User talk:Ezlev/Archives/2020/October

Subjective information
I am removing inaccurate subjective information Kevin Funcle (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're removing well-sourced claims which provide important context to the article, and you've continued to do so after four warnings were issued on your talk page. Ezlev (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * And by reverting Kevin Funcle, you've been taking part in an edit war. Please familiarise yourself with our edit warring and 3 revert rule policies before continuing to edit Wikipedia further. I understand you were trying to improve the project but if there is a repeat of this behaviour, you are certain to be blocked. Nick (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , this was not edit warring. Kevin Funcle's edits indicate a white supremacist agenda. I've asked the blocking administrator to indef the account. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See also block evasion by same vandal . Thank you,, for your edits. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's still blockable as edit warring, even if the editing account is being disruptive. There's no exemption in the WP:3RR policy for revert warring with disruptive editors. I do understand the reverting was done in good faith, which is why I haven't blocked in this case. I'm just making sure Ezlev knows policy and doesn't end up blocked. Nick (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No,, not by a longshot. Had you blocked this account I would have gone straight to ANI. Ezlev was dealing with a racist agenda, as at . The vandal has also been using multiple accounts, per the discussion I opened at , . 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * your concern is warranted and appreciated. I'm aware of the rules and was being cognizant of them at first, but as I became increasingly frustrated with, I stopped paying attention to the number of edits I made. However, upon looking back at the page history for Criminal stereotype of African Americans, I'm fairly certain that I made only 3 reversions and thus did not violate the bright-line three-revert rule. Additionally, as 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 noted, the other user in question had a clearly disruptive agenda - which may not create an explicit exemption, but given that I did not violate 3RR, I do feel that it's relevant. While I appreciate the reminder and will be more careful in the future, I stand by my actions in this case. Ezlev (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)