Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2018/April
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Edit warring. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Another exemption?
What do folks think about an exemption for the situation where an editor refuses to discuss their edit on the talk page, despite being invited to do so via an edit summary of "Please discuss on the talk page" or "Requires a consensus on the talk page" or something similar? Perhaps notification on the user's talk page could be required for the exemption to kick in.Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- As much as I might have liked to avail myself of such an exemption in the past, I think in the interest of establishing a consensus to end the back-and-forth reverting, getting more opinions is preferable. isaacl (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Reverts and RfC consensus
What happens when some editors blatantly ignore a consensus outcome of an RfC, properly closed, and insist on reverting, although without actually violating 3RR? Shouldn't these kind of edits also be exempt from the 3RR rule, at least in clear cut cases (revert at your own risk of course), otherwise it opens up a huge opportunity for WP:GAME (and frankly, what would be the point of holding RfC then anyway?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- I would agree that the reversion of editing against a clear consensus should be exempt, especially if the consensus is the result of a properly closed RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think it is preferable to request a block or RFPP than continue to edit war, even with a clear consensus, since the user should trivially be blockable in that case. --Izno (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)