| Revision as of 13:07, 14 December 2024 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,161 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Edit warring/Archives/2024/November) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:07, 29 December 2024 edit undoIsonomia01 (talk | contribs)364 edits →Additional clarification should be added to the article: new sectionTag: New topicNext edit → | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
| * {{Not done}} It's not clear in the slightest what edits you'd like made. ] (]) 03:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | * {{Not done}} It's not clear in the slightest what edits you'd like made. ] (]) 03:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == Additional clarification should be added to the article == | |||
| The following is my perspective. | |||
| Consider the following situation (this is intended as a hypothetical). User A adds a section to the talk page of an article stating they intend to add a section to the article. User B knows about the talk page section but does not respond (consider in this hypothethical that User B was pinged or somehow otherwise knows). User A adds the section to the article. User B deletes it. User A reverts. User B reverts again. User A reverts a second time. User B then reverts again. User A then makes a new addition to the talk page section, pinging User B again. All in all, User A reverted twice, and then disengaged from the act of reverting, and resorted to dialogue and waiting. | |||
| It is my understanding that the administrator community considers the act of User A to be "edit warring" (we accept this term for the sake of argument), in spite of (a) attempting to engage in consensus discussion prior to the "edit war", and (b) disengaging from the "edit war" after it became apparent that it was in fact, or was going to be an edit war should User A continue. Not only that, but the administrator community seems to believe that this justifies a 7-day block, even on a new user. | |||
| In my personal opinion, I disagree with that, and I think that the language of the rules on blocking (]) supports my position. Lets say I'm right. The article here should be edited so that the administrator team knows not to block User A in the above situation. Lets say I'm wrong. We should still be able to see how User A could have read this article, and believed reasonably that what they were doing did not constitute an edit war, and the article should be clarified so that editors do not mistakenly 'violate' this rule and be subjected to a 7-day block over a good faith mistake. | |||
| Again, this is just my opinion. Thank you. | |||
| ] (]) 08:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:07, 29 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edit warring page. |
|
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. 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. |
 | This is not the page to report edit warring or 3RR violations. Please instead create a report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. |
 | See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages. |
 | The contents of the Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule page were merged into Misplaced Pages:Edit warring. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 Archives | ||
|
2012: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2024: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Archived polls for Three-revert rule
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2024
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
41.114.250.102 (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done It's not clear in the slightest what edits you'd like made. Departure– (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Additional clarification should be added to the article
The following is my perspective.
Consider the following situation (this is intended as a hypothetical). User A adds a section to the talk page of an article stating they intend to add a section to the article. User B knows about the talk page section but does not respond (consider in this hypothethical that User B was pinged or somehow otherwise knows). User A adds the section to the article. User B deletes it. User A reverts. User B reverts again. User A reverts a second time. User B then reverts again. User A then makes a new addition to the talk page section, pinging User B again. All in all, User A reverted twice, and then disengaged from the act of reverting, and resorted to dialogue and waiting.
It is my understanding that the administrator community considers the act of User A to be "edit warring" (we accept this term for the sake of argument), in spite of (a) attempting to engage in consensus discussion prior to the "edit war", and (b) disengaging from the "edit war" after it became apparent that it was in fact, or was going to be an edit war should User A continue. Not only that, but the administrator community seems to believe that this justifies a 7-day block, even on a new user.
In my personal opinion, I disagree with that, and I think that the language of the rules on blocking (WP:BLOCK) supports my position. Lets say I'm right. The article here should be edited so that the administrator team knows not to block User A in the above situation. Lets say I'm wrong. We should still be able to see how User A could have read this article, and believed reasonably that what they were doing did not constitute an edit war, and the article should be clarified so that editors do not mistakenly 'violate' this rule and be subjected to a 7-day block over a good faith mistake.
Again, this is just my opinion. Thank you.