Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2015/April

Spamming and WP:3RRNO
I just noticed there's no exemption for reverting obvious spam links and advertising yet WP:AIV explicitly accepts reports of spamming. Are we treating spamming as vandalism or is there really no exemption for reverting it? --Neil N  talk to me 20:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To me it would fall under "vandalism" and is exempt.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Both of you handle 3RR reports regularly. Any thoughts? --Neil N  talk to me 19:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would treat it as vandalism with the same proviso that it has to be blatant.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There should be a high bar for adding new entries to WP:3RRNO. But in practice it's unlikely someone would be blocked at AN3 for reverting spam, it that's all it was. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. --Neil N  talk to me 19:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked or even banned
The implication is that banning is inherently more serious than blocking. Wouldn't that depend on duration and scope of the block and ban? Potentially misleading and therefore non-trivial? My suggestion is to remove the word "even". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've always thought of bans as more serious than blocks because they are usually very long term and determined by consensus.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)