WP:BLPRESTORE.

I struggle to understand your position here. For example, if there is content that might be libellous I think it is obvious that it should be kept out until it is clear that it is not libellous, and our policies - including this one - should support editors in ensuring this. BilledMammal (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
You might consider being "pro-Kremlin" libelous, but it isn't. You might find it offends your sensibilities, but that isn't the same as being called a criminal. I've already given this example dozens of times, but it's like being called pro-trump or pro-whatever. It isn't libelous, particularly when some sources are alluding to it. Some people are proud to be "pro-Kremlin", for example. It isn't a basis for warring being exempt, and a clear consensus already determined that in the last discussion. I'm lost as to how you can be confused about this at this late stage in the game. It's been explained dozens of times, and while I try to respond to all questions, I do get weary of explaining this same thing over and over. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
That is disputable, as a false accusation of being "pro-Kremlin" could be damaging to someone's reputation. However, that's unrelated to my point, which is that it is possible for there to be content that is libellous without it being blindingly obvious that the content is libellous.

As far as I can tell you do not disagree with that, which is why I struggle to understand your position; we should not have content in articles unless it is clear that it is not libel, but your interpretation of WP:3RRNO #7 would prevent editors from ensuring that. BilledMammal (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Not true. If the edit is not obviously libel, they can use the talk page, they can use BLPN, they can use a number of other administrative boards. What they CAN'T do is edit war over it. Every other avenue is open to them. And it isn't just my interpretation, it is the consensus interpretation, as demonstrated in the last discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
And while they pursue those avenues the libel remains on the page; if it ends up requiring an RfC to decide if it is libel it could remain on the page for well over a month. I consider this unacceptable. BilledMammal (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
You're twisting my words, and the words of the majority that have spoken against your view. If it is obviously libel, the ERRNO applies. Being "pro-Kremlin" when sources are intimating as much, perhaps weakly, isn't libel on our part. Either you accept the consensus, or you shouldn't edit BLPs. Like a few others, I can't help but feel you aren't debating in good faith, but are simply being contrary and refuse to consider the majority opinion, which is contrary to your own. It reminds me of the Simpson's Helen Lovejoy crying "won't someone PLEASE think of the children". The situation is more complicated than you are narrowly viewing it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not talking about the cases where it is obviously libel; I'm talking about the cases where it is libel, but not obviously so. We need to get that content off the page as soon as possible, and the way to do that is to allow WP:3RRNO #7 to apply to all cases except those where the content clearly isn't libel, either because it is blindingly obvious that it is not, or because there is a consensus that it is not.

Yes, there are other routes we can go to remove the content, but they all take too long, sometimes far too long. If you believe there is a route that can guarantee that the content is removed within a suitably short period of time and I have misunderstood you, then I apologize; can you clarify? BilledMammal (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Actually, Nableezy sums it up well below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Reading that more closely, perhaps the position we could agree on is to beef up the penalties for violating BLPREQUESTRESTORE? If we make restoring content in violation of BLPREQUESTRESTORE an edit warring violation then we should be able to address my concerns without condoning edit warring; is this something you think could work? BilledMammal (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
We don't have "minimum sentencing guidelines" or anything like that here. The only way you get sanctions on a particular activity increased is by time and consensus. You can't put a particular punishment in policy. So yes, but it requires changing the culture of sanctions, not a simple changing of wording of any policy. If someone is putting in obviously BAD BLP info into an article, it is generally handled pretty harsh as it is. The case that started this isn't a good trial or example case for this, it really isn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I still think people are conflating multiple issues here. Everybody agrees, I think, that BLP violations are bad. That material in BLPs should be subject to increased scrutiny, and we should err on the side of removal of potentially inaccurate material. I dont think anybody is arguing against that. The question is what material do we suspend our usual policy on edit-warring for. We dont allow edit-warring for enforcing WP:ONUS either. And WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is basically ONUS but with the explicit prohibition on violating it. But the edit-warring exemption is not related to that requirement. The edit-warring exemption is for things that go beyond that. My view of this is that in order to claim that exemption it must not only be a good faith claim that there is a BLP violation, but that there is no good-faith claim that it is not a BLP violation. If editors are arguing in good faith over the meaning or suitability of some source then it is not material in which we should suspend our edit-warring policy over. People are not supposed to restore material challenged in good faith on verifiability grounds, or due weight grounds, outside of BLPs too. They are not allowed to edit-war over it. The exemption exists to allow for emergency action to counter bad faith, not good faith. Unless you are making the claim that the users reverting to include, even if they are violating BLPREQUESTRESTORE, are editing in bad faith, and at that point you should be seeking further sanctions than reverting their edits, then you dont have a cause to edit-war. By all means, beef up the penalties for violating BLPREQUESTRESTORE. But that simply is not relevant to when one is allowed to edit-war with impunity. nableezy - 01:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLPREMOVE states: [Involved] Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s).... In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at the administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page. (Emphasis added) We can understand from this that uninvolved administrators can enforce the removal of unobvious BLP violations. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
You are missing the point of that line. The point of that is to suspend WP:INVOLVED for clear violations and allow involved administrators to take action for clear violations. Much like we suspend WP:EW rules for clear violations. And yes, unobvious things can be dealt with through discussion at an appropriate noticeboard. Much like you cannot edit-war for unobvious things and need to take it to an appropriate noticeboard to request outside intervention. nableezy - 15:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
The instruction here is for involved admins to request the attention of other admins at ANI for enforcement. Of course they can start a discussion at BLPN, but that's not what this line is about. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
If youre going to ignore what somebody writes why even respond? That portion of the policy is about suspending WP:INVOLVED for blatant violations, not about anything related to suspending the edit-warring rules. Which is what this discussion is about. nableezy - 16:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the paragraph is about suspending INVOLVED, but it is in the context of WP:BLPREMOVE, so the language relates to the whole section. It is implied that "uninvolved administrators may enforce the removal of less clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s)." Editors restoring unobvious BLP violations would be the violators, not the editors removing unobvious BLP violations. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
And what exactly does that have to do with whether or not a user may edit-war to remove material? nableezy - 17:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
BLPREMOVE states: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that ... is unsourced or poorly sourced ... the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals". I assume an uninvolved administrator who is enforcing less clear violations with page protection or blocking is doing so in the context of an edit war. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
No, that is independent of any edit-war. Somebody who puts X is a pedophile without any sourcing can be blocked summarily, even if there is a single revert, even if there are no reverts at all. Again, the point of what you are quoting is about WP:INVOLVED not being something to get in the way of an emergency. And if it less than an emergency, seek further support from uninvolved admins. Finally, I wrote above about pedantry. You, and some others, are missing the entire point of this discussion. It is to decide what to do, not to argue about some other case, not to argue about what the words say currently. We have a situation where experienced editors, and admins, have a disagreement on the policy. We need to resolve it. Instead of continuing with this pointless, and yes it is pointless, pedantic dispute on if clause 4b is related to clause 2a.4.c, focus on what the policy should mean and what it should say to capture that meaning. The dispute here, without bringing up any past XRV, AE, AN3, ANI, AC/R case, is when should the rules on edit-warring be suspended, and how can we make the policy clear so that it is not in dispute. nableezy - 18:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Pedantry is appropriate when discussing, on a policy talk page, the language of policy. It is helpful to know what the words mean currently so we can determine whether something needs to change. Some editors interpret the current words to line up with their understanding of current consensus practice about certain unobvious BLP violations which may be edit-warred out. Others disagree. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Which is why the question that matters here is when should we suspend our rules on edit-warring for potential BLP violations and what should the language be to reflect that. Not this nonsense on do these clauses relate and is without doubt a synonym for obvious. Ive said way too much here at this point, and since this veered off wildly from its intended purpose I doubt anything will come of it, so have at it. nableezy - 20:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I somewhat like the idea of adding 'unambiguous' or something similar to the wording because I don't feel that 'what counts under this exemption is controversial' or when in doubt, do not revert is clear enough as to how obvious a violation needs to be in order for edit warring to be permissible (according to much of the community as I read it, myself included). I do appreciate that some would rather have less-than-obvious BLP violations removed as soon as possible, but I think noticeboards should be used and asking other editors what they think should be done instead of edit warring. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 21:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, reinsertion of removed(which means contentious) content without consensus for inclusion is an unambigous violation of WP:BLP mandates, so that'd be allowed to be reverted without limit(although you should also report).Lurking shadow (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, WP:BLPRS says that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. However, I feel that the way policy is worded implies that the removed material should be obviously questionable (or worse) in order to justify the exception without risking a block from an admin (see what I quoted above, there's also Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption. from WP:BLPREMOVE). Hence, I think it should be clearer.

Also, you're incorrect in that simply a violation of WP:BLP gives license to revert without limit. While adding contentious blp material without consensus does violate WP:BLPRESTORE, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be reverted immediately. WP:3RRNO#7 says that the reverted material must be contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced for the revert to fall under the exception. Not all material that is controversial may be one of those things. The material's state of being libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced should be clear/obvious in order to rely on the exception. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 21:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
It does mean it(unsourced challenged BLP material) should be reverted immediately because WP:BLPRS says "immediately and without discussion" Lurking shadow (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't dispute that [obviously] unsourced BLP material should be reverted immediately, I was disputing that reinsertion of contentious content (of any sort) in a BLP should be reverted immediately. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 17:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

That'd depend on the existence of prior consensus. If the second revert included a link to a discussion about that content with consensus to retain, the answer is "no". If the content was never discussed before the answer probably should be "yes" due to the nature of BLP's. There's a caveat, though. That person should try to get a consensus by discussing the content. If not, then it's just plain old edit-warring to get their preferred version through. Similarly, if someone removes sourced but challenged BLP content and the other person starts a discussion which the reverter ignores, and then, after some time, with lack of further discussion, the person could re-insert that content and now re-reverting without discussing would be a clear breach of WP:EW even without 3RR.Lurking shadow (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I hear you as saying "reverting material that doesn't have consensus in a blp is exempt under 3RRNO#7 as long as the editor is attempting to get consensus for their preferred version", but I don't see how existing policy supports that. That interpretation is written nowhere in 3RRNO#7. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 02:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, no. Reverting material that doesn't have consensus in a blp is the norm, and re-reverting without consensus or attempts to address the concerns is forbidden. If BLP applies the right version prior to obtaining consensus is the version without the challenged material if removal is proposed.Lurking shadow (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Clarification needed for reversion of drive-by de-tagging

Template:Uw-tdel1 has a message that seems fairly pro-reversion, Template:Uw-ew deals specifically with content, and this page states that "editors can add appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections under current discussion." I think this page could use some clarification on what to do when an edit war is about the maintenance tags themselves. Is it exempt from 3RR to re-add maintenance tags for active discussions? If not, what should users do in the case of drive-by de-tagging to avoid edit warring? Freoh (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it exempt from 3RR to re-add maintenance tags for active discussions? No.

what should users do in the case of drive-by de-tagging to avoid edit warring? Open a discussion on the talk page and perhaps someone else will restore the tags. In general tags should not be removed until the issues tagged are resolved in talk page discussion and if that is the case, the likelihood that the tags are restored is quite high, I would think. Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The likelihood that the tags are restored is quite high, I would think. Unfortunately, that has not been my experience at Talk:Democracy. Freoh (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps so, still one wants to avoid edit warring, if a discussion is going nowhere, there are other possibilities, an RFC for instance. Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you can cite WP:QUO, which says "leave the tag in place until the discussion concludes." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:3RR contradicts the message of WP:BRD

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.

Bold, revert, discuss encourages the part about 3RR that states "no edit warring is allowed", whereas 3RR is encouraging of multiple reverts, because most people don't know the rules. This is contradictory and so 3RR should not be allowed, only bold revert discuss.

This policy would avoid angry edit wars between users, so that discussions can be encouraged, instead of an inconsistent policy on reverts.

It's great that in theory people shouldn't edit war but unfortunately I believe the existence of "3RR" gives too many people the impression that they should edit war, and this I feel is detrimental to the Wikipedia community.

I searched the archives for this talk page and found one interesting section that talked about the Ayurveda page case (link), where 0RR was enforced to the detriment of users because only fringe-enthusiasts would allow content to be posted. However, I still don't believe that edit warring is excusable, in other words, the principle "no edit warring" should be strict. Is it really reasonable to think that edit warring is what resolved the Ayurveda article? It seems to me that consensus is always the only way, regardless of edit warring, and that edit warring is only detrimental and should never be allowed.

3RR should not be a policy because it contradicts the message to never engage in edit warring. 1RR should be the rule for all articles. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

People can be blocked for two reverts, or one, and have been. Admin are not forced to wait until the 4th revert to block. The 4th is simply a "bright line rule". I would venture most people blocked for warring didn't violate 3RR. They may have been slow reverting over days trying to avoid violating 3RR. We will still block them. Again, 3RR is just one bright line rule, it is not the only definition of edit warring we use. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I think 3RR only reinforces a lack of ethic. Why give people the wrong impression of "three reverts", when they should just be blocked right away? What benefit does 3RR provide to Wikipedia? The policy should be 1RR with BRD, or blocked immediately. Altanner1991 (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
But it's not. The current system works pretty well 99% of the time. If you want it changed, you gotta start an RFC, but I'm telling you, it won't pass. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
3RR is promoting edit wars. The question of whether or not to revert promotes a warring culture: people are rushing to make the reverts work, when they should be thinking and discussing in calmer, deeper levels, without any preoccupation over multiple-revert strategies. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The benefit it provides is that it makes quick edit warring easily recognizable and therefore easily blockable. With the 1RR, I think there's benefits to letting editors have the discretion to make multiple reverts over a 24hr period (even though in most situations 1RR should not be passed).

I do appreciate, though, how you want to try to prevent others from having the same misconception you used to have (looking at your talk). However, I think the policy is clear enough as it is because it already states The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 23:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
The 8 exemptions are that discretion. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
(conflict) No. 3RR is a tripwire, a bright line, that allows admins to put a quick stop to blatant edit warring without having to think too hard about it. Edit warring never is acceptable, regardless of whether 3RR is violated, but it takes more analysis to recognize it than 3RR requires. WP:BRD isn't policy, it's an essay. WP:3RR is policy. WP:EDITWAR is policy. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
It is a good demarcating line for administrators to use, but the rules are not written as well as they could be because they may give readers the impression that three reverts are allowed. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Danre98 makes a good point: *I* was mistaken over 3RR but I rescind my concern, because the rules are, technically, written correctly. Thank you and best editing, Altanner1991 (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

👍 —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 00:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Ha, well I raised this point all of seven years ago, and nobody deigned to reply at all. Having mulled over the matter, I've concluded that actually BRD is not a policy or guideline at all, except in specific areas such as WP:RM and where it is enforced by Arbcom or Arbcom enforcement motions etc. Changes to an article have just as much standing as prior revisions, and the point is that all these things have to be discussed and the best version chosen by consensus, not automatically defaulting to the status quo. 3RR doesn't intentionally favour one version or the other, it simply prevents never-ending edit wars. — Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The 3RR absolutely doesn't encourage multiple reverts. In fact, it outright says they're not a guarantee - it sets a hard limit, it's not meant to make the statement that reaching or approaching that limit is desirable. BRD is, on the other hand, supposed to be desirable. And we do have enforced BRD on a few articles. But if you stop and think about it you'll see numerous reasons why we can't make BRD the general red line rule:

It could encourage WP:STONEWALLing and generally make disputes into a slog, resulting in unnecessary RFCs or wasted discussions.
It would make WP:EDITCONSENSUS situations where a dispute is resolved by editing more difficult - remember, reverting something in whole or in part is a revert. So when two editors go back and forth trying different versions to compromise, or when an editor reverts something with a flatly factually wrong rationale and the other editor reverts with a summary that points out their error, or even when an editor re-imposes a change with what they believe to be fixes that address the concern that got it reverted, that is still a revert. When those things reach the point of approaching the 3RR, or on articles that are already unstable, it's worth heading to talk; but forcing people to go to talk at the first sign of a dispute, even on otherwise uncontroversial articles and small wording disputes that can probably be resolved with one or two back-and-forths, would bog down the dispute-resolution process. (The B in BRD make this clear - it applies to bold edits, not all edits, though obviously once someone keeps disputing then your edit might be more controversial than you thought it was.)
Finally, I would argue that while even short revert-wars are bad as a general rule, discouraging them but setting the hard ban as high as three does have some some beneficial effect, in that on the whole each possible revert forces the editor making it to stop and say "is this really worth it? Does policy back me up enough to make a second or even third revert justifiable?" That is to say, it's more likely that someone who recognizes their argument is weak will back down.

That's not an ideal way for disputes to be solved, to be sure, but it's important to remember that taking everything to talk has its own costs. And as a result, it won't always happen - editor time and energy is limited, so if we tried to make a hard rule that said "take all disputes to talk, immediately, the moment it's clear there's a dispute, and cease all reverts until the discussion is over", the result would often be that editors would just bow out - sometimes in cases where their objections are legitimate and ought to be considered. Basically, the 3RR is a compromise between what we'd consider ideal and the realities of editing - allowing for some less-than-ideal conflicts, or some leeway for when things are technically reverts but don't really represent a problem, but setting a hard bar to ensure that at least they don't completely destabilize a page. --Aquillion (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD is not quite the same thing as BRD itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but edit warring is *never* allowed. Not sure why you are implying that it's okay to do a few back-and-forths. Everything needs to be discussed, there is zero allowance for edit warring. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

It is okay if you make progress, but if the issue persists after one or two cycles you have to discuss on the talk page. Yes, it's allowed to make a bold change, get reverted with a comment, and then, considering the comment, to make a compromise change. WP:3RR sets a hard limit on exchanges like that, and that's what 3RR is for. Lurking shadow (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with "compromise change". That is an instance where an extra edit or two can be warranted; that is a good example of 3RR. I would put that point on the guideline page. Altanner1991 (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC); edited 07:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

...edit warring is *never* allowed...there is zero allowance for edit warring... If that's true, then what is WP:3RRNO? Even philosophically speaking, the notion that it's more important to stop edit warring than it is to stop the spread of disinformation is not something I subscribe to. The most important thing is to not lie to the reader. Not edit warring is also important, but it's not more important than not lying to the reader. That's why I go so far as to believe we should make WP:BRD a WP:3RRNO exception. People who reinstate bold edits repeatedly ought to be blocked on sight, and others should be free to revert as often as it's reinstated. Levivich (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed 3RRNO is a grey area. Altanner1991 (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

With two shades of grey: one really dark, the other really light. Levivich (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I have to say though that while 3RR has an exception (3RRNO) for featured articles on the main page, we should not have that exception. It seems like a dubious part of the 3RR guidelines; I see no good examples of that exception to 3RR. If there are examples, they should be stated clearly so that 3RR is not interpreted as an excuse to edit war by people at-large.

So far, the only good argument I have seen to even allow 3RR in any way, is to make compromised changes, and that should be on the guideline page to seal shut any notions of 3RR as an excuse to edit war. Altanner1991 (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

All else aside, it would become red tape and would lead to editors arguing over process rather than content. You cannot force editors to be ideal; all we can do is set policies that encourage constructive behavior and discourage unconstructive behavior. And strict policies tend to backfire in this regard because they encourage editors to argue over those policies when they should be focused on the content dispute at hand. --Aquillion (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

~~I have considered the same: unenforcement is also sometimes a good policy.~~ I would like to formally retract that statement because underenforcement should never be a protocol on Wikipedia. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC); edited 03:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Revert-warring is always discouraged. The red line for it, though, is set fairly high (at WP:3RRNO) because sometimes "back and forth" is not a revert war; that is why we have a 3RR and not a universal 1RR. I already explained this once, but it is absolutely untrue that everything needs to be discussed and would severely impede editing if that were the case. The most obvious case is that restoring something that was removed with changes that make a good-faith effort to address the reason for removal is still technically a revert, but is not (if done in moderation) a revert-war - many things are resolved by eg. "rv, unsourced" or "rv, low-quality source" followed by the original editor restoring it with better sourcing. Forcing people to go to talk every time that happens would be a terrible idea. This doesn't mean that edit-wars "below three reverts" are acceptable, as the 3RR explains; it's an acknowledgement of the fact that a lower bar for 3RR would trip up many things that are not serious or genuine edit wars. --Aquillion (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Resounds my statements exactly—3RR is useful because sometimes editors want to change their edit and so improve it without going to talk. This is again the "compromised changes". It was, actually, the only rationale for 3RR that I had found. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

In light of all the commentary, I would like to reorient my proposal: there should be an instruction on the edit warring policy page that clarifies that 3RR is only for making changes to ~~the edit summary or to~~ the content. If there are any objections, please say why. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC); edited 02:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Altanner1991: you've been reverted by two editors. To paraphrase President Merkin Muffley You can't edit war in here, this is the edit warring policy page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, to restate my side of the story: I'm sick of everyone's edit warring behavior. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

My edit warring behaviour? Both @Bbb23: and I have only reverted once each ([5], [6]), in response to your bold addition. The only person here who is actually edit warring appears to be you, with your so far two reverts ([7], [8]). Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Note, while writing and submitting my reply, the message was change from I'm sick of your edit warring behavior[9] to I'm sick of everyone's edit warring behavior.[10] Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Very sorry—usually a few seconds are enough to edit a message without redaction. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the policy page currently insinuates that there can be considered "edit warring behavior" even without a certain number of reverts. Altanner1991 (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Please self-revert, Altanner1991. I also oppose your change, but I'm trying to respect the one rule of the War Room. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

For the record, my objection is based on reverts not needing to be based on existing consensus. It would be a major overhaul of common practice to start requiring that. A more minor complaint: I'm not sure what "compromised" is supposed to mean in the proposed change, but I'm pretty sure it's being used incorrectly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the self-revert Altanner1991. Classy move. For the record, I acknowledge some dissonance between BRD (yes, an essay, but commonly held to be best practice), and 3RR. It's a real beast, but most of the related work is happening at WT:V. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

If no one wants the proposal, I don't care. Sorry about the hubbub. Best regards, Altanner1991 (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the need for rapid changes without the "filibuster", so-to-speak. And the use of the word compromised was the same as in the BRD page: it should be interpreted as simply that very cycle. Altanner1991 (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

My objection is pretty much the same. This dramatically alters the scope of the policy, in a way totally inappropriate for a WP:BOLD edit. The phrasing is confusing, and easily open to WP:GAMING by vandals and tendentious editors alike in a way that would make it more difficult to prevent disruption. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. But if no one wants to do things my way, I'll concede. Hopefully I was not too much drama...Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I will also open up this conversation to potentially adding to the number or types of 3RRNO exemptions. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

If no one wants the proposals I have made, I will close this talk page section. Thanks as always for the inspiring discussion. Altanner1991 (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2022 (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.