Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2012/July

Removal of speedy deletion tags
Should re-inserting speedy deletion tags which are removed by the article creator not be an exemption from 3RR? Per WP:CSD it's forbidden for an article creator to remove tags. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, get someone else involved through one of the vandalism forums. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Obvious vandalism is an exception to 3RR, and "avoidant vandalism" such as removing deletion tags is a form of vandalism. Given that article creators aren't supposed to be removing CSD tags in the first place, this leads me to believe that it's unnecessarily bureaucratic to have to get others involved. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Removal of speedy deletion tags is either vandalism, or over protectiveness of a new editor trying to add what they believe is valuable content to Wikipedia. If it is vandalism, then each occurrence should include a warning following the procedure at Vandalism.  If its a new editor trying to improve Wikipedia (misguided or not) then WP:AGF & WP:BITE apply and if one editors message is not getting through then hopefully involving another experienced editor will create a better communication allowing the new editor to grasp the policy and begin their path to becoming an experienced editor like yourself.  In either case a new editor and an experienced editor involved in adding and removing speedy deletion tags is edit waring, step back and let someone else step in. There is sufficient edit patrol at pretty much every moment of the day, that there is no need for any one experience editor to take the entire responsibility of reverting.  Allowing another editor to become involved turns an edit war into a community action. The Most Important Thing Possible drives edit waring, but what is really so critical about removing a speed deletion tag that any one editor needs to be responsible for ensuring that some new editor does remove it? Worse case: put the page on your watch list, if it still there the next day, read it maybe it improved to the point that speedy delete is no longer in order.  You can always speedy it again (which involves another editor making the final decision to delete or not) or you can take it to WP:AfD which involves many other editors.  JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While all of that describes a perfectly reasonable approach and I largely agree, I think the original question was about policy. According to policy, should an editor be blocked for 3RR if the content in question is a CSD tag? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Policy and application are two different things. So two answers, I doubt any admin would block a user for repeatedly removing a speedy deletion tag. But getting into an edit war with a new editor adding and an experienced editor removing a speedy deletion tag is wrong, and servers no purpose.  If an experienced editor is about to break 3RR removing Speedy delete, there is a problem, and granting immunity from edit waring is not the solution. Either post the new editor at WP:AIV or help the new editor to correctly contest the speedy. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggest changing "whether involving the same or different material each time" to "related material"
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See below for exemptions. Whether involving the same or different material? Why does it say that? And if its related material, that makes sense, but not something totally unrelated. Example, I and one other editor were reverting this guy was breaking rules adding in links to fansites. He was blocked for 24 hours. I then reverted the edit of an IP address that did something totally unrelated, changing the order of the remaining external links, I explaining that "The official website gets on top even if its not the best." Now then, had this been my 4th revert of the day instead of the third, despite being something totally unrelated, an administrator says I could've been blocked. How about we change the wording to be, whether involving the same or related material each time—counts as a revert.   D r e a m Focus  20:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh Good Heavens No. This would lead to so much gaming and dramahz that the mind boggles just thinking about it. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How so? How about instead of the word "related" say "related directly to the material reverted".  Need to clarify that, since some might say the  external links section was related, even though it was totally different content being reverted this time.   D r e a m Focus  20:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Confrontation
It seems User:Bobrayner will keep removing reliable information from the Chinese Zodiac and not from the Western Astrology articles. I keep informing the user if you keep remove per WP:BOLLOCKS the user should have had the common sense to remove the BOLLOCKS information from the characteristics from the (Western astrology) section as it also pertains BOLLOCK book sources. If the user does not do anything with the Western Horoscopes. I don't want to star a war, but if the user can't delete characteristics from Western astrology as BOLLOCKS I will keep the information of the Chinese Zodiac signs if the user does not do away with Western astrology characteristics per WP:IRS, I already noted this to WP:RSN and please inform the user why the user did not complete the rest of BOLLOCKS information from other Chinese zodiac signs.--GoShow  (...............) 17:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)