Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2020/November
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
I just boldly added a link to WP:Consensus required.[1] I just found the provision had been discussed here in 2017.[2] Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020
 | This edit request to Wikipedia:Edit warring has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page reveals a medical condition which is considered private information. It is illegal to reveal a medical condition of an individual. Ext123man (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --TheImaCow (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Interpretation of 1RR in discretionary sanctions
This is a question I asked ten years ago at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration. Maybe this time someone could answer it: ◅ Sebastian 13:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Recently, while I was trying to calm the waves at a highly disputed article, I learned that my edits, which I thought to be impartial administrative actions, could easily be seen as violating the Discretionary sanctions, when an editor posted a message originally titled "You've broken the 1rr on the Gaza flotilla raid article - multiple times". It seems that a literal interpretation of WP:1RR allows typical disruptive POV warring edits, while forbidding their reversal. See discussion of my proposal for radical simplification. Can an ArbCom member please clarify the application of this rule? Would my proposed change better express its intent? — Sebastian 19:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)