Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2023/December

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.

Would this be a revert?

We have a 1RR policy on Israel/Palestine articleas, so one must watch out carefully not to fall afoul of it. Now. In the article Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip, there is a subsection, just added today called "Largest Tunnel." The first part of the subsection was created today, quoting from the Times of Israel. I found further material from the Wall Street Journal and added it. Ordinarily I would combine the two, but the question is, would that be considered a revert? In the past I've been yelled at for doing very much that kind of thing when I follow up within 24 hrs with an intentional revert. See, I would in the process be removing text in the process of adding, so strictly speaking though my intent is not to revert, I might be doing just that (at least in the opinion of some editors). I'd appreciate the thoughts of admins especially on this. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The policy says The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. Combining text while adding can definitely fall under the definition a revert. The exact change has to be considered when determining if it is a revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, then going forward I imagine best practices would be (in this instance) to combine the text, and then just avoid the article entirely for a while to avoid drama. Coretheapple (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)