Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard | ||
---|---|---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a
bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious
point of view edits and other good-faith changes
do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
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. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See
here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||
Page: Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kelvintjy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Raoul mishima & Kelvintjy are both involved in an edit war. This topic is not within my expertise, but it is clear that someone needs to step in to arbitrate. Peaceray ( talk) 15:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
It is already weel sourced. It is you who made all the edit where other had tried to discuss.I will note that Raoul mishima made several statements about references in the edit summary & opened a discussion on the talk page. As of 2024-07-17 16:28 UTC, no one has responded at Talk:Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan § Biased.
Page:
Germany national football team (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Truefacts24 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Uruguay_four_time_world_champions?
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff
Comments:
This editor seems entirely unwilling to engage with the concerns others have with their editing in this dispute. In particular, their final comment in the
WT:FOOTY discussion reads as them saying "anyone who disagrees with me must be acting in bad faith."
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
01:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Page: Indian National Army ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rueben lys ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notice by Azuredivay
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user had created an admin notice yesterday – macaddct1984 ( talk | contribs) 13:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Thankyou. I am not sure why my last edit hadn't been saved. The point of contention is not what "people believe". The contention is
WP:NPOV. I have written in this article (and many otehrs) over the last twenty years, and am quite familiar with W:RS as all my work would show. The article as I wrote it (and I will point out I do not claim ownership, but am damn proud of the what it was ten years ago) balanced the diametrically opposing view points of collaborator/traitors against the freedomfighter. Note NPOV is not dependent on WP:RS as the page on NPOV will tell any editor. There is necessarily two very opposing view points on this unit, and since 1950s (
Hugh Toye,s the war of the springing tiger onwards), there is a bias within British historians to decribe and insist on describing this unit as "collaborators" and collaborators only. I will challenge you to find a single Indian person in the street who will agree with this and will not find this description deeply offensive (as my google search has demonstrated). In India the unit is seen as "freedom fighter" (Note there is a
monument in Singapore paid for by Indians in memory of a memorial that was destroyed by the Allied forces in 1945. This is how the unit and its history is perceived in India and by Indians. The fact that it was blown up by allied forces will also give you an idea what perception the unit was held in by British/allied forces and the historians in Western Universities thereafter who wrote about this organisation.
Therefore to insist on a version that insists on imposing this deeply divisive and pejorative description in the very introductory sentence on the basis of a "imaginative history" is blatantly POV. When I wrote the article I introduced this divison on perspective in the introduction, and then dedicated an entire section to this controversy, in order the article was NPOV. Note the resources I used where by very well regarded Historians in published research work, from well regarded universities (the best of best of WP:RS). What has happened in the preceding four years whilst I moved on in real life was that this balanced perspective has slowly been chipped away to the point the pejorative description is now being insisted upon, and the editors insisting on this are using dubious resources (I wouldn't consider the work cited to be reliable, either the work themselves or the authors). My insistence is that there be an avoidance of perjorative terms and descriptions favouring one POV at the expense of another. This makes wikipedia an unreliable resource. I am sure none of us want that, and spoils the efforts made by other editors (including the historical me) who dedicate their own time. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 15:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The other thing to highlight is the version I have reverted from also corrected factual inaccuracies.
rueben_lys (
talk ·
contribs)
15:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment: @ Daniel Case and Red-tailed hawk: The problem here is with only one editor and that is rueben_lys who believes that he has ultimate right to engage in page ownership and ignore whatever reliable sources say as his own messages here confirm. He wants to preserve the outdated version of this page when he used to frequently edit. He told, "The POV bias to describe the unit as collaborators has blinded the editors to this and overall degraded the article to a POV and poor shell of what it was in 2007." [3] We also have Collaboration with Imperial Japan where this subject is described on Collaboration with Imperial Japan#India but rueben_lys wants to fight against this fact by calling it "imaginative history" as he did right above.
The deceptive nature of his edits is not limited to this. His edits were fact-checked especially here (see the "Attlee" part) yet he restored them again by writing in CAPS. Evidently, he was lectured about this entire "Attlee" disinformation about 7 years ago, yet he continues to spread this laughable disinformation again and again in each of the reverts he made recently.
Clearly, there are a number of WP:CIR issues with this user.
WP:1RR is irrelevant also because this user has started his edit war on a different article on this subject just to restore his old preferred version, [4] and removed a number of academic sources without any edit summary. Azuredivay ( talk) 06:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, I had not kept an eye on this page. I don't know how to respond to the above. I have tried to incorporate a differing view point with neutral language, if this may address any perception of bias. I am at pains to emphasise, the edits reverted were/are strictly designed to strictly adhere to balanced and non-inflammatory language. The edits I have made/had made/continue to make both in the article and in the talk page are referenced in order the other editors may become aware that their perception is not accurate (both in common populance and in academia), that balance would dictate that inflammatory and biased language be avoided, and that there are multiple points of view. However this seems to have been met with stonewall of reluctance and (forgive me for using this term)dogmatic reluctance to accept that the sources being cited are very poor at best. As to what motivation there might be to falsely claim that there is a consensus among scholars regarding one POV and another, I don't know. I have provided references to the editors to highlight (firmly) that there are multiple POVs, but the response has been odd to say the least. There also an odd obsession with a comment attributed to an ex-prime minster of Britain that seems to be particularly touchy point, although this article is the correct place to mention the supposed comment. The editor appears to be under an impression my fellow-wikipedians had "scolded" me during an exchange of ideas in a previous interaction in a different page which is also contentious. I have requested those two very same experienced wikipedians for comment. The sources provided by one editor are bordering those for an A-level history essay, while another appears to say the references I have used (celebrated works of history on the subject) are not reliable/do not support my edits (exactly why, I don't know but the content of these edits appear to suggest "'cause I don't wanna" as a reason) . I have tried to point this out (my credultiy can only extend so much). I am reaching a point where I am having to argue for common sense, and begining to tire of it. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 22:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Argentine peso (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Users being reported:
Previous version reverted to:
diff preferred
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Page: Texas smoked brisket ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 64.185.2.22 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [13]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
[15]: another diff I reverted myself. The edit summary clearly shows that they are aware of the edit warring rules "Then stop violating the edit warring rules..." but they keep reverting anyway. win8x ( talking | spying) 22:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Page: 2011 Seal Beach shooting ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nexel3092 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Ongoing edits stating where article subject is incarcerated with no references. Multiple editors warning him, yet continues. Bahooka ( talk) 22:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Argentine peso (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
38.51.82.15 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Comments:
Please hide this unfriendly comment in the edit summary.
[16]. Thanks,
Banfield -
Threats here
00:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Page:
10,000,000 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs),
1,000,000,000 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
149.50.163.225 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log),
149.50.169.109 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26], [27]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Meters post here (which admittedly is after the last batch of reverts) but so far the IP has not shown any acknowledgement of other users on their talk page or in edit summaries.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [28]
Comments:
I was going to wait to see if there was any result from the talk page response, but since this report has already been opened I'll point out that these two IPs (apparently the same user) have also made similar edits to
100,000,000:
I've added the second IP to the header and noticfied them. Meters ( talk) 20:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Lucy Letby (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
HouseplantHobbyist (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[39] (See also previous warning on that page)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See [40], particularly [41] and acknowledgement they were being POINTy and further encouragment to self revert: [42]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [43]
Comments:
The edit dispute is over a paragraph written by this editor but removed initially by Nhart129 [44]. HpH reverted this (first diff) and when I asked about it, I found I agreed with one part of the revert but not the other, and so removed the disputed content per ONUS, which I described here [45]. This led to HpH removing other content on spurious grounds [46]. I reverted it, but they reverted back. I suggested self revert and left it overnight. This morning it was still there so I worked with it, rewriting the lead sentence, updating it and removing the disputed mention of the midwifery council (which is superseded by more recent events). I also did not attempt to restore the text in the article body, as I decided there was a reasonable argument that this was undue in that section. My reworked wording was reverted, and HpH has made it clear that they will not allow the information back in the lead until their text (disputed by at least 3 editors) is restored. The last revert is them enforcing this after another editor attempted to repair the lead. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 16:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
1) The lead section which gives undue prominence to the fact that she pled not guilty and told a disciplinary council she is innocent. The trial found her guilty and her appeals were rejected, so why is such undue prominence given to her views? Her claims of innocence can be included in the body, they should not be given such prominence in the lead. 2) The first paragraph of the 'doubts about conviction' section. This has been extensively edited in previous months to be progressively worded to be more favourable to Letby. Phrases such as "conspiracy theories" and "a small number" have been removed, despite these phrases being the exact words used by the sources. This is an apparent violation of WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE: "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources"
Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies. Yet he just decided of his own accord to close the discussion?!?! HouseplantHobbyist ( talk) 16:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard | ||
---|---|---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a
bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious
point of view edits and other good-faith changes
do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
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. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See
here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||
Page: Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kelvintjy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Raoul mishima & Kelvintjy are both involved in an edit war. This topic is not within my expertise, but it is clear that someone needs to step in to arbitrate. Peaceray ( talk) 15:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
It is already weel sourced. It is you who made all the edit where other had tried to discuss.I will note that Raoul mishima made several statements about references in the edit summary & opened a discussion on the talk page. As of 2024-07-17 16:28 UTC, no one has responded at Talk:Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan § Biased.
Page:
Germany national football team (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Truefacts24 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Uruguay_four_time_world_champions?
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff
Comments:
This editor seems entirely unwilling to engage with the concerns others have with their editing in this dispute. In particular, their final comment in the
WT:FOOTY discussion reads as them saying "anyone who disagrees with me must be acting in bad faith."
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
01:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Page: Indian National Army ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rueben lys ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notice by Azuredivay
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user had created an admin notice yesterday – macaddct1984 ( talk | contribs) 13:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Thankyou. I am not sure why my last edit hadn't been saved. The point of contention is not what "people believe". The contention is
WP:NPOV. I have written in this article (and many otehrs) over the last twenty years, and am quite familiar with W:RS as all my work would show. The article as I wrote it (and I will point out I do not claim ownership, but am damn proud of the what it was ten years ago) balanced the diametrically opposing view points of collaborator/traitors against the freedomfighter. Note NPOV is not dependent on WP:RS as the page on NPOV will tell any editor. There is necessarily two very opposing view points on this unit, and since 1950s (
Hugh Toye,s the war of the springing tiger onwards), there is a bias within British historians to decribe and insist on describing this unit as "collaborators" and collaborators only. I will challenge you to find a single Indian person in the street who will agree with this and will not find this description deeply offensive (as my google search has demonstrated). In India the unit is seen as "freedom fighter" (Note there is a
monument in Singapore paid for by Indians in memory of a memorial that was destroyed by the Allied forces in 1945. This is how the unit and its history is perceived in India and by Indians. The fact that it was blown up by allied forces will also give you an idea what perception the unit was held in by British/allied forces and the historians in Western Universities thereafter who wrote about this organisation.
Therefore to insist on a version that insists on imposing this deeply divisive and pejorative description in the very introductory sentence on the basis of a "imaginative history" is blatantly POV. When I wrote the article I introduced this divison on perspective in the introduction, and then dedicated an entire section to this controversy, in order the article was NPOV. Note the resources I used where by very well regarded Historians in published research work, from well regarded universities (the best of best of WP:RS). What has happened in the preceding four years whilst I moved on in real life was that this balanced perspective has slowly been chipped away to the point the pejorative description is now being insisted upon, and the editors insisting on this are using dubious resources (I wouldn't consider the work cited to be reliable, either the work themselves or the authors). My insistence is that there be an avoidance of perjorative terms and descriptions favouring one POV at the expense of another. This makes wikipedia an unreliable resource. I am sure none of us want that, and spoils the efforts made by other editors (including the historical me) who dedicate their own time. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 15:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The other thing to highlight is the version I have reverted from also corrected factual inaccuracies.
rueben_lys (
talk ·
contribs)
15:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment: @ Daniel Case and Red-tailed hawk: The problem here is with only one editor and that is rueben_lys who believes that he has ultimate right to engage in page ownership and ignore whatever reliable sources say as his own messages here confirm. He wants to preserve the outdated version of this page when he used to frequently edit. He told, "The POV bias to describe the unit as collaborators has blinded the editors to this and overall degraded the article to a POV and poor shell of what it was in 2007." [3] We also have Collaboration with Imperial Japan where this subject is described on Collaboration with Imperial Japan#India but rueben_lys wants to fight against this fact by calling it "imaginative history" as he did right above.
The deceptive nature of his edits is not limited to this. His edits were fact-checked especially here (see the "Attlee" part) yet he restored them again by writing in CAPS. Evidently, he was lectured about this entire "Attlee" disinformation about 7 years ago, yet he continues to spread this laughable disinformation again and again in each of the reverts he made recently.
Clearly, there are a number of WP:CIR issues with this user.
WP:1RR is irrelevant also because this user has started his edit war on a different article on this subject just to restore his old preferred version, [4] and removed a number of academic sources without any edit summary. Azuredivay ( talk) 06:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, I had not kept an eye on this page. I don't know how to respond to the above. I have tried to incorporate a differing view point with neutral language, if this may address any perception of bias. I am at pains to emphasise, the edits reverted were/are strictly designed to strictly adhere to balanced and non-inflammatory language. The edits I have made/had made/continue to make both in the article and in the talk page are referenced in order the other editors may become aware that their perception is not accurate (both in common populance and in academia), that balance would dictate that inflammatory and biased language be avoided, and that there are multiple points of view. However this seems to have been met with stonewall of reluctance and (forgive me for using this term)dogmatic reluctance to accept that the sources being cited are very poor at best. As to what motivation there might be to falsely claim that there is a consensus among scholars regarding one POV and another, I don't know. I have provided references to the editors to highlight (firmly) that there are multiple POVs, but the response has been odd to say the least. There also an odd obsession with a comment attributed to an ex-prime minster of Britain that seems to be particularly touchy point, although this article is the correct place to mention the supposed comment. The editor appears to be under an impression my fellow-wikipedians had "scolded" me during an exchange of ideas in a previous interaction in a different page which is also contentious. I have requested those two very same experienced wikipedians for comment. The sources provided by one editor are bordering those for an A-level history essay, while another appears to say the references I have used (celebrated works of history on the subject) are not reliable/do not support my edits (exactly why, I don't know but the content of these edits appear to suggest "'cause I don't wanna" as a reason) . I have tried to point this out (my credultiy can only extend so much). I am reaching a point where I am having to argue for common sense, and begining to tire of it. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 22:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Argentine peso (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Users being reported:
Previous version reverted to:
diff preferred
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Page: Texas smoked brisket ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 64.185.2.22 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [13]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
[15]: another diff I reverted myself. The edit summary clearly shows that they are aware of the edit warring rules "Then stop violating the edit warring rules..." but they keep reverting anyway. win8x ( talking | spying) 22:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Page: 2011 Seal Beach shooting ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nexel3092 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Ongoing edits stating where article subject is incarcerated with no references. Multiple editors warning him, yet continues. Bahooka ( talk) 22:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Argentine peso (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
38.51.82.15 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Comments:
Please hide this unfriendly comment in the edit summary.
[16]. Thanks,
Banfield -
Threats here
00:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Page:
10,000,000 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs),
1,000,000,000 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
149.50.163.225 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log),
149.50.169.109 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26], [27]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Meters post here (which admittedly is after the last batch of reverts) but so far the IP has not shown any acknowledgement of other users on their talk page or in edit summaries.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [28]
Comments:
I was going to wait to see if there was any result from the talk page response, but since this report has already been opened I'll point out that these two IPs (apparently the same user) have also made similar edits to
100,000,000:
I've added the second IP to the header and noticfied them. Meters ( talk) 20:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Page:
Lucy Letby (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
HouseplantHobbyist (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[39] (See also previous warning on that page)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See [40], particularly [41] and acknowledgement they were being POINTy and further encouragment to self revert: [42]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [43]
Comments:
The edit dispute is over a paragraph written by this editor but removed initially by Nhart129 [44]. HpH reverted this (first diff) and when I asked about it, I found I agreed with one part of the revert but not the other, and so removed the disputed content per ONUS, which I described here [45]. This led to HpH removing other content on spurious grounds [46]. I reverted it, but they reverted back. I suggested self revert and left it overnight. This morning it was still there so I worked with it, rewriting the lead sentence, updating it and removing the disputed mention of the midwifery council (which is superseded by more recent events). I also did not attempt to restore the text in the article body, as I decided there was a reasonable argument that this was undue in that section. My reworked wording was reverted, and HpH has made it clear that they will not allow the information back in the lead until their text (disputed by at least 3 editors) is restored. The last revert is them enforcing this after another editor attempted to repair the lead. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 16:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
1) The lead section which gives undue prominence to the fact that she pled not guilty and told a disciplinary council she is innocent. The trial found her guilty and her appeals were rejected, so why is such undue prominence given to her views? Her claims of innocence can be included in the body, they should not be given such prominence in the lead. 2) The first paragraph of the 'doubts about conviction' section. This has been extensively edited in previous months to be progressively worded to be more favourable to Letby. Phrases such as "conspiracy theories" and "a small number" have been removed, despite these phrases being the exact words used by the sources. This is an apparent violation of WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE: "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources"
Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies. Yet he just decided of his own accord to close the discussion?!?! HouseplantHobbyist ( talk) 16:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)