Wikipedia talk:Edit warring

message: :It is not that I find the addition controversial. I fail to see the significance or need to "harmonize" using a stipulated enumeration as a possible unnecessary "preemption". The community accepted "explanatory essay", WP:BRD augments a policy (Wikipedia:Consensus) and an editing guideline (WP:BOLD). It seems it would be far better to stop edit warring before it gets to three strikes.
:There is the added "strong encouragement" concerning possible policy edit warring, . A need for another example should be considered for this policy only when there is actually a need so we do not get into needlessly making "rules". Edit warring is WP:Disruptive editing and an editor can be found to violate the explanatory essay Wikipedia:NOTHERE: .
:It would seem the last paragraph in the "Exemptions" section , would be better served being at the top of the section. --  Otr500 (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Except in this case, the things are definitionally not edit warring; and without harmonizing the exemption, it can be ambiguous whether "when in doubt, do not revert" applies. What you're describing is in fact a scenario where this exemption would help, by removing doubt. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 05:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: :It seems to me some tidying up would be beneficial to Wikipedia, lessen confusion, and minimise instruction creep
:Has anyone really read What edit warring is lately? The opening paragraph discusses BOLD, BRD, and in the mist one sentence:  This is followed by "Nevertheless, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring:" - and a bulleted list of basically What is NOT edit warring. It may be just me but I prefer numbered listings over bulleted listings. A certain number used in a conversation certainly lessons any possible confusion.  
* (#1): The first example begins: "Reverting vandalism is not edit warring". This is covered in the "Exemptions" section (#4) below.
* (#2): The second example:  seems to me to be close to what  suggested to be added (#9), with the exception "or applicable Arbitration Committee ruling", that  stated should be omitted. Considering the redundancy of the other examples it would likely not be controversial to remove content from a section it doesn't belong in and add to the "Exemptions" section, minus the BLP (already listed in #7) and Arbcom mention.
* (#3): "Reverting edits of banned or blocked users is not edit warring." is covered in #3 of the "Exceptions".
* (#4): "Reverting edits in one's own user page is rarely edit warring", and the rest of that could be merged to #1 and combined with #2 in the "Exemptions" because "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space" is "self-reverting".
:Corrections would not only reduce redundancy there would still be only eight examples in the "Exemptions" section. If #1 and #2 were combined, along with the unnecessary and largely redundant examples of "what editing warring is not" in the "What edit warring is" section  would certainly amount to reducing instruction creep. 
:Unless I am wrong such reorganizing would likely not be as subjected to needing broad community consensus but just those involved since I don't see it makes any real changes. Of course, if this is deemed worthy of discussion and possible implementing it is under a subsection of an ongoing RFC for the "Edit warring" policy.  --  Otr500 (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My suspicion is that regardless of whether there's any actual changes, people will object just to the re-organizing despite what WP:PGCHANGE and WP:PGBOLD say about how this process should work.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization and proposal

message: Does 3RR apply on my user and talk page, or only in article space? (Example: Let's say an IP vandalizes my userpage, hypothetically, more than three times, would I violate 3RR?) If you reply here, please ping me. — thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 14:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: From the project page: "Reverting edits in one's own user page is rarely edit warring. Traditionally, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." There's a link with more information provided there as well. DonIago (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Also, reverting vandalism is already exempt per WP:3RRNO. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR question