Wikipedia talk:Edit warring

"Wikipedia:2RR" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:2RR and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 22#Wikipedia:2RR until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Making WP:3RRNO point 7 more specific

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)

• 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)

• 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 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)

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)
• 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)