Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2023/October

Requesting admin intervention for edit warring done by M.Bitton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

I'm reporting the following user @M.Bitton, who is engaging in a clear disruptive behaviour that should be considered as an Edit War in the following article:

Harissa

The user has decided, against all sources and references, that Tunisia/Tunisian or any other word refering to Tunisia should be removed and edited by "Maghreb".

While lately I added references from the UNESCO and multiple other historical sources and facts mentioning the origin of Harissa as a Tunisian plate, the user has constantly deleted and edited any addition by any other user mentioning Tunisia, as he engaged in a discussion and clearly wanted to prove the veracity of his personal point against all odds, oddly enough, while I added some new informations in the Etymology mentionning Tunisian expressions related to the content of the article, with a source that mentions Tunisia, the latter went to edit my addition, and to remove any word such as "Tunisia" "Tunisian" and replace it by maghreb without any further explanation, and without mentionning anything about my source, that clearly didn't mention maghreb, or adding a new source explaining his edits.

I request that the admins verify all the edits made by the latter, and forbid/ban him from doing any further edits to the article as his attitude is clearly disrupting the quality of information that we are sharing to the public through wikipedia, and putting forward a self-centred attitude to prove a personal point and satisfy his ego, which went with him to engage an edit war against any information mentioning anything that counter-arguments the informations he is stubborn to prove at any means.

Thanks 197.26.219.71 (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is any content change or removal considered a revert?

The definition of revert in the article is any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually

I made an edit removing certain information that had been in the article for a while and was told that this counts as a revert since it undid the actions of editors who had added this content in the past. I see how this follows from the definition but it seems like it's not how the term is usually used. Or is it me who understood it incorrectly all that time?

PS. I've self-reverted my edit to prevent an edit war, so this question is not about any specific edit but in general about the policy. Alaexis_¿question? 21:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

For a "best practices" strategy for issues under active discussion, take a look at wp:QUO. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Most admins only count removal of information from an article as a revert if the removal undoes a recent revert. I realize "recent" is vague, but I don't have a brightline timeframe for you. "a while" doesn't sound recent.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Although the situation can be discussed in general for a simple case (for example, article is stable for a long time and then someone removes content that is no longer true), it's hard to give guidance without examining each specific situation. The intent is for editors to not just go back and forth between their preferred versions. Individual circumstances will affect how edits are characterized. isaacl (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this, there may well be circumstances where a revert of older material is relevant even if one wouldn't usually class that as a revert. Quo and consensus also play a part. Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 that the text does not reflect actual practice. Perhaps @Bbb23 can propose improved language. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Previously discused here. Specifically see Firefangledfeathers's comments. DFlhb (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

As someone who participated in the linked discussion, I think it might be helpful to specify, e.g., that the first removal of content that has been part of an article, without modification, for at least six months, does not count as a revert. Personally, I think some kind of bright line would more helpful than terms like "recent" or "for a while". But I doubt whether there would be consensus behind language as strong as I am suggesting, and some editors will doubtless propose that text stable for months in a heavily edited article should be treated differently from stable text in a sparsely-edited article. Newimpartial (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers!

I like the idea of a bright-line rule. The solution for heavily edited articles could be to add "OR has not been affected by the last 100 edits." If something stayed for a week in an article undergoing 100 edits per day then we can safely call it long-standing. Alaexis_¿question? 06:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I have a feeling that 100 edits is not enough for some editors to consider some text stable in a heavily-edited article. Liking the idea of a second bright line that would address this point, maybe 250 edits would work? Newimpartial (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

As an example, 2023 Israel–Hamas war was edited 500 times in the last 4 days, so around 125 edits per day. In that case 250 is two-days worth of edits, so maybe even higher threshold should be used. Alaexis_¿question? 15:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)