Wikipedia talk:Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Peacedove.svg The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.
WikiProject Policy and Guidelines
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Policy and Guidelines WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

CSD tags?[edit]

Would it be a violation of 3RR if you reverted a user that was removing a CSD tag three times in 24h? I'm not to 3R here yet, but I just wanted to know. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's a clear violation of policy. I'd consider it vandalism, which is exempt. Bots will do it if they pick it up. Anyway, I think the user was actually trying to blank the page (G7). I just cleaned up all the user's "contributions".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
(Assuming that first sentence was sarcastic ;)) Ok, I just wanted to make sure. Thank you! :) --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it wasn't sarcastic, you just understandably misinterpreted it (my fault). I meant that removing the tag is a violation of policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I was actually just gonna come here and ask about that. Shouldn't it be apart of the exemptions if it is exempt? I got into a situation myself by doing page patrolling and I reverted them three times. I don't think it exactly classifies as vandalism, but just a misunderstanding of how CSD works. Tutelary (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to add new 3RRNO criteria[edit]

The exact text of the addendum would be as such: 8. Reverting the removal of speedy deletion, articles for deletion or miscellaneous for deletion tags. The reversion of the removal of speedy deletion tags must only be done is only exempt against the article's initial creator. I'm proposing this because it's already treated as such, might as well be within the policy. Tutelary (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, makes sense. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as a de facto exemption.- MrX 18:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Note I changed the proposed exemption because of the wording that I initially took, it wouldn't technically be an exemption. What I meant by that is that it would only be exempt against the article's initial creator. I fixed the wording to fix this. @AmaryllisGardener: @MrX: in case they wish to change their !vote as a result of such. Tutelary (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have instituted the changes in this edit. Cheers. Tutelary (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not a good idea. Under what circumstances is it imagined that it would be helpful to do, say, ten reverts in an edit war with a clueless newbie who keeps removing a delete tag? If the newbie removed the tag again, would you just revert an eleventh time? The correct procedure would be to revert two or three times (with an explanation at the user's talk), then escalate it somewhere. The 3RR exemptions are for obvious stuff such as on your user page, or for really bad stuff like serious copyvio/BLP/legal problems. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This one: You're the only editor patrolling new pages. A spam page is created. The page creator, his friend, and both of them logged out continue to remove the CSD tag, removing the page from the admins watchlist. AIV is backlogged, and the folks at ANI are busy discussing who said what about whom on someone's talk page. In frustration, you go do something else because you know you're not supposed to restore a CSD tag more than three times. The spam page slips further down in the queue of 9700+ pages where it will forever escape the attention of new page patrollers, further diminishing the integrity of the encyclopedia.
Now let's flip it around: Under what circumstance is it a good idea to block someone for restoring a legitimate CSD tag that has been repeatedly removed by the article creator? How does enforcing 3RR in this case improve the encyclopedia? - MrX 00:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Please provide a diff of an ANI report of such a removal that was ignored by all admins. NE Ent 01:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I'll do that right after you provide a diff of an editor being blocked for legitimately restoring a CSD tag more than three times within a 24 hour period.- MrX 01:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:CREEP and WP:Policy fallacy. For one the, the text as written would have exempted an editor from restoring a CSD tag after a reviewing admin removed it, or closed an Afd as keep. You just can't write every if, and, and but into policy. NE Ent 01:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
For one the, the text as written would have exempted an editor from restoring a CSD tag after a reviewing admin removed it, or closed an Afd as keep. I actually thought about adding this via the text, but decided against it as the policy would be edited or contested at a later time. Now would be a good time to do such and I thank you for the feedback. I believe that adding this phrasing: This exemption also does not apply if the nomination has been withdrawn or closed. This would close said loophole of someone mistakenly edit warring against the person who withdrew the nomination or against an admin who had closed it and assessed said consensus. All I'm trying to remedy with this policy is that people who are here to promote things often remove the speedy deletion tags, and even though they very well could be blocked for edit warring, that takes time to write a report, report them, and wait for action. Crap like it shouldn't be allowed to stay on the encylopedia. Also, what about blatant attack pages as well or blatant hoaxes? I've been in a situation like this where they reverted more than 3 times and honestly, since there's no exemption, I had to report it to WP:ANI to resolve it. Also, I've neglected to see someone be punished for reverting the removal of a CSD tag and that's why it's already a de-facto exemption. Tutelary (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)