Wikipedia talk:Edit warring

WP:EW vs WP:EWWW

@Bbb23, you reverted my addition of {{redirect|WP:EW}} saying I don't see how this is helpful or needed; could you expand on that? I added it because it seems like someone could easily confuse "EWWW" with "EW", don't you think? — W.andrea (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I think adding EWWW is confusing. Sounds like a weird interjection or someone's finger is stuck on the W key. I would never confuse the two. Never even heard of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Seeking consensus about WP:AVOIDEDITWAR

According to WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page, which is where a reviewing administrator will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. Instead of reverting, add an appropriate cleanup tag and keep in mind that there is no due-date.

Admins User:Star Mississippi and User:voorts are here proposing an WP:IBAN based on the fact that I added relevance inline tags to edits by an editor who has been making personal attacks, bludgeoning and playing WP:IDONTHEARTHAT for the past month. I commented on content, not personalities. But Star says " No talk pages, no articles, no tags"

WP:IBAN says nothing about adding relevance tags on content or seeking WP:CONSENSUS about problem edits on talk pages. WP:AVOIDEDITWAR says the opposite of how they are interpreting it.

If this IBAN against me stands, then I ask for consensus to remove "instead of reverting, add an appropriate cleanup tag" from WP:AVOIDEDITWAR and that it be explained thoroughly and without any chance of misunderstanding. Kire1975 (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

an I-Ban means neither editor interacts with the other therefore there is no edit war, nor tags added nor reversions You do not edit the articles that the other edited and you do not engage with one another. I have no interest in discussing this further with you in another venue. Star Mississippi 03:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

no tags added is not in the WP:IBAN, neither IBAN prevents discussions of article content. --Altenmann >talk 03:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The entire purpose of an IBAN is to end interactions between two editors (and, effectively, to forcibly end the underlying dispute - it's a last-ditch solution for a reason.) The list on IBAN is just examples; there are countless ways you could interact which are forbidden. Deliberately discussing their edits on talk (eg. going "this edit has problems, someone fix it" when it's an edit by the person you're IBANNED with, even if you don't say their name) would 100% be a violation; intentionally editing or tagging things they added would usually be a violation as well. It doesn't specify every possible locus of interaction because there's some ambiguity around trivial edits with massive amounts of time between them - if the intent is not to interact with them, then incidentally editing some text that they happened to have edited years ago probably wouldn't get any attention. But blatantly tagging or bringing up edits of theirs is obviously attempting to interact with them intentionally, and would be forbidden. --Aquillion (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I see: IBAN is to kill a drama, which usually distracts plenty of other editors, if loopholes are left. WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. If an article has problems, let someone else fix it. --Altenmann >talk 06:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

If that's the purpose of an IBAN, and as another admin has said recently, the purpose is not punitive, then if a user knows where there are problem edits and are prevented from letting anyone on wikipedia from even considering them because they have been deprecated by the IBAN, then how does that kill drama? The drama will still exist but the community won't know about it. Kire1975 (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you are missing the big picture of an IBan. If you are part of an IBan, you shouldn't be following the other editor's contributions, looking for problem edits that you need to let other editors know about. You have NO involvement with the other editor at all and that includes keeping track of their edits. Neither of you has oversight over the other. You have no contact with each other or their editing. If there are problems with someone's edits, then another editor can correct them, not you. Think at how this will free you up from this constant monitoring you have been doing. There are a million other tasks and projects you can spend time on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I seek consensus to put language accounting for this hypothetical situation on this page and/or WP:IBAN. Kire1975 (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand why this may be of interest to you, but I also think you should consider how it might look to others that you're pushing on this, given that you clearly have a direct personal interest in the matter. DonIago (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

An WP:EDITWAR occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.

A tag does not override another's contributions. Kire1975 (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Simply adding a tag the first time isn't edit-warring, sure - but restoring a tag after it has been removed absolutely is overriding another editor's contributions; edit-warring over tags is still edit-warring. And more generally it's part in the context of the larger behavior described here; that one edit in a vacuum obviously wouldn't get someone in trouble, but as part of an extended conflict that has become so sustained that it's disrupting the page, ANI participants are taking it as a sign that you're not going to stop unless forced to stop. When you're at ANI and people are already telling you things need to cool down, you should be stopping, not looking for ways to continue that you think are technically acceptable. (And coming to this page to essentially continue the dispute by another vector by arguing that policy itself needs to change is likewise probably not going to make people at ANI think that you're capable of dropping this on your own.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)