User talk:Hgual

Comments

 * A typical first edit will remove the phrase "best known for" from an article with an edit summary of "rm pov". Sometimes edit summaries can be called "snarky", which may trigger reverts.
 * None of my edits removed the phrase "best known for". What exactly would be wrong with that anyway?
 * None of my edit summaries were "rm pov". What exactly would be wrong with that as well?
 * None of my edit summaries could be called "snarky". Even if they were, why on earth would that trigger reverts?


 * Subsequent attempts to re-insert the phrase will be reverted, sometimes with personal attacks in the edit summaries.
 * Not applicable


 * In a sustained edit war, the IP will be blocked or the page protected. After protection is removed and the block expires, the pattern repeats. In the event that the IP is blocked for a long-term (up to 3 months), the user swaps to another IP.
 * Not applicable


 * The principal problem with this case is that most edits made by this user are good-faith edits that are often supported by editors when looked at on their individual merits.
 * I suppose that's not intended to be funny, but it is.


 * This makes issues of conduct harder to enforce. That said, the IP will edit war with numerous other editors—including with offensive and aggressive summaries—even when his edits are poor, and a talk page thread is opened to explain the situation.
 * Not applicable


 * The editor involved has stated he is frustrated with being reverted without explanation ("These arbitrary reverts are a real slap in the face") and says that he gets "more satisfaction out of responding viciously than (he) would out of responding politely, and the end result is exactly the same".
 * Who wouldn't be frustrated with being reverted without explanation? Why is anyone reverting good-faith edits that are often supported by editors when looked at on their individual merits, without explanation? That sounds like extremely poor conduct to me.


 * They may also make accusations of poor English against whom they are in a dispute with.
 * Not applicable. But also unintentionally very funny.

So, you are accusing me of "long term abuse", when my edits do not resemble the supposed abuse, except insofar as they are good faith edits, which I expect would be supported by any editor when looked at on their individual merits. And why on earth would you have a problem with edits like that? Hgual (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)