Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Line 189: Line 189:

# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gda%C5%84sk&diff=prev&oldid=1314184359]

# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gda%C5%84sk&diff=prev&oldid=1314184359] (edit made after the ANEW notice)

# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gdańsk&diff=prev&oldid=1314210649]

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user’s talk page: [diff]

Comments: I want to inform that the user has been persistently reverting edits made by me. The tone of their reply does not appear to be very constructive to engage on the talk page further. I removed a phrase from the lead of the page as it is already very obvious from the content in the body. I do not feel that it is needed to be in the lead of the page. I also informed them that “Tirthankar” is a title and not a honorific. However the user is resorting to reverting edits relentlessly.

Page protected for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ritchie333, could you please undo the last edit made by the edit-warring user? Pawapuri Winds (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting for a response! Pawapuri Winds (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User being reported: Titikaka3456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

21:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC) “I restored the original page as a reference to match the information on the page. I invite you to check the links, which are in Italian, instead of continuously deleting the page unilaterally — especially since it has been there since 2017. There is no reason to act this way toward a reporter who works from the White House unless there is a clear intention to target this reporter”
21:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC) “I noticed that some well-sourced and verifiable content has been repeatedly removed from the article in question. I understand that editorial decisions can sometimes be based on concerns over neutrality or reliability, but in this case, the material in question has been part of the page since 2017 and is supported by credible references, including professional affiliations such as the Ordine dei Giornalisti del Piemonte. Please note that I am not personally connected to the subject. Thank you”
16:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC) “Unilateral deletion of well-documented and reliably sourced information about this reporter—published since 2017—violates multiple Wikipedia content policies. The removals appear to be politically motivated, based on editors’ personal views, their disapproval of the current White House, or possible external influence by foreign reporters affiliated with the White House Foreign Media Group. Some users—reportedly with political bias or agendas—are repeatedly deleting content from this article for”

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

20:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC) “Warning: Edit warring on Daniele Compatangelo.”
20:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC) “/* Introduction to contentious topics */ Reply”

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

21:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC) “/* Promotion / résumé */ new section”

Comments:

WP:BLPRESTORE applies. The user had been informed about this in addition to the regular edit warring warning, and they replied to the warning before reverting again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed content “being part of the page since 2017” is obviously wrong. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the editor claims to be “here to learn” but at least two responses on their User talk and one response at User talk:ToBeFree have been identified as AI-generated. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And continuing to edit war while logged out, unless of course it’s just coincidence they made this talk page post regarding the article while logged in just four minutes later. FDW777 (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected for a week by ScottishFinnishRadish Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: []

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user’s talk page: [15]

Comments:

Hotgas repeatedly deletes well-supported and relevant content from ‘Connections Between Thai Classical Dance and Neighboring Countries’ and has done so for about a month at least. Hotgas replied to Pro-anti-air’s post on their Talk Page on 9/2/25 justifying content deletion because “topic was about the thai-dance not the cambodian dance history.” I replied noting the particular topic is actually ‘Connections Between Thai Classical Dance and Neighboring Countries.’ Then I started a topic attempting to discuss any content they believe doesn’t fit but noted repeatedly deleting encyclopedic content can be vandalism. Hotgas has not responded.

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussions at other venues: [26][27][28]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user’s talk page: [29]

Comments:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user’s talk page: [diff]

Comments:
This IP range needs to be blocked due to persistently unexplained content removal since August 20, 2025 – Jjpachano (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of two weeks 2001:4455:400:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User being reported: Jmancthree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

20:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC) “”Consensus” is not a reason for the exclusion for text. There must be a valid reason beyond personal taste. This is not your personal article. Use the talk page.”
19:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC) “As per discussion in talk page, text is within the WP:UNDUE guidelines, and its length is a WP:SATISFACTION issue, which is not a reason for its exclusion, when there is a great interest in its inclusion”
23:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC) “Carter’s brush with Remote Viewing is unambiguously important or it wouldn’t generate so much discussion in the TALK page, and correctly limited to this WP:FRINGE article, per WP:UNDUE text”
23:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC) “Reverting per WP:UNDUE text explicitly validating the type of text allowed to be featured in WP:FRINGE articles.”

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[34]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

16:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC) “/* It’s not undue to discuss remote viewing, per WP:UNDUE text, in the remote viewing article. */ Reply”

Comments:

I wasn’t aware of this report; thanks for the ping. I didn’t protect it solely due to the edit warring. I EC-protected it for Arbitration Enforcement, because I didn’t find any constructive edits from inexperienced editors, even those who are confirmed but not EC. The protection, therefore, is indefinite. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user’s reverts:

[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41] (edit made after the ANEW notice)
[42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user’s talk page: [45]

Comments:
The user has already received multiple warnings from other users (see their talk page before they blanked it yesterday) and was only recently blocked for edit warring, uncooperative behavior and personal attacks/false accusations (see block log and noticeboard discussion). Unfortunately, they have not changed their behavior. The user seeks to push a particular narrative which seems to be based on personal opinion even though several recent, reliable secondary sources contradict their POV. A talk page discussion with a detailed explanation of why their edit was problematic and reverted remained unanswered. [46] Instead, the user continued editing the article and ignored the talk page discussion (even after being asked to stop [47]). I made another attempt on the user’s talk page [48], which they blanked again. [49] As the user continues to restore their edits, ignores source-based arguments, and refrains from participating in discussion, I no longer see any meaningful way forward here. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are misrepresentations as I will show, and an attempt at cover for POV pushing on the Gdańsk article.–PJK 1993 (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[50], [51], [52],[53], [54] (“The knights colonized the area, replacing local Kashubians and Poles with German settlers.”) these reverts listed above by JeanClaudeN1 are of a longstanding statement (with a reference source attached) that JeanClaudeN1 keeps deleting. Here it is in 2024, before the current edit dispute [55]. I think this is a relevant statement and it should stay. However, JeanClaudeN1 keeps deleting it without gaining consensus to do so, and without even starting a discussion on the article’s talk page. JeanClaudeN1 in reality just reported himself because it is JeanClaudeN1 that removed this statement several times without consent, and now cries wolf. —PJK 1993 (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reservations about a POV push on the Gdańsk article because over the last several weeks JeanClaudeN1 and another editor(s) have been heavily editing the article, and based on my review of those edits, it is clear that for whatever reason the historical facts related to the Polish history are being removed, creating issues of balance within the article. Over time it appears that pictures, mentions, and sources for the Green Gate, which was the ceremonial residence of the Polish monarchs in the city, the Royal Chapel, or the Polish Post Office were removed. So, there is a clear trend to remove pictures and/or text related to Polish history of the Gdańsk: older version of the article for mid-2025 [56]. —PJK 1993 (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also here JeanClaudeN1 was criticized by a different editor for disparaging Polish reference sources which did not fit the narrative [57], which shows a clear POV push on the article. —PJK 1993 (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, JeanClaudeN1 needs to acknowledge my concerns about balance issues within the Gdańsk article and stop removing and/or changing text or pictures then running to admins and complaining that I’m ignoring his POV. –:PJK 1993 (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, it is JeanClaudeN1 that is edit warring by repeatedly removing the “colonization” statement, and who broke the 3RR rule. —PJK 1993 (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the first time [58] JeanClaudeN1 removed the “The knights colonized the area, replacing local Kashubians and Poles with German settlers” on 30 August 2025. The list above is really about JeanClaudeN1 refusing to adhere to the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle[59]. —PJK 1993 (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply