Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2019/April

Better defining the scope of exemption 7 of the 3RR
Exemption 7 of the 3RR currently reads as follows:

"The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: [...] Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our 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."

To my eyes, this provides little clarity. Can this exemption rule be invoked for any breach of WP:BLP policy, or is it limited to specific sections? If so, which sections? Should violations of WP:BLPBALANCE allow for the successful invocation of this exemption? Thanks, Domeditrix (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

"Gaming the system" clause
The page reads "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring." Now, I find this to go against two concepts: first, the 3RR being a bright-line rule, but most importantly, Wikipedia's fundamental principle of assuming good faith.

Having this clause is like making a law that people under 18 can't drink but making a scene and getting all picky if someone who's having their 18th birthday today wants to buy a beer. What's the point of setting the bright-line rule in the first place? And when it happens, I find it quite paranoid to assume that the person was taking note of the times to make the edit just outside of the penalty window in an attempt to "game the system". --uKER (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding the first, there probably needs to be something on the page-proper if there isn't already that If you need to count to defend yourself, you're probably edit warring. As for the second, WP:AGF is only reasonable when it is not obvious that someone is acting in other-than-good-faith; edit warring, by definition, is bad faith editing. You do not get the protection of AGF if you are edit warring, unless you are obviously exempted. See also Our social policies are not a suicide pact. --Izno (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See also the end of the same paragraph from which you quoted: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. --Izno (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to disagree that edit warring is synonymous with bad-faithed editing. I have been countless times involved in the editing of articles where anons, or other "not too orthodox" editors hammer a page introducing unsourced information, rumors, misconceptions, you name it, and I have probably reverted more than 3 times a day in cases like that. Heck, I've probably reverted more than 10 times. Luckily such editors are less aware of the rules, than they are of the fact that they are being disruptive themselves. I know standard procedure is to leave it to someone else to be the one to revert these editors, but it would be nice to have the rule contemplate these cases. --uKER (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)