Wikipedia talk:Edit warring

Here's a thought

This somewhat follows on from the previous thread. This is a typical scenario. Low traffic page. IP, now a Temporary Account, turns up. Makes an edit supporting some sort of POV or based on a total ignorance of policy. Might even be made in good faith. It's not vandalism but it's pretty blatantly outside of policy. There's WP:DR, WP:RFC and WP:ANI but really, it doesn't deserve anything other than summary dismissal by an editor with even a vaguely decent understanding of policy. The "editor with a decent understanding of policy" reverts but it's a low traffic article so as second mover they're at a disadvantage for 3RR purposes. No one else notices/cares enough to step in to dismiss the conspiracy theorist/POV warrior/bee-in-their-bonnet-anyone. What is the sole decent editor noticing this to do? Revert 2RR? But what then, when the Temporary account continues to revert. DR, RFC, ANI, game 3RR? None of those are appropriate or efficient or effective, IMO. So here's a solution which, I have no doubt won't get traction (!), don't apply 3RR to Temporary accounts reverts by registered users with more than X edits. Seriously, the chances of "good" edits by Temporary accounts being outweighed by "bad" reverts by registered users is negligible in my experience. But...I fully recognise that this suggestion has no chance. DeCausa (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

How about starting a discussion on the talk page and tagging the disputed edit? See wp:QUO, particularly the paragraph that begins "Edit warring to maintain a 'status quo version' is still edit warring" (bold in original). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

There's tens of thousands of pages where no one else turns up for months regardless of what's going on there. It's daily WP reality. Not sure of the value of quoting "'Edit warring to maintain a 'status quo version' is still edit warring". We all know the mantra. the point is to go beyond that. I'm not asking for solutions within existing policy. I know all the current options = I'm asserting that existing policy doesn't work (after being here 15 years) and should change. DeCausa (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

My take: You start a discussion at the Talk page to indicate you're making a good-faith effort to engage. If nobody engages, ping the appropriate WikiProjects to see whether that results in engagement. If not, then WP:3RN may be an appropriate option if you've warned the editor that they're edit-warring and they're continuing to do so. Otherwise, possibly WP:ANI. It's occasionally a challenge to get people to engage with a dispute, but in my experience, it's never been impossible. I believe WP:DR lists all of these as potential options. DonIago (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, aware of all those options; found they don't work for lots of low traffic articles; hence why I posted. DeCausa (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd think ANI, at least, would garner some kind of response. DonIago (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

This scenario all hinges on the temporary account failing to communicate. If they do, you engage with them. If they do not, well, communication is required to edit Wikipedia as our five pillars require to seek consensus, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. [...] Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk page. An editor that refuses to communicate is on a fast-track to being blocked for disruption. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I wish I edited on that Wikipedia, where things work as they should. Back in the real Wikipedia.... DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Ironically I just came here with a very similar issue. A dispute arose at a very low traffic article when an editor (though not temporary account) made a bold change removing sourced content with what I believe is insufficient justification. As per WP:BRD, I reverted the edit, explaining why I did so; a talk page discussion ensued, though the user still re-deleted the content again without consensus. I left a template Edit Warring notice on that user's talk page, as they had made a revert to re-delete content when they knew their change was contested. The user responded by saying, without evidence or explanation, that their edits had not been an edit war. At this point I didn't know what to do, as despite over 15 years of editing, an editor reinstating a contested change at a low traffic article AND refusing to accept their edits constituted an edit war was not something I had experienced. As I knew it would likely be years before a third person weighed in on the talk page discussion naturally, I reverted to the last version before the dispute arose; this version still remains in place. I would definitely not have reverted that myself at an article that was likely to receive independent talk-page traffic. After reading this thread, I now understand that "Edit warring to maintain a 'status quo version' is still edit warring", which was something I was not previously aware of.

I am not exaggerating when I say the contested deletion would have likely remained in place for years (and possibly forever) if I had not reverted it. However, despite wanting to, I did not consider taking this to WP:ANI or WP:3RN to be a viable option after the user who began the edit war appeared to stop their behaviour. I was worried if I escalated the matter, I may have been considered a nuisance for bringing attention to editing behaviour that while problematic, had already ceased, and I wasn't sure if WP:ANI or WP:3RN would weigh in on whether the contested change should remain. Considering all this, rather than making the edit war worse by reverting to the last version before the edit war was initiated, should I still have taken this to WP:3RN or elsewhere even though the edit war had stopped, for the purpose of having someone manually review whether the change should have been made? Or would you suggest something else? I'm guessing that as above, taking it to a WikiProject first would have been an option, though in my past experience this is not likely to get results, so I'd still like opinions on whether I should have taken this to WP:ANI or WP:3RN if a Project had not responded. Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane After reading this thread, I now understand that "Edit warring to maintain a 'status quo version' is still edit warring", which was something I was not previously aware of. I told you. You were aware of that already because I told you.

And I told you to actually read the various pages you misremembered/misunderstood or whatever you wanna call it.

And instead of actually reading the pages and admitting that you were wrong you tried editing WP:V, got reverted of course, and posted this text wherein you misrepresent what happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthony_Kelly_(martial_artist)&oldid=1346191926#Vanity_awards

User_talk:Polygnotus#Please_stop_edit_warring_at_Anthony_Kelly_(martial_artist) Polygnotus (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

No, I didn't already know that just because you'd told me as you provided no evidence to support your assertion and had already made several false statements, including denying that your actions started an edit war, so I wasn't going to just take your word for it. I came here looking for independent advice. I'm surprised you're watching my edits. Please let me get independent advice and take your dispute with me back to the talk page in question if you feel the need to do so. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane I commend you for asking for independent advice, but you may not like the advice you receive, and this is probably not the best place to request it. Especially not while misrepresenting what happened. Especially not in a thread started by someone else about an unrelated topic. If you talk about someone, please ping them. Many people feel it is unkind to talk about someone behind their back.

If you really think that I am not telling the truth, I'd suggest asking an admin of your choosing. Ping me when you do. To find a recently active admin you can click here. Basically all of them will tell you that if I was editwarring, you were too. Basically all of them will confirm that I correctly pointed out a bunch of mistakes you made. And you can check the pages I linked to.

There are currently 810 administrators here and the vast majority of them are very experienced and smart.

Look, while I may be annoying, I am correct and I am not your enemy. Heck, I am jealous of your drawing skills and if we met any other way we would be neutral or have a positive impression of each other.

We just happened to have met in an unfortunate way. I wouldn't wanna debate me either. Polygnotus (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment; this is the first response from you I've actually liked. But I hope you understand I really don't mind if the advice I get tells me I was wrong. I want to be a better editor; I'm not just looking for an echo chamber to tell me I'm right. And I do fully accept that I was edit warring; I just honestly wasn't aware of it at the time. I'm now 100% certain you started an edit war, and that I continued it as I didn't know how else to respond to the fact you said you didn't start an edit war despite your actions clearly violating WP:EW. The reason I didn't ping you here is because I'm not reporting your behaviour. I'm looking for advice to be a better editor by knowing how to respond better in the future. I was worried if you came here you'd railroad the conversation back to our dispute and then I wouldn't get the advice I wanted as people wouldn't want to touch an ongoing dispute / TLDR. No offence, but you may have succeeded in doing that already. I'll respond to you further at your talk page. Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane the fact you said you didn't start an edit war Please gimme the exact quote wherein I either denied starting an editwar or denied editwarring. Ideally with a WP:DIFF.

I know me being nitpicky is annoying (if my wife is to be believed), but this is what your argument hinges on (it seems).

Note that WP:BRD is an WP:ESSAY, so its the advice or opinions of one or more editors, not the "law". See WP:CONLEVEL for more information.

With policies you need a good reason to not follow them, guidelines are just that (usually good advice) and essays are opinions (ranging from 100% correct and super important to the other end of the scale).

This talkpage is for discussing improvements to the Edit warring policy, all this is offtopic here so its probably best to move to my talkpage. Gimme 24hr and I'll explain more. Polygnotus (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Add this to the policy

How about we just add "Edit warring to maintain a 'status quo version' is still edit warring" straight into WP:3RR, complete with the bold formatting? It could go in one of the paragraphs underneath the main red box. DeCausa, do you think that might address your concern, at least a little? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

New edit war

I've seen an edit war on the article iPadOS 27. This could be an example of a severe edit war. Slackintosh (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the article is now protected, which should resolve the matter. DonIago (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

How to report an edit war on Wikidata

[I apologize if this is the wrong place (if you feel this discussion can be moved to a more appropriate place, please feel free to move it)] Does anyone know in which venue an edit war happening on Wikidata can be reported? The page d:Q921634 has been vexed for weeks with an unsourced map that gets constantly removed and then reuploaded under a different name on Commons, but I don't know where I can signal it. --Grufo (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)_{I apologize for the double post, this discussion is currently being developed at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy) § How to report an edit war on Wikidata. --Grufo}

Bolding "While any amount of edit warring may lead to sanctions" before 3RR

Any thoughts on this? In solidarity, FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 09:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I generally dislike excessive formatting like this one. FaviFake (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)