Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2015/February

Proposal to add new 3RRNO criteria
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. -- Amaryllis Gardener  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.  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)
 * 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.   ekips 39 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 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)
 * , hello? Tutelary (talk) 21:10, 31 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  &#124;  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?   ekips 39 17:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No need, already covered under "clear and obvious vandalism". Stifle (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)