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)

0RR[edit]

Is anyone aware of an example where an 0RR rule is in place? NE Ent 02:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This search finds a lot of mentions of 0RR in the archives of WP:AE. I don't know if any articles are currently under a 0RR. It is unclear whether anyone restricted by 0RR could succeed in making improvements to an article -- almost any change would break the rule. EdJohnston (talk)
So it's placed on editors, not on pages (which would be problematic) NE Ent 00:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you aware of the recent Ayurveda case where an admin imposed 0RR on the article (Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 6#Going forward)? That was discussed at quite some length; it's on the current talk page, and I think it was at ANI and a couple of user talk pages. The 0RR in that case was completely unhelpful as it simply meant the article would continually degrade as fringe-topic enthusiasts added waffle to the article—stuff which could not be removed unless the fringe-topic enthusiasts agreed to establish "consensus" on talk. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I was aware of that discussion, which is what prompted my question here. I've made an update to the wording to clarify 0RR restrictions should be assigned to editors, not pages. NE Ent 18:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Mobile View[edit]

Using the desktop version of wikipedia on my iPad, I can see a red box in section 1.1, the 3 revert rule. However, in mobile view, the contents of the red box that contains the 3RR rule are not visible... 98.220.130.63 (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The text you are referring to at Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule is encoded using {{divbox}}, whose documentation states: "Please note that this is intended to be a decorative template and not for use on the general encyclopedia." Apparently one drawback is that it does not render correctly in the mobile view. This is symptomatic of other limitations when using the mobile view. For example, navigation templates also don't render in the mobile view. For example, a lot of related links are not in the "See also" section of articles, since WP:SEEALSO advises that the section "should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes"; this also leads to a degraded experience for mobile devices.—Bagumba (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)