Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2022/February

3RR exception for spam

I'd be bold and do this myself, but I can't seem to pin down the right wording and I also don't want to accidentally break something in the markup. Since spam is considered easy enough to spot that common practice is to deal with obvious spammers via AIV, and reverting vandalism is clearly listed as an exception to 3RR, having an explicit exception for removal of spamming, other obvious promotion, and blatant spam links would be helpful. Obviously an experienced editor would know that, but I could see a new user reading this policy and still being uncertain whether or not he'd end up blocked for repeatedly reverting an obvious spammer on the same page. I'll help anyone who wants to throw together some basic wording. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Any takers? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Idea

@The Blade of the Northern Lights:

1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
3. Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users.
4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
5. Reverting unambiguous spam, where the content would be eligible for deletion under G11.
6. Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Files for discussion noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
7. Removal of content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
8. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

– AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

That looks about right to me. I'll wait a few days to see if anyone else has any input, if not (or if it's supportive) I'll take the plunge and add it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

While we're here, would "test edits" or "patent nonsense" also be a good exception? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Some context, please. Where would this text be placed? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Under "exemptions", per the reasoning I detailed at the start of this section. It doesn't remove anything, just adds an explicit note that removing spam won't be considered edit warring. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

For clarity, it's the same list that is already there with the addition of #5, not sure why the addition is in the middle rather than at the end.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably makes more sense to add it to the end. I think the thinking behind it was to put it next to the exception for vandalism, because spam is fairly similar, but for purposes of consistency and not breaking any section links it's probably best to just make it the last one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)

Maybe change "eligible for deletion under G11" to "eligible for page deletion under criteria G11"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure. What I meant was "deleteable under G11 if it was a standalone article" – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

How about "deleteable under criteria G11 if it was a standalone article"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That but "article" is "page"? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Good to go. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Please only add new exceptions at the end of the list. A lot of editors might've cited "3RRNO #5" in edit summaries for example, which currently means copyvio but after your edit suggests they were reverting due to 'unambiguous spam'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)