Jack4576

Your edit to Black War

Hello there

I have reverted your edit to the lead of the article as it is not an accurate summary of the article and is wrong on some points (the sources used in the article show that many of those arguing that the black war wasn't genocide were writing in the 21st century). It is also doubtful that it is written from a neutral point of view. The existing wording of the lead summarises the article much more concisely. I am happy to discuss on the Talk page of the article to see if we can get consensus over the wording of the lead.

Thank you Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "It is also doubtful that it is written from a neutral point of view". Are you casting doubt upon my neutrality as an editor? That is inappropriate.

The existing wording suggests to the reader that there is an ongoing "debate" about the genocide, that is contradicted by the sources which demonstrate an academic consensus that a genocide took place (albeit this is a consensus that is contested by some). Jack4576 (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources do not demonstrate any such consensus. Quite a few experts in the field argue that it was not a genocide as the article makes clear. This isn't a fringe view, so no consensus. Why don't you start a discussion on the Talk page of the article and see if other editors wish to comment? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

That position is a fringe view. I've started a discussion on the talk page. Jack4576 (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Your recent editing history at Black War 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; read about 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. General Ization ^Talk 05:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. I restored my edit after an interim consensus was reached on the talk page.

Your message here is inappropriate. You'd be better served by posting this message on the other editor's talk page. 05:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Jack4576 (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't post it there because they are following policy. Continue and we will take it up at WP:EWN. General Ization ^Talk 05:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Your interpretation of policy is plainly incorrect. Nominate to EWN at your leisure. Jack4576 (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring.; Thank you.

Per your request, [1]. Jack you are your own worst enemy.  // Timothy :: talk  06:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Ridiculous Timothy. I did not 'request' that a nomination be made. The reason for me saying "nominate at your leisure" was that this is clearly not an example of edit warring. As it is clearly not an example of that, I don't fear a nomination at that notice board. I am not even in breach of 3RR. This nomination is trigger-happy.

The reason this is clearly not an example of edit warring; is that I only reverted the other user's edit after an interim consensus had been reached, following your comment on the article's talk page indicating my drafting of the article had found majority support following discussion.

I refrained from restoring the edit an additional, third time, after comments from additional editors showed that in fact, a consensus had not been reached. Which reversion of mine is an example of edit warring? There isn't one.

I did not engage in a further reversion after making this comment. So your comment: on "Apparently the only way to get their attention is a post to EWN" is not only snide, but also plainly incorrect. I stopped further reversions, and I am not in breach of the 3RR.

Finally, your remark: "you are your own worst enemy" is uncivil, and inappropriate. Jack4576 (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

You say that I had "they have no intention of stopping", and yet, I did in fact stop.

Just because I stated a disagreement with General Ization's interpretation of policy; and stated a disagreement that a edit war nomination was justified; doesn't mean or imply that I intend to pursue an edit war.

Clearly from the edit history and talk discussion of that page; you can see that I have stopped reverting other editors and am attempting to reach consensus before making any other edits. Jack4576 (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Could you please copy-paste my two comments above, as a response to your nomination on that board. Jack4576 (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll rephrase. Jack you are absolutely your own worst enemy.

And you forgot to format your unblock request.  // Timothy :: talk  07:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a rude comment, and you ought to be censured by the community for making it.

My comment under the block was intentional. I do not wish to make a formal unblock request. My intention was only to comment why I believe the block to be unjustified, I do not contest it. Jack4576 (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Black War. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I did not edit war. I restored an edit after discussion resulted in an interim consensus being reached on the subject talk page.

Restoring an edit after achieving consensus through discussion is not edit warring.

I am not in breach of the 3RR, and neither did I unilaterally restore my edits to the page. I simply followed policy and restored an edit after seeking consensus through discussion. This block is unjustified. Jack4576 (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the material on the article's talk page. You were blocked for edit warring, not 3RR, and your edits fall within the definition of edit warring: An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. - Aoidh (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

There was a consensus at the time I restored my edit. Myself and Timothy were of the view that my drafting was the preferred draft, and only one other editor disagreed. 2:1 resulted in a consensus being reached, only after that was the case did I restore my edit. This is not edit warring.

I did not restore my edit after it became clear that consensus had not been reached and discussion was at a deadlock. Jack4576 (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Aoidh can you please comment my responses above under the ANI edit warring thread. They are the ones made under the previous section; with the timestamps 06:25, 23 April 2024, and 06:31, 23 April 2024.

Timothy has seemingly declined to do so. I am supposed to be able to provide a response to the incident as raised on that board; even whilst blocked from WP-Space. Jack4576 (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something, but what is an "interim consensus"?  // Timothy :: talk  07:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Between the time you made your comment, and another editor had made their comment disagreeing with you; there was a 2:1 consensus that had been reached that my drafting ought be the preferred edit.

This consensus arose at a point in time before the discussion had been finalised and closed. Hence it was an interim consensus, as it seemed to me at that point in time that a consensus had likely been reached. After other editors joined and disagreed, it became clear that this wasn't true. Jack4576 (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

So "interim consensus" is something you made up in an attempt to restore your disputed edit before other editors joined the discussion? Or is there a guideline or policy I am missing?  // Timothy :: talk  07:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

At the point in time before it became clear other editors intended to join the conversation; the discussion was at a 2:1, so it appeared likely at that point in time that a consensus had already been reached.

Stop making snide comments. Jack4576 (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)