Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2016/January

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 WP:SLOWEDITWAR to go. Various ArbCom and ANI actions have determined that using WP:CIVILPOV, WP:FORUMSHOP, and other WP:GAMING tactics to editwar really slowly over a very long period of time (months, years, even a decade) is still editwarring, but I'm not sure I see a place for this shortcut to go, a place where this has been centralized at this page or any other editorial behavior policy or guideline (probably should not be an essay). Given the rise in active 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 way. The concept of slow-motion edit warring comes up quite frequently:   ; there's clearly a consensus that this behavior is not okay, so it should be covered clearly in policy. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We first need to objectively define what it is. Also 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:ANEW and WP:ANI that have addressed this behavior pattern, if necessary, but it's probably not that hard to just write it up. I'm a little fatigued right now and the juices are not flowing, as it were, but I can try next time I pass through if no one beats me to it.  DE: It does, but much more generally. It's weird that the EW page doesn't have this covered already, specifically.  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)