Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2012/November

Should reverts of game playing be exempt from 3RR?

There's currently a thread at WP:AN: Users playing "Get to Philosophy" game to the detriment of Wikipedia. In the thread, someone brought up what the position should be regarding the three revert rule and people who modify links to play games like "Get to Philosophy" or so on. They aren't necessarily obvious vandalism but they are bad faith edits that don't help in the encyclopedic mission: exempting reverts of those kind of edits from 3RR seems like a good idea as such 'game playing' can pop up anywhere and it may only be one editor who is watchlisting the article and reverting the disruptive editing in pursuit of silly games. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's not obvious vandalism how will editors know it when they see it? Brmull (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism tends to be the Huggle crowd: people reverting "JOEY IS GAY" edits and so on. Someone changing a link in the lead to prove the Get to Philosophy thing... that might be spotted by only one editor watchlisting an article. It's fairly obvious to an individual watchlisting an article, but wouldn't necessarily trigger the 'obvious' test for RC patrollers (etc.). —Tom Morris (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• oppose Reverts of silly gameplaying are not important enough to justify editwarring (opposed to say, serious BLP violations). The potential for abuse is also immense. If you truly believe a person is playing a game and you fail to get a response on their talkpage take it to wp:ANI. Yoenit (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, vandalism, even when subtle, is still vandalism. --Nouniquenames 06:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Question

I watch a number of lists and revert any non-notable entries which are almost added daily, mostly by IPs and newbies. What I want to ask is that while doing such reverts, sometimes I find my self violating the 3RR. So can I ignore 3RR in such situations or not? If I can't then how should I clean up these lists. --SMS ^Talk 16:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I notice in your edit history a number of edit summaries that read "rm redlinks)", I have not reviewed those that you choose to remove. But the lack of an article as evidenced by the presents of a red link, does not in it's self make a subject non-notable. Nor is there a requirement that all content in an article (or list) be notable, it must only be verifiable. If a subject is in fact non-notable but is verifiable, the correct action would be to remove the double square bracket "[" to disable the red link and add a reference. In this edit you removed several items, 3 minutes after a previous edit on another page. None of the items are on the list are referenced, either those that remain nor those removed. At least one of the subject on the list Mohabbat Khan Mosque is completely with out references making it's notability questionable. While you are completely in your rights to remove un-refernced material, courtesy suggests asking for references {{fact}} before removing content, and potentially searching for and adding a reference. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting here. I only (or mostly) remove redlinks from lists (and other articles that include lists, like "Notable Personalities") about which I have some knowledge and where I find these edits promotional in nature. The purpose of these removals/reverts is to keep these lists clean. I guess probably you haven't seen a list like any of these: [1], [2], [3] and similar ones. Going by your approach if we allow non-notables entries to be added to these lists and also lists in Category:Days of the year, that will certainly be disastrous, looking at the frequency these articles are edited. Besides once an article is created on a subject, then there are several ways/mechanisms (WP:NPP, WP:CSD, WP:PROD, WP:AFD) to deal with non-notable articles.

And in the end I will like to point you to the related guideline (WP:REDLINK), which says:

"...rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles..."

"...Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, or non-links, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such list entries should be removed; the lists should remain confined to names of people whose notability is attested by an existing article or other reference..."

--SMS ^Talk 19:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

User Talk Pages

It seems logical that anything not prohibited on a user's page or user talk page that has not been the subject of a community consensus to remove should, if another editor removes it, be able to be reinstated (reverting the removal) as an exception to 3RR. Is there any objection to adding such a note? --Nouniquenames 03:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's already there. Exemption number two is "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines." Or am I misunderstanding you? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I overlooked it. Thanks! --Nouniquenames 16:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Should have called it the four-revert rule

It's three strikes and you're out in baseball, hence the three strikes law legal terminology. So we should have called it the four reverts rule. Too late now! #thingsthatkeepmeupatnight Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

What should I do if someone reverts my edit 3 times?

if someone violates 3RR, Should I -as a non-moderator user- put the { {subst:Uw-3rr} } tag on his Talkpage myself, or should I inform a moderator, or is there some other procedure? plz answer me + put the answer on the main page (edit war article). thx Seraj (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes you can use warning templates as needed. There is no official moderator group of user on Wikipedia. though in a quick look at your edit history I did not see any recent edits you had made that fit "someone reverts my edit 3 times". If one person has reverted your edits three times, then presumably you have also reverted their edits three times. If this is the case, read Wikipedia:Edit warring and discuss with the other user on a talk page until you have come to a Wikipedia:Consensus before making the next edit. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thx :) I was reading the Wikipedia:Edit warring page, and I didn't see any procedure for the users to use the {subst:Uw-3rr} tag. In the tag, it's written "Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing". Who will do the blocking, if only the users will use the tag, and won't inform anyone else? Seraj (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep reading, the point is not to put tags on each others talk page, the point is to talk to each other and come to a joint solution. This page in a nutshell: Don't use edits to fight with other editors – disagreements should be resolved through discussion.. Jeepday (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)