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)