Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2016/January

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.

report

Someone to see the past edits of this retard here - he gets involved in edits war almost daily and makes lots of users to vandalise his talk page with his attitude - he should be blocked unlimitated ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.235.146.48 (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You might get more response if you can provide some relevant diffs that demonstrate the alleged behavior. If you have a legitimate case, consider going to

WP:AN3 directly, unless you are soliciting advice. In any event, diffs are needed.—Bagumba (talk

) 00:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Slow editwarring

We need somewhere for

long game collusion to PoV push and "shape" the content of entire topic areas (see, e.g., this Signpost article, and this ArbCom case), we really need to cover this, in an actionable way. The concept of slow-motion edit warring comes up quite frequently: [1] [2] [3] [4]; there's clearly a consensus that this behavior is not okay, so it should be covered clearly in policy. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢

≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

We first need to objectively define what it is. Also Wikipedia:Disruptive editing already deals with more long-term behavior.—Bagumba (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Defining: Yes. This can probably be done with reference to decisions at

WP:3RR makes it clear that one isn't entitled to 3 reverts per day, but there are still a lot of random editors who believe that as long as the relentlessly pursue the same goal, just just do it periodically, that it's not editwarring (it's actually worse, because it's editwarring through a filter of tendentiousness, gaming, battlegrounding and NOTHERE all at once). Then there's the programmatic, sometimes organized and even professional PoV pushers mentioned above, who add COI and SOAPBOX/ADVOCACY/GREATWRONGS into the mix. I really do think this policy should cover it explicitly. This week alone I've ran into multiple instances of behavior that for which a SLOWEDITWAR section to cite would have been very salient. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢

≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)