The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Freestyler Scientist
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Dec 10 2nd restoration on same day. Came to my talk page to claim this only counted as one (has been given guidance on 1RR 4 times as of now, hence coming here).[2]
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on Dec. 8 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This is a new account and WP:SPA, so I'm already getting a bit of WP:DUCK red flag with this account mentioning policy and the walls of text in a tendentious manner on the talk page, but I don't have additional suggestions for a WP:SPI right now.
The main issue here is the obviously 1RR violation by this account and ignoring the warnings not to restore the large-scale changes they made. One revert today would have still been slow edit warring in violation of 1RR, but two is clearly crossing the line. The article itself is somewhat the GMO equivalent of Andrew Wakefield and vaccines in terms of WP:FRINGE, in this case, claims that GMOs and glyphosate cause cancer despite MEDRS sources saying the opposite. Sometimes we get editors looking to WP:RGW that create timesinks in this topic between edit warring and behavior, so help would be appreciated.
Underlying this, there's a sort of WP:BLUDGEON/combative approach with this new account on the talk page that blows up talk sections in size to the point even I had trouble catching up with the discussion (bludgeon-style comments by Freestyler Scientist vs. succinct responses by others). When issues with their edits came up, they'll claim the comment wasn't legitimate or mistaken followed up by repeated Could I assume that you have withdrawn? Then there's this comment Every point you contested, even I disagreed, had been removed from the edition. I don't see reason everywhere explained.[3] The gist of what I'm getting from the talk page is that this account seemed justified in edit warring because they claim every single point about their massive edits were not addressed on the talk page in detail. There definitely is a tone that they're going to charge ahead anyways without hearing the issues with their edits. There's also a WP:ADVOCACY angle where they're primarily pulling from sources that have a financial conflict of interest in trying to claim glyphosate causes cancer and that it's ok do that because the article supposedly has tons of COI already (it doesnt).[4]
I mentioned socks above because I had been dealing with some following me in topics I edit in the last few days, so if this is a legitimate account, a controversial topic like the GMO/pesticide area doesn't seem like a good place for them to learn the ropes with the combination of edit warring and bludgeon/overbearingness. KoA (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, the formal notification of 1RR listed in the AE template was on Dec. 8, two days before today's edits. They also would have seen the edit notice when you try to edit the article in their very first edit or the talk page. So at least 2-3 times before their edits today. Add in another time during my revert today before AE and the final straw before this AE when they came to my talk page still clearly asserting they didn't violate 1RR.[[5]]. If it had only been the 1RR issue in isolation, I would have tried to work with them a bit more before coming here, but there's enough exasperation with WP:IDHT at this point that I had to ask for help here. KoA (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth I definitely get that based on 1RR in isolation, indef would be overkill. A warning might work, but new editor coming in with an advocacy/WP:FRINGE push like this gives me pause as such editors often become timesinks for regulars in the topic. For something super narrow, maybe a p-block just for Seralini affair? They could easily move to other glyphosate related topics though, so a next step up could be a glyphosate topic ban that would really just be a handful of pages. That's as far as I'd go with any sanctions for realistic options admins might want to consider. I think the key thing with any sanctions (including a warning) though is the message to step back from controversial topics like this and learn the ropes in other areas first. KoA (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
1RR Violation, (I was aware about this policy, so no excuses).
The first of my edit was on Dec. 8. It was reverted by @Bon courage with the reason that I cited unreliable source as secondary, made huge change, and deleted of significant material.
To sum up quickly, those 1) were primary sources citing along secondary sources that discussed them. In this discussion, there was also in discussion 2) an argument of removing significant part of text (it dalse claim, that part was moved), and 3) LeadBombing, and 4)(@KoA) citing (peer reviewed) articles, where authors have COI.
After that discussion send second edit, I (1) removed citation of primary sources, to avoid conflict, (2) restored all phrases I removed, (3) Removed entirely part that was flagged as "LeadBombing" with citations (4).
This edit was reverted again by @Bon courage who wrote: "Pretty much the same issues. Reverted"
@Bon courage several times, after my reply to his objection, he added new, unexplained things, and also made several claims in the Talk page that were obviously wrong and easy to check, such as including some ref that I did not include, or removing "a significant part of the text" that was only moved one paragraph up. (There were more false claim, probably no need to list them here, they are in Talk). I tried to get a consensus by simply asking which of his objections were still valid, but that was ignored. There have been accusations of disruptive, tendentious or TLDR editing, tendencies towards edit war lockdowns, and also borderline personal attacks such as: "That seems like good content, in contrast to yours". When I received unspecified or just false objection, it is not surprising that my responses were longer (like in Brandolini's law).
In summary,
I really tried to find out which passages were objectionable, and got only brief responses, including false claims about the sources I'd used. Where there were objections, such as @KoA pointing out that some articles have COI, I removed the entire section containing them and the entire claim/sentence based on them. After my second edition was reverted with only with "Pretty much the same issues" summary, I've obvert, and it was only single reversion I've made.
If could I ask, when the new edition after revert is considered a revert, and when not? Is "Restoring part of a reverted edit" also a revert?
Before I've made second edition, I to read on "how to avoid edit warring", and I found: "if someone discarded some good stuff when reverting, please don't revert the reversion. [...] Just find some of the good stuff and put it into the current version" Wikipedia:Restoring part of a reverted edit.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to defend myself. I accept that I engaged in wrongdoing. I was just trying to understand 'revert', I was previously familiar with the definition from the Polish Wikiproject, where it's defined as restoring "identical or very similar to any of its previous versions".
It's a violation in the face of warnings. There may be some change that would improve the article that draws on the material being proposed, but I don't think these edits are it at all, and edit-warring is not the way to go.
This is a clear 1RR violation, but this is an account with 18 edits: can someone show me evidence that they were aware of 1RR before they were reverted for violating 1RR? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that I examined the history of that article, and I see no immediate basis to check for socks. I am not ruling out sockpuppetry, but absent evidence, they need to be treated as a new user. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the GMO CT notification included a 1RR warning, but per my colleagues below I'm betting they failed to understand it. A warning is appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KoA - would you be okay with a warning, given that this appears to be a new editor (assuming good faith and all that) with low double digits of edits? I do understand the wanting someone else to make it clear to them that their behavior isn't good (and thus IDHT) so I'm not dinging you for bringing this here, but I'm not quite ready to jump to an indefinite block or something just yet...Ealdgyth (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KoA wrote above that the formal notification of 1RR listed in the AE template was on Dec. 8, two days before today's edits, and it was present in this edit on December 9. I am, however, willing to believe that the new account genuinely doesn't understand how we count reverts—I think we should close this with a warning and with a good explanation to the new account regarding how we count reverts. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)19:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Freestyler Scientist seems to think that this edit wasn't a revert because it wasn't identical to the previous edit. In fact, a revert is defined as any edit "that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part", and this was certainly a revert in part. I think this confusion is understandable and am fine with a warning for the time being. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Freestyler Scientist, you seem to be trying to parse the wording of policies very finely instead of treat them as guidance. That's often called wikilawyering, and you're not going to find that to work well. The idea of a "revert" is that you are, substantially, in whole or in part, returning an article to an earlier state. It does not have to be exactly the old state; so long as the intent is clearly to put it back to something similar, it is a revert. Basically, if you have to wonder whether it would be considered as a revert, presume it would be. Does that clarify things? SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Entropyandvodka
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Between Oct 6 and 7th, 2023, this user made over 500 edits changing short descriptions. example,contribs log during the time period A majority of the edits were on Oct 6th, about 325 by my very rough count. They stopped their edit chain a few minutes after getting EC on the 6th, then did a couple hundred more on the 7th. Granted at 16h00, final edit of the day at 16h03 They had never made this kind of edit before, and they've only made a few edits of this type ever since, all on one P-I article this spring. They now have over 1,400 edits. Since then they have focused almost entirely on the PIA space, but have dedicated some time to the invasion of Ukraine. In the Russian invasion space, they've concerned themselves with making sure that a pro-Russian narrative is represented. [7][8] They appear in Billedmammal (talk·contribs)'s ARBPIA statistics broadsheet, which shows their edits as being 100% in PIA for the remainder of 2023 and 75% PIA for 2024. I sought input from SFR before making this report, because I see deeper implications from a gaming run for PIA on Oct 6th 2023.
I have not interacted with this user, beyond notifying them of this report.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 13 Oct 2023 (see the system log linked to above).
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 8 May 2024 (same incident as the warning).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Re: Liz's comment, I was unsure whether this was stale given that their further edits would put them over EC by now, though likely not without counting the PIA-related edits. This was why I asked SFR on his talk page first, who advised me that there likely wasn't a stale period for permission gaming. I haven't tried to assess recent content or conduct beyond a brief look at the Russia/Ukraine related edits. Safrolic (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Entropyandvodka
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Entropyandvodka
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Entropyandvodka
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Since this editor now has about 1400 edits, if those edits had been gaming, they would be EC by now without them. I'm not sure how we assess possible gaming from over a year ago. Are there recent edits that concern you? I'd like to see what admins who frequent ARE think about this case. LizRead!Talk!21:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Liz said, they'd be well over EC by now anyway. I'm really not inclined to go over stuff dredged up from a year ago unless there's been actual misconduct since then (and then it would be the more recent misconduct that would concern me). It evidently wasn't enough of a concern for anyone to raise in a timely fashion. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a bright-line rule in this area, but the combination of "over a year ago" and "hundreds of subsequent edits" is enough for me to support closing without action, which I will do momentarily. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning xDanielx
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
@Fiveby: I did not add the content nor have I edit warred over it. Obviously there are 3 editors who don't share your view while I have not as yet made up my mind, there is an ongoing RSN discussion now, and I will communicate my thoughts on the content there or possibly in an RFC if it ends up as that.Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by xDanielX
I don't think the "explicit warning" by Selfstudier (Last time, RFC or RSN else AE) was appropriate; it seems like the sort of intimidation that WP:BATTLEGROUND prohibits. The idea of adjusting my editing based on intimidation by a highly involved non-admin didn't feel right.
Under the conventional view that removing old content generally doesn't constitute a revert, I made two reverts here, with a lot of discussion in between (here, here, here, and this older discussion). My second revert was undoing what seemed like a reflexive tag-teamrevert, by a user who didn't join the discussion even after I pinged them asking for an explanation.
I normally revert very selectively - looking at my past 500 edits, there are only five reverts (at least obvious ones), with only these two being controversial. If I was a bit aggressive here, it was because the material violated our policies in a particularly blatant and severe manner.
The estimate in question falls under WP:SCHOLARSHIP since it's based on a novel methodology, and it fails that standard due to a lack of vetting by the relevant scholarly community (public health). The closest we have is this paper by an anthropologist, which includes the estimate but doesn't discuss whether the methodology is valid. The paper also appears to have no citations, and the group that published it doesn't appear to have any real scholarly vetting process.
The claim is also a highly WP:EXTRAORDINARY one. Health officials reported 38 starvations (as of Sep 16), which is quite different from the 62,413 (as of Sep 30) estimate. To me pushing to include such an extraordinary claim in wikivoice, with sources that clearly fall short of our relevant policies, indicates either POV pushing or a competence issue. — xDanielxT/C\R18:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responses to M.Bitton
@M.Bitton: removals of old material are not the spirit of edit warring, and in practice are generally not understood as reverts, even if they appear to meet the literal definition. Some recent discussions on this were here and here.
I believe you misread the (confusing) history a bit; I don't see any restoration by Cdjp1. A related edit by Bogazicili had the effect of moving some footnote content, including a second instance of the 62,413 figure which I had initially missed, into the infobox. I hadn't understood this as an objection to my removal, since the edit summary conveyed a different purpose.
It didn't occur to me that you might not have seen my ping. I'll strike that remark, but I still feel that reverting an extensively discussed change with only there is no valid reason to remove this leaves something to be desired. I see that you've now joined the discussion, but still without substantive engagement; merely stating that you're unconvinced doesn't help to move the discussion forward. — xDanielxT/C\R04:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: okay I missed that footnote change, but I think the point stands that neither change clearly conveyed an objection to the idea of removing the estimate from the infobox. If there was such an objection, I would have expected it to be noted in an summary or the discussion thread. And please assume good faith. — xDanielxT/C\R04:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton:there is no valid reason to remove this isn't really an explanation. I still have no idea what you disagree with and why. Is your position that the Watson paper is vetted scholarship, or that WP:SCHOLARSHIP doesn't apply, or something else? While this isn't the place, it would be good if you could explain your position in one of the relevant discussions. — xDanielxT/C\R20:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I would argue that EW enforcement should account for factors like scale, engagement in discussions, timing, policy support, consensus, and broader patterns of user behavior.
Scale: I thought I had made two reverts. Maybe there's an argument that it was really three, but I wasn't aware of it.
Engagement: I discussed very substantively (here, here), and tried to get more input.
Timing: I thought the discussion seemed to have settled. Noone appeared to be continuing to defend the content in a substantive manner, so I felt more justified in removing it. The latest points like this didn't receive a response (besides Still disagree).
Consensus: the local consensus appeared to be leaning toward at least requiring attribution (as we do in the body which I didn't remove). There's also just a very clear global consensus against including unvetted WP:SCHOLARSHIP (no peer review, citations, etc) in wikivoice.
Patterns of behavior: these were my only controversial reverts in recent memory (at least looking at 500 edits).
If I could rewind, I would at least give it extra time to make sure that the discussion had settled, and maybe leave it to someone else to enact the result. However, I think if this were to be considered actionable edit warring, then nearly all active editors in the topic area would be guilty of it. Even in this same dispute, a different user just made their second revert, with less engagement and so on. I would argue that the single revert with no explanation might actually be the most problematic EW here, although I don't believe there's a consensus on whether single reverts are technically considered EW (there have been some inconclusive discussions on that). — xDanielxT/C\R17:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm receiving the message that the factors I mentioned aren't good enough, but would still appreciate input on what acceptable participation in an edit war could look like. Maybe the answer is that there is none, but that would seem to depart from convention as I understood it, and possibly lead to a lot more formal RfCs. — xDanielxT/C\R19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: understood, but I think a strict/literal reading of EW would capture a lot of activity that's accepted in practice. It seems like in the absence of brightline violations, more subtle distinctions are drawn between acceptable and unacceptable forms of EW. I thought that I was on the right side of this distinction, per my remarks above, but maybe my understanding of it was off base. I can understand a warning here, but it would be more effective with more specific guidance on what to avoid. — xDanielxT/C\R22:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: it looks I'm already past 500 words, is it okay to continue? Very briefly, I was trying to get at the idea that there seem to be certain informal customs limiting when EW should be enforced, going beyond the formal WP:3RRNO exceptions. If the policy were to be enforced to the letter, there would seem to be a vast number of violations; this same dispute contained at least a second ([9][10]) and possibly a third. — xDanielxT/C\R04:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee:: I was ideally hoping for some clarifications, i.e.
A couple comments here made me wonder if this was being (mis)interpreted as a 1RR violation. Are we on the same page that this is a non-brightline instance of EW?
Is the intention to enforce EW to the letter, irrespective of factors (outside of WP:3RRNO) like engagement in discussions?
Is there a reason for the focus on my involvement and not say [11][12] (from the same edit war)? Maybe there are good reasons for it, I just want to understand.
If this needs to be wrapped up soon, I can commit to following WP:EW to the letter to be safe, unless or until a different line is clarified. I might start a WT:EW discussion afterward to clarify whether there's community support for enforcing WP:EW the letter. — xDanielxT/C\R01:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit puzzled by the admin discussion. It seems like there are two concerns,
That I'm not entirely clear on where the line is. I've acknowledged this, and that's why I've asked for some clarifications in my last five comments, but I haven't really received the clarity I was hoping for.
That I'm continuing to justify the edits (as I did initially). This seems like an uncharitable reading of my past several comments; asking for clarity on where the line is isn't an argument that my edits were on the right side of it.
I think the implied message I'm getting is along the lines of "it's best to follow EW to the letter, irrespective of any other factors", which would be a clear line that I can follow. It's just frustrating that this hasn't been spelled out very clearly, and my questions seem to have been interpreted as something other than sincere requests for such guidance. — xDanielxT/C\R00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
undoing what seemed like a reflexive tag-team revert casting aspersions to justify your disruptive editing is about as low as it gets.
didn't join the discussion even after I pinged them this is extremely disingenuous as it implies that I was editing something else while ignoring your notification, when in fact, you pinged me long after I logged out and I haven't edited anything since (the editing history and the diffs don't lie). Furthermore, I already made it clear in the edit summary that I disagree with your reasoning (which consists of made-up rules and demands to satisfy you with answers).
Note: Instead of simply striking their aspersions, they doubled down on their bad faith assumption (see their edit summary); and to add insult to injury, they reversed the roles and asked me to "assume good faith" (see their comment above). M.Bitton (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the single revert with no explanation xDanielx being disingenuous again (what they mean by "no explanation" is "no explanation that they agree with and that they'd rather edit war than take it to RSN or start a RfC"). Anyway, they can also argue all they want, but what they cannot do is justify what they did (edit warring, casting aspersions and assuming bad faith). M.Bitton (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there's a consensus on whether single reverts are technically considered EW I hope not, because that would mean that you violated that rule three times. One thing is certain though, the 3 reverts that you made are considered EW. M.Bitton (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XDanielx: quote the complete edit summary or don't bother quoting any of it. I didn't invite myself to this board to discuss content. All I'm interested in is your edit warring, your bad faith assumption and the fact that you doubled down on it after casting aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: only when the person is not responding (i.e., they are editing something else and ignoring the other editor). I know that they struck the comment, but not without doubling down on the bad faith assumption (see above note). I covered all of this and more in my previous comments. M.Bitton (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by fiveby
I'm surprised that Selfstudier is making this report. If you're unable here to look at the article content and sources then this should go straight to the arbcom case as evidence. fiveby(zero) 03:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier:, this is blatantly bad content. Like UFO level blatantly bad. It seems to me WP:PROFRINGE editors in some topic areas get told right off to go edit somewhere else, often harshly, quickly warned by admins, and finally sanctioned without a great deal of fuss about the thing. It seems no big deal when admins in those topic areas have some basic knowledge and apply a few research skills to start warning, topic banning, or blocking editors over content when they are otherwise following policies. @Valereee:, seems like an awfully high burden to impose on everyone here, especially when the RfC process seems to be a big part of the problem in the topic area. I could easily put the shoe on the other foot here, find some trivial bits of content: infobox, lead phrasing, or titles, complain on talk pages and then start a few RfC's. If i were to do that it seems best for WP that Selfstudier report me here for wasting everyone's time and admins here should be able to forcefully let me know that i'm just being a jerk. See ya back here when i've some idle time for the devil's work. fiveby(zero) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 editors who don't share your view... bad actors, not because they do not share my view but because they don't share Wikipedia's. Just like all those non-EC editors flooding Talk:Zionism with edit requests and EC editors who've gamed the system to get there. Bad policies. Now there are two good actors and reasonable looking editors here, and more with good work and ideas targets at arbcom. I'd say better to join the edit war and remove that nonsense rather than wasting time with this. fiveby(zero) 17:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: i think there are such reasonable editors in the topic area who can work things out and are trying to work things out on talk pages with WP:BESTSOURCES, and good work on the real article content in the bodies. Why are they ending up here and at arbcom? I think it's due to the bad policies and the bad actors gaming them. Wastes time and frustrates everyone. fiveby(zero) 18:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning xDanielX
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Daniel, your excuse for edit-warring seems to be that the claim is extraordinary. I totally see your point on this being an extraordinary claim; to me it seems highly dubious that 62,000 people could have died of starvation over the course of a year and it wouldn't be ongoing international front page news rather than speculation/estimation in obscure sources, with multiple mainstream RS only reporting starvation deaths in the dozens. But edit-warring isn't the answer. The answer is an RfC with notification to projects and noticeboards. It would even be fair to suggest the content be removed as dubious until the RfC closes; there's no particular urgency for WP to include such a dubious number in an infobox, which as you pointed out is similar to providing that info in Wikivoice. Valereee (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiveby, sure, it would be better if editors at an article would just be able to work it out by saying to themselves, "Hm...yeah, that doesn't really make sense. 62,000+ people dead of starvation? And no one's talking about it except some obscure unpublished research and a letter to POTUS, and both of those estimates are based on a single unproven theory? Maybe we should rethink". But it seems like the editors at the article talk who want to keep this dubious content in the infobox have dug in their heels on defending the poor sourcing and are in the majority. Valereee (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@xDanielx, you said I think the implied message I'm getting is along the lines of "it's best to follow EW to the letter, irrespective of any other factors", which would be a clear line that I can follow. So here's a clear line to follow, explicitly stated rather than implied: When reverted, go directly to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor, and discuss. Do not revert until consensus has been reached. Unless a reversion is for reasons included by 3RR exemptions, such as a BLP vio, that is best practices. Can you commit to making that your default setting? Valereee (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, looking at the diffs here, it seems like xDanielx removes the content once, it's reverted, removes a second time. Then someone else bundles the list into a footnote and a second person re-adds the content, which xDanielx doesn't recognize as a readdition and thinks that they forgot to remove the same content somewhere else, gets reverted, reverts back. If it were actually the situation that there were two instances of the same content, it'd merit maybe a reminder because it's generally not good practice to arm-wrestle in the revision history to get edits through. Given that and the fact that they weren't being careful, I'd say either a warning or reminder is best. As for the content dispute, both positions are reasonable enough that neither one would be sanctionable on its own as POV-pushing, so it's out of scope for this thread. @M.Bitton:maybe that's because you only see what you want to see is inappropriate for a civil discussion. Please strike that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: Seems like they struck the "reflexive tag-team revert" comment. As for the pinging, it's pretty reasonable to bring up that someone isn't responding when you try and engage with them, I'm not sure I see the same assumption of bad faith. Open to your thoughts on it, though :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Valereee above, the argument of an extraordinary claim is a reasonable one, but that isn't one of the very few exceptions we allow for edit-warring. I'm also not impressed by the dismissal of SelfStudier's warning as a threat. That said, there is engagement on the talk page, and no bright-line violation, so I would stop at a logged warning about edit-warring. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, there is no 1RR exemption for being right. You need to learn that the revert-button isn't a good first (or any) option in this topic area. Yes, it's frustrating to have to expend effort to discuss things but that's what system we have here at wikipedia. I'm okay with a logged warning, but I do want Daniel to understand that contentious topics such as this demand the best behavior. That's how you stay out of trouble, and yes, the filing against M.Bitton, while perhaps merited, certainly gave off a distinct impression of a retaliatory filing - too much of that sort of thing gets editors topic banned or worse. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very slightly lean 0RR restriction, just because I think that might help the editor get the idea that edit warring isn't a good idea at all, which might not get through with a logged warning. But its very slight and a logged warning also works. (Sorry for delay - snowfall and I got mesmerized by the beauty of winter ... so nice to be all snug in the house next to the wood stove with hot tea and watching big fluffy flakes falling...) Ealdgyth (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to stave off the archive bot. We should reach some resolution here; it looks to me like this is tending toward a warning for edit warring with no further sanction. SeraphimbladeTalk to me09:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that Daniel keeps arguing that this edit warring should be one of the exemptions and/or indicating that because not all edit warring gets exactly the same response consistently, they don't recognize where the line is. I'm fine with a warning if Daniel will indicate they do now understand where the line is and will comply. Valereee (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to close this. @Valereee, Seraphimblade, Ealdgyth, and Theleekycauldron: Is there agreement on a logged warning for edit-warring? I agree with Valereee that the justifications above are concerning, but that isn't enough to push me to something more draconian. I floated the idea of a 0RR restriction, but nobody has commented on that, so I would default to a logged warning. I see no history of sanctions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still pretty concerned about Daniel's most recent explanation of their understanding of EW. I feel like 0RR might be a better solution, but I'm willing to go along with a logged warning if 0RR doesn't work for others. I kind of feel like if this needs to be revisited, it's quite possibly likely an arbcom case. Valereee (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I prefer 0RR here. I'm just not seeing an indication that xDanielx understands that "But I'm really sure I'm right!" is not an exception to the rules on edit warring; indeed, that is the cause of probably 99% of edit wars. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the tardiness: I was hoping TLC would chime in, but then this fell off my radar. I'm reading a slight consensus in favor of 0RR, given that Seraphimblade, myself, and Ealdgyth all preferred it, and Valereee's latest post does not indicate objection. In addition, if xDanielx intends to hold himself to this standard, it shouldn't prove an onerous restriction. I would be willing to consider an appeal within a few months based on engagement in disputes without a violation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
