Wikipedia talk:Edit warring

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2024

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.

Isonomia01 (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

In the situation you've outlined, I'd say that neither A nor B is in the right because they're both reverting each other. That one of them started a Talk page section doesn't mean anything if they then engage in reverting. Put another way, the act of starting a Talk page section doesn't give an editor the right to keep reverting someone who isn't engaging on the Talk page. DonIago (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)