User talk:NEDOCHAN

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dan Henderson; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Woody (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't template me! I have requested pp already. The IP is changing sourced material from the agreed RS for MMA infoboxes, which is Sherdog. So it's an IP changing sourced material and there is already a PP requested. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I came here because of your protection request. I declined the request as it was from one side in an edit war. See my response on the Henderson talk page. Woody (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Woody (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

That is the worst example of administration I have ever seen. I requested page protection to try to prevent the continual, unsourced and disruptive edits by an IP. You found sources on their behalf, ignored WP:MMA, ignored consensus, talk page history and years of edits, then banned me. Shocking.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I blocked you from editing that article as you reverted immediately after I warned you for edit warring over that edit. At no point did you edit the talk page or attempt to discuss the issue with the other editor, or any other editors. Noting that this is not a clear cut case of vandalism, you need to establish a consensus. I don't see any talk page history about this issue.

If you wish to contest the block, please follow the instructions in the block notice above and another administrator will review it. Woody (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I have been editing MMA pages for a long time. The infobox contains data that, should it deviate from the agreed RS (Sherdog), must be sourced. The IP never once attaempted to include a source. You went and found one for them! The edit they made was followed by 'Please do not change this. As per wikiproject MMA we have agreed to use the information from Sherdog. His height is listed as six feet one inch so that is what we have here'. They changed it repeatedly, never added a source, didn't discuss, and you banned me. Sloppy.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not about Dan Henderson, it's about agreed RS for MMA articles. And longstanding consensus, which if you had taken the time or looked at any other MMA fighter article you would have discovered for yourself. This is the first negative experience I have had with an admin on Wikipedia. They are normally thorough. I am sure you're a great person but this is, in my opinion, the worst piece of admin imaginable. How you could look at this edit history and not conclude that the editor is NOTHERE is beyond me.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree this isn't about Henderson, it is about your behaviour. You were warned about edit warring and continually reverting without discussion. After being warned, you reverted. That is why you have been blocked. I did a partial block rather than a site wide block as this seems to be about this page rather than others. You seem to have a slight misconception about where wikiprojects sit in terms of Policies and Guidelines. Nothing that gets discussed on WP:MMA (or WP:MILHIST which is my relative area of expertise) override any policy of guideline, particularly behavorial ones and WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS. Woody (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

There is consensus. That's the whole point! The consensus is to use Sherdog data in the infobox. And the info that the IP added WAS UNSOURCED. They added unsourced information. Yet banned is me. NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The information I restored was verifiable, sourced from RS and in-line with consensus. The information I reverted was not verifiable, not sourced and against consensus. Yet you ban me. It's a disgrace and a slap in the face as thanks for my efforts.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Woody: Out of interest, did you notice the link to Sherdog at the bottom of the infobox? If not, can you now understand that the IP was adding unsourced info?NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did. I noticed it is labelled "Mixed martial arts record" in the mixed martial arts section of the infobox. It was not immediately apparent to me that this relates to the whole infobox. I looked back at the history and saw that this has been edit warred over since 26 April 2020 (!!!). At no point was this discussed on the talk page or was a consensus reached in any way shape or form. I wondered why someone would edit war over this for 4 months so I googled his height and lo and behold it is different to our article. This disparity is something that should be discussed on the talk page and a consensus reached. This isn't a discussion for a user talk page.

The issue here is that you continued to edit war after being warned over something that is not plainly obviously vandalism, that there is no discussion or consensus for at the article talk page. Do you understand this is why you have been blocked? I honestly don't care about how tall Mr Henderson is. Woody (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

As a further note, personal attacks such as this are never warranted, no matter how frustrated or intransigent the other editor may be. Woody (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I accept that I was wrong there. I apologise for the personal attacks; I am fairly sure the same user has been making the edits for months, hence was not civil. Mea culpa.

The Sherdog issue and the source used for the infobox has been going on for years across talk pages. The overwhelming consensus is to use Sherdog in the infobox unless you put in a source. The IP did not include a source at any stage, and that, respectfully, is the point I think you might have missed. An IP was adding unsourced information and I was restoring info that is in accordance with an agreed RS as per WP:MMA and its talk page. NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Response

My aim is to keep the discussion on the article talk page to the content of the article and how to improve it. With regards to this edit:

A): Responded on article talk

B) I want you to engage in discussion about how to fix this issue, not immediately edit the article. Wikipedia works by consensus, a consensus that needs to develop on the talk page in that discussion.

C) How do you know whether they are here to build an encyclopaedia? Have you ever spoken with them other than to put a personal attack on their talk page? Ever single one of their reverts is tagged as a "manual revert" ie not using undo or rollback which probably means they don't know what the article history page is. Not a single one of the reverts since April had any form of discussion with the editor that had been reverted. I have checked every single one (easy for most of them as they are red linked talk pages). Someone was bold (be it an IP or a new user), you reverted with a pithy edit summary and there was absolutely zero discussion on the talk page of the article or on the other editors talk pages.

With regards to this edit: I took "Instead, Woody went and dug out some sources," and several other comments like that as being against me finding sources. We should be looking to help improve articles not maintain the status quo. Finding sources for an article is a good thing!

You haven't answered my specific questions on the talk page about where this consensus has been arrived at. An unwritten and apparently de-facto agreement among a few editors at MMA is not a consensus and certainly not one that I will be held to. I work toward WP:V and WP:RS. Woody (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is often built gradually over a long time. Talk pages, product pages and edit history/ summaries all count. The easiest example of it in this instance has been the discussion that is taking place on the talk page, which appears to show consensus. If you would like to trawl through years of editing across pages to find it, please do, but understand I don't need to as there is no evidence for a lack of consensus that I can see.

I did attempt discussion. You'll notice that several IPs made the same edit and I am sure they're the same editor. I also put 'Please stop' on their talk page. It's also the only edit they have made, hardly a ringing endorsement.

You shouldn't have blocked me and you shouldn't have used my attempt to arrest the situation (requesting temporary pp) as an excuse to exacerbate it. The fact that several editors have pointed out that the source I was using is respected as RS and the fact that the IP hasn't responded at all both reflect badly on your handling of the situation.

Consensus isn't a link. It's reflected over a long period of time. If you'd like a specific example, check out Dan Henderson's talk page.

Finally, the IP was adding UNSOURCED INFORMATION. I was adding restoring sourced information. Going out to find sources on behalf of someone who wasn't using sources or edit summaries in order to bolster their disruption is, in my opinion, bad administration.

How you could look at my edit history and the IPs and conclude that we're in the same boat is beyond me. I will remain civil but I am entitled to disagree with you and to criticise your handling of the situation. I think, frankly, you've bogged this up in a big way. You should unblock me, protect the page and apologise.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We seem to be looking at different issues here. I am aware of how consensus works. I'm not talking about the consensus on using Sherdog as a source. I have now been shown a few editors within MMA who believe it is a reliable source. I looked at it originally and it is a source. It isn't the only one though. This was never about Sherdog as a source, it is about your behaviour. This was about the lack of discussion about his height. One source may say one thing, another says something else. We need to report that their is a difference. We don't prioritise one source over another because you like it more. You were blocked because you continued to revert after a warning.

Where did you ask the IP to stop? Where did you ask them to discuss or even provide a source or give some guidance as to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies?

In terms of using "attempt to arrest the situation" please take a look at WP:BOOMERANG.

I was never trying "to bolster their disruption" and to say so is to do me a disservice. I was having a look to try and work out why there could possibly be such a long edit war over something so trivial. Turns out sources disagree and the UFC disagreed between fight cards.

The most recent edits are from Moscow. The 92.16.XX.XX IPs in May are most likely to be the same. The others seem to be from around the world (UAE, a university in Denmark, Perth etc). For some reason, there are apparently a large number of people around the world who think he is a different height.

As I said at the beginning, if you feel my admin actions are in error you are welcome to invite comment at WP:AN, WP:ANI or to ask for an unblock from an uninvolved admin using the template described in your block notice. Woody (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This is where I asked them to stop. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:95.83.189.71&action=edit&oldid=971031616 and if you believe as I do that several IPs are the same person, look at me asking them, too.

And the fact that you say that several people think something is staggering. Have you a single example in which the edits were sourced or explained? The answer is no. Not one edit summary or one source. All unsourced changes, all from IPs, none of which had a summary.

Try editing MMA fighter pages! It's a shit storm and regular editors get used to reverting unsourced changes and a vast amount of subtle vandalism. People remove/ add the T from TKO, for instance. If you find a single regular editor of MMA pages who thinks I am not helpful I'd be surprised.

I don't like ANI and I don't want to waste time on nonsense like this. Hence why the simple solution of temporary page protection was what I eventually sought. I think the way that this has turned out has shown that the solution I sought and that you rejected would have been far better than the route you chose. I am not accusing you of bias or of not following protocol. I am stating my opinion that you have handled the situation badly and that your judgement has been found wanting. And you still haven't addressed my main point re adding incited information. That alone could and should have been reason enough to back the right horse. Include the editors' edit histories and your actions have been borderline incompetent. But not malicious and not necessarily against protocol. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Woody and NEDOCHAN: Good day. Hi NEDOCHAN, I come here with good will to help you to solve the issues that you are being blocked. I know you are a good contributor and understand your anger and frustration where by you were helping Wikipedia but instead you are being block for your effort. I hope you would read this message with clear head to know I am here to land a hand.

1. Communication: I understand you were trying to help and restored the sourced content of Hendo page in good faith. You didnt violate the WP:3RR guidelines; however, continues reverting for more than 10 times without leaving any warning messages or personal messages would suggest you were involved in WP:edit warring. The IP editor does not have a lot of edits - see here and the types of edit is either a wiki link or change of height of Hendo's. This suggest the IP editor is not very familiar with Wikipedia guidelines let alone WP:MMA guidelines and I doubt the IP editor's intention is to harm Wikipedia but rather has not idea the added info is unsourced. Without leaving either a warning message (unsourced) / personal message would not help for the IP might not know why their edits were reverted. If the warning message is not specific enough of what we want to convey then a personal message would serve well in explaining the issues at hand. Wikipedia is all about verification but Wikipedia is also about civil communication, collaborating among editors and help/support each other. We all new editors once and we remember the learning process was a steep up hill effort in the beginning not only there are so many guidelines to know/read but as a new editor we have no idea where to look for the information or ask for assistance or we have not idea if we have done some mistakes. A few tips/links and explained would help the new editors in a long way and there is where communication comes in. I have written hundreds if not close to a thousand "same messages" to new editors but to them it is the first time to received such info.
2. Unblocked - There are guidelines we adhere to in Wikipedia and certain channel if we feel an intervention is needed from an uninvolved editors/admins. To get yourself unblocked, you need to follow the process (pls read WP:GAB) and there is not other way around it. You need to "made clear to /convince the admins that you understand what you are blocked for, what you should have done instead in hind sight/in the future and you will not do it again". An uninvolved admin will evaluated your request and decide the outcome. If you think you are unjustly treated, then you can go to WP:ANI as for the last resort; however, honestly, you would not able to get far, for you have reverted the IP edit after an edit warring message had sent to you. I would highly recommended you not to go to ANI. I do hope you start the unblocking request asap and we all can get back to editing. As for the MMA infobox source, that would be another matter which I will share some comments tmrw on Hendo talk page. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 13:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Nick Diaz

Hello Nedochan, I see you reverted the additional context I put into Nick Diaz's intro, but you didn't say much other than "Restored prior to editorial additions."

Can we talk about the edit? Nick badly needs and deserves more detail on his intro, as in its former state it badly undercommunicated his significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrivateHazzard (talk • contribs) 23:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Definitely happy to discuss. The issue was mainly the source. The Nick Diaz talk page is the best place!NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk page is up. Check it out, I'll tell you why I chose the citation though I may have inserted it improperly.PrivateHazzard

Hi PrivateHazzard I have reverted your edit for the above page. The lead section of a page should record what already written in the body text where by the content is "significant" enough to be included in the lead and also should be written in cons ice manner - pls read WP:LEAD for more info. Note: content in lead usually dont need to have citations as it should be in the body text; however, for rare/certain occassion we incuded the source/citations such as when we include the full name/real name of the subject since the article name is based on WP:COMMONNAME or the info would change weekly/monthly (such as UFC ranking). Secondly, content in Wikipedia needs to be written in WP:NPOV, thus WP:PUFF words should be removed from the texts. You have include the info either in "Fighting style", "Personal" or "Background" sections with multiple independent, WP:reliable sources. Let me know if anything else I could help. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Ridiculous nonsense

I hope you don't mind or are somehow randomly offended by me moving your vote in that silly RfC. I initially made a comment yesterday and wasn't going to vote, then decided to vote today, so created a 'Comments' subsection at the bottom and moved my initial comment there, just so that all the votes are in one place. I moved your vote (and a subsequent reply) up to the votes section but somebody seemed to think that it was an egregious breach of some imaginary policy and began an edit war lol I've left the reply to your vote in the comments section and still moved your vote up, just for easy reading. – ².O.^Boxing 13:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem as far as I'm concerned. Things like this are such a waste of time. It irks me that so much time has to be spent indulging over-zealous editors. Appreciate your contribution. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Tony Ferguson and non sense reverting

Tony works with the ufc , they list him officially at 5’11 , you are ruining Wikipedia pages with wrong info , stop reverting and being stubborn. Check his ufc stats and the link I gave next to his 5’11 listing . Do a better job and grow up

Hi. The infobox contains a source at the bottom. Secondary sources preferred. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tony_Ferguson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.Template:Z187Perm 15:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Tony_Ferguson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Perm 15:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)