The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
Recently I encountered a situation where a user was repeatedly inserting a large swath of content into an article that violated several core policies (in this specific case, it was in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO at the least), but it wasn't vandalism. They persisted in adding this inappropriate content even after being repeatedly reverted and warned to stop doing so. Both the other user and myself ended up exceeding 3RR, and I noted this when I reported the other to AN3. However, it took quite some time for the report to be actioned, meanwhile the inappropriate content was just sitting in the article. Since I had already passed 3RR I didn't want to revert any further (I try not to exceed 3RR even when exempt, as a matter of good practice), so I applied additional maintenance tags as an interim solution. But then at the report, I was told that policy-violating content isn't actually an exemption from edit warring, unless it's vandalism. So my question is, firstly, is that correct advice? And secondly, assuming it is, what is the best way to handle something like this in the future? Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that DR was only for good-faith content disputes concerning legitimate additions that were disputed.. not for situations involving content that blatantly violates policies and therefore must not be included regardless of what anyone says. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DR is just a policy page that provides options for how disputes can be addressed. When you're removing text and another editor is repeatedly inserting it, that's a dispute, regardless of the merits of the text. Going to 3RR sounds like it was the right option in your case; it's just not fast. However, inappropriate content in a Wikipedia article also isn't the end of the world. DonIago (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This somewhat follows on from the previous thread. This is a typical scenario. Low traffic page. IP, now a Temporary Account, turns up. Makes an edit supporting some sort of POV or based on a total ignorance of policy. Might even be made in good faith. It's not vandalism but it's pretty blatantly outside of policy. There's WP:DR, WP:RFC and WP:ANI but really, it doesn't deserve anything other than summary dismissal by an editor with even a vaguely decent understanding of policy. The "editor with a decent understanding of policy" reverts but it's a low traffic article so as second mover they're at a disadvantage for 3RR purposes. No one else notices/cares enough to step in to dismiss the conspiracy theorist/POV warrior/bee-in-their-bonnet-anyone. What is the sole decent editor noticing this to do? Revert 2RR? But what then, when the Temporary account continues to revert. DR, RFC, ANI, game 3RR? None of those are appropriate or efficient or effective, IMO. So here's a solution which, I have no doubt won't get traction (!), don't apply 3RR to Temporary accounts reverts by registered users with more than X edits. Seriously, the chances of "good" edits by Temporary accounts being outweighed by "bad" reverts by registered users is negligible in my experience. But...I fully recognise that this suggestion has no chance. DeCausa (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about starting a discussion on the talk page and tagging the disputed edit? See wp:QUO, particularly the paragraph that begins "Edit warring to maintain a 'status quo version' is still edit warring" (bold in original). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's tens of thousands of pages where no one else turns up for months regardless of what's going on there. It's daily WP reality. Not sure of the value of quoting "'Edit warring to maintain a 'status quo version' is still edit warring". We all know the mantra. the point is to go beyond that. I'm not asking for solutions within existing policy. I know all the current options = I'm asserting that existing policy doesn't work (after being here 15 years) and should change. DeCausa (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
