Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2020/April

Proposed changes
"If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion, if no other edits are done after it." This is proposed to enable partial automated detection. "Edit warring and 3RR violations are not detected automatically. This is intentional, otherwise too many false positives would occur." No policy change, explanation added. "Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting"). However, if you revert the same change three times, it counts even if it is your own edit." "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines. Again, if you revert the same change three times, this time with no other edits between, it still counts." Self-revert in Wikipedia is like self-plagiarism in academia. "Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under the law of target countries (US, UK, India in case of English Wikipedia), such as child pornography and links to pirated software." Policy change to accomodate content provider and the target jurisdiction definitions around the world.

Erkin Alp Güney 19:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Erkin Alp Güney. Some comments on your proposed changes. Concerning the absence of an explanation for why edit warring isn't detected automatically, I don't think the explanation is essential to the advice, which is to wait for or seek administrator intervention. Concerning clearly illegal content, Wikipedia's Terms of Use only make definitive reference to the laws of the United States. While other applicable laws may be those of anywhere Wikipedia is edited or viewed, it would give undue weight to single out any examples. Concerning exemptions for one's own edits and edits to one's own user page, while these actions might be disruptive in other ways, they aren't edit warring, and I think that is the intent of the exemptions. --Bsherr (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Partial removal of self-revert exemption in user space was intended for automatic 3RR violation detection in user talk pages. Erkin Alp Güney 18:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors may always self-revert regardless. Doing so after they've violated 3RR. "Automatic detection" is putting the cart before the horse; policy decides what bots get to do, not the other way around.
 * The rationale here is self-obvious and doesn't need your less-than-concise explanation.
 * Your suggestion here is simply wrong.
 * Ditto.
 * And I think Bsherr covers this one just fine.
 * In summary, none of these changes should be, nor need to be, made. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed unprotected pages and edit warring
This factual statement was reverted, so here I am awaiting WP:CONSENSUS to see if users know it exist.

Here is an ArbCom remedy for Arab-Israeli conflict articles which states that All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. ...Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.. Key words: not ... edit warrning.

Here was a community authorized 500/30 editing restriction on all India-Pakistan conflict articles. And once again, On pages that are not protected, edits made contrary to the prohibition may be but are not required to be reverted without regard for the three-revert rule. exempt from edit warrning rules.

So if no one objects (which there shouldn't), I'll go ahead and restore my reverted edit. &#123;&#123;replyto&#125;&#125; Can I Log In 's  (talk) page 20:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * for you, these editors are banned from participating in those areas and so #3 qualifies the edits for reversion. I do not see a need to make your change. --Izno (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the ArbCom remedy or the ECP for India-Pakistan conflict does it state anything about all non-extended-confirmed users being topic banned. &#123;&#123;replyto&#125;&#125; Can I Log In 's  (talk) page 00:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing warring
This user is violating the article; r 2001:8003:181F:6400:434:11CC:F9B8:7359 --Orange2000 (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , if a user is edit warring, report them to the edit warring noticeboard. Since you are autoconfirmed, you can use Twinkle's ARV feature to do so.
 * However, I see no edit warrning in the IP's contributions, rather another form of disruptive editing, vandalism. &#123;&#123;replyto&#125;&#125; Can I Log In 's  (talk) page 15:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC); edited 15:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)