User talk:74.195.159.155

May 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Ben Swann. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Favonian (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * I understand you had good-faith WP:BLP concerns, but you still should have discussed the matter at Talk:Ben Swann. Edit summaries are not the place to engage in extended arguments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what edits warrant discussion in Talk and which ones don't, but WP policy says explicitly to not bother with the Talk with contentious information that's not sourced sufficiently. I'm almost certain that if I went the discussion route then the misinformation would still be in the article. I took some concerns to the notice board and got no results or any discussion that took the concerns seriously.

June 2018
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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:. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

July 2018
Hi there. Given that your edits keep getting reverted, perhaps you should consider proposing them on the talk page and seeing if you can garner a consensus for them. I know it's tedious having to defend and argue just to make a minor wording change, but unfortunately that's just how it is for such controversial topics. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Even when I go to the talk page first and end the discussion in agreement with an admin, my edits get reverted (You know this because you've done it). --74.195.159.155 (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And I never got an adequate explanation for that. The revert doesn't make sense even if you forgot we had an agreement. You should probably include explanations when you revert good faith edits --98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to have more than just the agreement of another editor. You need a consensus. What didn't you understand? Sorry for the confusion, I thought I had answered your questions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Many have made changes before getting a consensus without you reverting their changes. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Ben Swann shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Last time I edit warred, I did as many reversions as the other guy (who was not banned). Also the 3 revert rule doesn't not apply to removing BLP violations. Which I was doing. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are well aware of the edit warring policy. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I am. And adding "citation needed" to an unsourced claim once certainly doesn't qualify. You, however, have made two reverts on the same material within an hour, so you should probably be careful.--74.195.159.155 (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That claim is thoroughly sourced. You are either lying or playing stupid, but either way; you're not fooling anyone. Jytdog will not need to make any further reverts, because I will happily do so for him. Also bear in mind that WP:3RR is not the definition of edit warring, rather it is a bright-line beyond which it is considered inarguable that you are edit warring. Your contribution history shows that you are engaged in a campaign to whitewash the article about Swann, which is not acceptable. Since this appears to be a static IP, an admin can treat it like a registered account and block it indefinitely if this continues. You may not whitewash the Swann article (or engage in any editing that is otherwise prohibited by policy), but you may be permitted to edit in accordance with policy, so long as you accept the advice being offered to you here by Jytdog and I. Neither one of us wants you to be blocked, both of us would prefer that you realize that your editing has been disruptive and decide to become a productive editor, instead. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What part of "inline" do you not understand? If the claim is sourced than making it compliant with BLP should be easy--74.195.159.155 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * From your link: "even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it...So, if you want to...Explain the "truth" or "reality" of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue...on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements." If you held other editors with an agenda to the same standard, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Because I haven't done any of this, rather, I've tried to enforce this very policy and my edits show that. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What part of "That claim is thoroughly sourced" do you not understand? If you think the lede needs cites, add them from the body. If you can't be bothered to do that, and instead want someone else to do it for you, then you need to ask politely, like "Can someone please move citation X to sentence Y in the lede?" If you insist upon adding cn tags to the lede next to information which is well-sourced in the body and arguing with more experienced editors than you whether that is appropriate, then by definition, what you are doing is tendentious and you can be blocked for it. Seriously dude, you're being given every opportunity here. If you can't work with others, you've got no business on this site. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read through all the cited sources. Not one describes Ben's work as "fake news". That's the point. The "citation needed" was a compromise. The unsupported claim needs to be removed altogether as per WP:BLP, but I was giving the other editors a chance to find a source that directly supports the claim--74.195.159.155 (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, we're done here. You clearly intend to try to wikilawyer your way at the article, and I'm not going to continue to extend the benefit of the doubt to someone engaged in willfull dishonesty. If you continue your push there, or on the talk page, I'll ask an admin to deal with you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Invoking "wikilawyer" is not a defense for the unsourced claim, nor does it absolve you of following WP Policy. Get another admin. They'll probably agree that it's OR unless they are hell-bent on discrediting Ben Swann. It's not really debatable. That's why nobody (including you) is willing to debate it. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not really debatable. It really isn't, but not for the reasons you're claiming. I'm not watching your page anymore, so don't bother responding to me. I won't read it. Also, you're not welcome at my talk page, so don't bother posting there, either. Finally, you need to follow WP:TPG, so don't bother continuing this line of argument at article talk. Either do things the right way, stop doing them on your own, or we'll have an admin stop you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018 (2)
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  14:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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:. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for persistently making disruptive edits. 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:. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Blocked
Since you were last unblocked, you've defended claims that:
 * vaccines cause autism (or at least that that claim hasn't been disproven), treating acceptance of proven science as an "opinion"
 * the Democratic party kidnaps children (who haven't been shown to even exist) and hides them in the basement of a pizza parlor that doesn't have a basement
 * the kids at Sandy Hook who were murdered are just faking it

That alone would be enough reason to block an account. Throw in that you've wasted everyone's time and patience on talk pages and noticeboards, and it's clear that you're not here to build an encyclopedia, you're here to "right great wrongs" for conspiracy theorists.

Also, this rather makes me have to wonder if you're Swann himself. Were that the case, you were not supposed to edit the article to begin with. If you're not Swann and just one of his cronies, then you've been violating our terms of use.

For these reasons, I'm blocking this IP and will block any other IPs or accounts that I believe to be used by you. Ignore whatever time I set for the block for technical reasons, consider yourself indefinitely blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)