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.
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.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any threads with no replies in 31 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Responding to the request at WP:ANRFC: the proposed text should not be added to the list of exceptions. Of course, that doesn't mean that it can't necessarily be done (e.g. if it's already current practice, although no examples were discussed here) - it means that if such edits are challenged, they will have to be justified on different grounds. Sunrise(talk) 02:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
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.
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 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)
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)
If the situation you describe has never occurred, I doubt such a block has occurred either; in my experience pages are deleted before there's any question of blocking the tagger. I'd be interested to see examples of both situations. One can also go on IRC and use the emergency stalkword, which usually works. ekips39 17:22, 3 February 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)
Oppose. Unduly narrow but at the same time complex and unnecessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
People rely far too heavily on the exemptions as it is. In most cases, the best thing to do is alert an admin and get them to deal with it. CSD is rarely an urgent matter (and the few urgent cases like G10 are usually dealt with quickly); removal of tags can just be taken to ANI and an admin will deal with it sooner or later. There's no need to go to town on the creator, who is almost always well-meaning albeit misguided. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - A sock is still a "different editor" until proven, and spam is still spam without a G11 tag. Notability without an A7 tag does not make the article notable, and vandalism without a G3 tag does not make it not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikichugirl (talk • contribs)
If the tagger is about to go over 3 reverts, the issue should probably be taken to a noticeboard anyway -- it doesn't do anyone any good to engage in an indefinitely long edit war. The person removing the tag should also probably be warned first. Finally, if it's already de facto, does it need to be de jure? ekips39 17:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
No need, already covered under "clear and obvious vandalism". Stifle (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2015 (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.
At the moment the definition of 3RR in the highlighted box contains this sentence: "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation." I fully agree with the sentiment behind the sentence, but the sentence itself has multiple problems.
1. It is not true. Some fraction of such episodes are treated as edit-warring, but the vast majority are not. The word "likely" is simply false; it isn't likely at all. Nearly all admins (including myself) require more than a 3RR almost-violation, such as other evidence of intention to edit-war and/or repetition of the behavior.
2. It is not "gaming the system" at all. The definition and examples at WP:GAME do not apply to this situation. Please read that page; it refers to intentional use of Wikipedia rules contrary to their intention, not to behaving badly while staying on just the right side of the rules. In any case, the presence of the "gaming" phrase in the sentence does not improve it in any way.
Accordingly, I propose to replace the sentence thus: "Fourth reversions just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior." Zerotalk 00:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
No dissent after a few days, so I'll boldly do it. Zerotalk 11:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll belatedly dissent, Zero0000 (too many pages on my watchlist). The line between the two scenarios you suggest for gaming is a fuzzy one, and I think gaming applies here (it's even mentioned in the opening of the guideline). That said, I would endorse a much more minor change to the wording to read: "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot may be treated as an edit-warring violation." (changing "is likely to" to "may").--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Bbb23. There's no harm in rewording to make the policy clearer, but the reference to gaming should remain. Perhaps changes should be made to WP:GAME to explain that following the letter of rule, rather than the spirit, can be a form of gaming the system.- MrX 16:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that the reference to gaming just gives the reader one more concept to understand unnecessarily. What useful purpose does it have? The rules should be stated succinctly, not burdened by poorly-defined labels. Zerotalk 22:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Is "gaming" (or "gaming the system") really a poorly-defined label? It's a fairly universally understood idiom in American English.- MrX 23:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to be international and policy pages should not use American idioms. My (completely inexpert) understanding is that only young Americans can be expected to know the word. Older people, and people from other countries, can't be assumed to know it. As this discussion illustrates, even people who know the word aren't in agreement on exactly what it means. Reading around the web, mostly commonly it refers to exploiting a loophole to get some unintended advantage (such as avoiding tax by dubious-but-legal accounting tricks). It is not a loophole that 4 reverts in 25 hours is legal; it is just a plain reading of the 3RR rule. Without some evidence of edit-warring intent, making 4 reverts in 25 hours is like driving at 54mph in a 55mph zone — perfectly legal and not automatically indicative of bad intentions. If there are other reasons to regard someone's behavior as edit-warring, then a pattern of waiting for the end of the 24 hour period before resuming the warring can be added to the charge sheet (and I've blocked people for it). I'm particularly concerned that the sentence attempts to make the definition of a 3RR violation fuzzy, when one of the best things about the rule is its precision. In terms of editors knowing what the policy requires of them, "24 hours means 24 hours" is way better than "24 hours means 24 hours, except we might decide it means 25 hours, or maybe 26 hours". Zerotalk 00:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)