Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Am I in 3RR

Just wanted to clarify if I am in the domain of editwarring in Ram Mandir. I am one of the lead editors and have made reverts per policies and have warned constant disruptors regarding editwarring. Wanted to know if I myself am in that domain, or not. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not sure what you mean by 'lead editor,' but this is a content dispute and you have 4 reverts in less than 24 hours. --Onorem (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Noted. By lead editor, I mean primary contributor. (Yes, I am aware of WP:OWN). I'll take a cooldown time then. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit war or revert restriction noticeboard?

Hello. I was wondering if this noticeboard is exclusively to report violations of revert restrictions such as 3rr or also to report general edit warring, which may not necessarily violate a revert restriction? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe it's exclusively revert restriction violations; I've seen cases where 3RR or 1RR hadn't been breached and no action was taken on those. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Heh, you've led a sheltered life. The noticeboard is for reporting edit-warring, even if there is no violation of 3RR. Whether the reported editor will be sanctioned depends on many factors.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hehehe. Well, I just came out of a block, although not for edit warring. When I first read the 3RR policy I thought 3 reverts was a violation, so I have stuck to 2 reverts maximum. And personally, I try to do only 1 revert maximum. Although sometimes I do 2. Btw, can you check out the situation in Zoroastrianism? I have tried mediating in the talk page but I think there may be some borderline edit warring going on. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

BLP 3RR question

I made this revert (to a 1RR page) with explicit reference to WP:3RRNO, number 7, citing NPOV concerns and poor sourcing of WP:BLP material. The editor who re-removed the material, Springee, has insisted[1], repeatedly [2], that 3RRNO does not apply to this situation, presumably because of his belief expressed at the article Talk page that WP:BLPRESTORE and 3RRBLP are not relevant in such instances: "As there is no harm concern the BLP concern goes away".

Note: in light of this comment below I have self-reverted, although opinion here seems evenly divided over whether 3RRBLP applies. I have no interest in participating in an edit war, although I believe that that the application WP:BLPRESTORE is straitforward in this case, as do most participants at article Talk. Discussion on the policy question should probably continue IMO. Added by Newimpartial (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

To me, this is a policy issue more than anything, and the existing policy language states that good-faith objections to content based on poor sourcing or NPOV concerns are sufficient to invoke BLPRESTORE. However, since Springee insists that the matter be discussed here or at AE, I would like to see what others think. By the way, the article Talk page discusion about this content, which I initiated prior to the revert in question, is here. Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I think you violated both the rule and the spirt if 3RRNO.7. First, you should have started by going to the talk page and see if the content was being actively discussed. The fact that is was and had been for a few days and the fact that the material had been stable in the article for quite some time would suggest that the material is not inherently a BLP issue and thus the exemption doesn't apply. The BLP exception clearly applies if the material in an article is contentious or worse, slanderous with respect to the article subject. However, the talk page discussions over the previous few days made it clear that wasn't the case. Additionally, while editors generally agreed improvements could be made, there was no consensus for removal. The good faith concern you raised is not wholly without merit. You did reverse your first revert when made aware of the 1RR restriction. However, shortly there after reversing and removing the material again is reckless even if your intent was good faith. Once objections were raised you should have self reverted then asked vs repeat the 1RR violation. Springee (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

While, like Springee, I am involved in this edit dispute I would say that WP:3RRNO, number 7, does appear to provide this exemption. Furthermore, as additional context, this is a passage that has been disputed by multiple editors on BLP and NPOV grounds over the last three days. I do think that Newimpartial's actions are in keeping with both the letter and the spirit of the WP:BLP exception to WP:3RR. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

What part of a list of areas of research, cited to Research Gate (and recently removed citations?) makes this a contentious claim where BLP concerns would apply? NPOV speaks to weight for inclusion, not BLP protection type concerns. As a point of reference, yours was the original BOLD removal of the material in question. Springee (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

My justification for removal under those policies is already thoroughly explicated at Talk:Jordan Peterson - there is absolutely no benefit to rehashing that argument here. Simonm223 (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Springee. Can you cite any policy language to support your contention that 3RRBLP doesn't apply to material if it is already being discussed at the article Talk page? I have read WP:3RRNO and WP:BLPRESTORE repeatedly (over the years, and just now) and have never seen any reason to exclude material from 3RRBLP and exempt it from BLPRESTORE simply because it is under discussion. But I might have missed something.

Also, please note that BLPRESTORE quite clearly requires affirmative consensus for the inclusion of the material, not for its removal. At present there is no consensus on Talk for inclusion, though there may soon be consensus for a new version citing better sources. The fact is that once you reverted the material back in, in violation of BLPRESTORE, I asked you to self-revert[3] and you refused[4]. I only made the second revert after your refusal to respect BLPRESTORE.

I do hope that this discussion, whatever its outcome, will clarify the scope of 3RRBLP and BLP restore (which seem to be broadly in alignment already) to your satisfaction. I will also ping North8000, who reverted the removal of this material by Simonm223, and Valjean, who reverted North8000's re-insertion. I believe that brings in all participants in the chain of reverts under discussion.Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully we can discuss this without getting into the weeds on the dispute that generated it. I'm of the mind that unsourced or poorly sourced content in BLPs is covered by the exemption whether the material is overly positive or overly negative. The BLP policy itself emphasizes repeatedly that both types should be removed immediately.

I'm not sure if Springee is suggesting factors applicable generally or just to this specific case, but I don't think age of content or ongoing discussion should be factors in determining whether immediate removal is needed. Of course, if the ongoing discussion entails clear consensus for inclusion, then BLPRESTORE has been met, and removal on BLP grounds would be disruptive, and the 3RR/1RR exception would not apply. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

My feeling is the whole reason for any BLP specific rules is to protect the subject of the BLP. So if we are dealing with say a BLP being charged with a crime and we present the police record as the source, that should be removed. While I would view such a record as reliable evidence that a charge was made, it lacks context (why was the person charged, were the charges found to be true/false under the law etc). However, we also have varying requirements when it comes to sourcing claims (per WP:RS). If we are going to say something non-contentious about a BLP the standards are lower. So if the claim in question is not contentious and does have sourcing (even if it could be arguably better) then this exemption shouldn't apply. The length of time this material was in the article is evidence that editors didn't find it contentious and felt the sourcing was sufficient for the benign claims in question. Springee (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

IMO both the reason given for deleting and the reason given for (otherwise) violating the editing restriction are not correct. The material in question is a a straightforward longstanding description of his fields of study, plus deletion of the 12 references that support that description. The given reason for deleting is claiming that the sources are not sufficiently strong to support the listing of fields of study and claiming that the BLP provision which is designed to protect the subject can be used to deprecate them by deleting their fields of study. This is not right. And the given justification for (otherwise) violating the editing restriction is the exception which is designed to protect the subject of the article in the reverse of the intended way by deprecating him by deleting his fields of study on the premise that the 12 references supporting this straight forward and undisputed statement are not of sufficient type and quality. Saying that a claim of "the sources aren't good enough" is sufficient to override an editing restriction would make (e.g. 1rr) editing restrictions meaningless. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a normal edit warring block should be placed to me (at least, other restrictions may influence). Arkon (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I think edit warring is happening on 2024 Harehills riot

Hi all

I've been trying to fill in the form for reporting edit warring for 20 minutes and I'm lost at how to do it, I don't understand how to fill the form in at all. Could someone who knows more about this please check 2024 Harehills riot? There appear to be two users trying to add fairly standard British tabloid newspaper racist dogwhistles with multiple editos trying to clear up the article and they repeatedly add poorly sourced NPOV content.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure where to report this

Hello.

I'm not sure where to report this, but this edit summary probably should be hidden.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Not here, but I've taken care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)