User talk:Mikemaccana

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 06:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Orphaned non-free image (Image:RHEL.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:RHEL.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Group (database)
A tag has been placed on Group (database) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Beeblbrox (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zed Shaw
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Zed Shaw, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * not sufficiently notable

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Passportguy (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nsswitch.conf
A tag has been placed on Nsswitch.conf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  Intelligent  sium  16:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added a hangon template to an article. In order for an administrator to evaluate whether the article should be speedy deleted or not, we request that you provide reasoning, on the article's talk page, for why it should remain.  Intelligent  sium  16:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:YFA before creating new content. Your contribution is being deleted due to lack of content/context. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It was your original contribution under nsswitch.conf which had been deleted by another admin for lack of content and marked for speedy deletion a second time for the same reason. It looks great now.  Thanks for asking.  :)  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

IOtop (Unix) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect IOtop (Unix). Since you had some involvement with the IOtop (Unix) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

File:VirtualMachineManager.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:VirtualMachineManager.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Nakamoto Coefficient
Please expand and add better references (only one as of now is primary) before publishing in mainspace. Remember that mainspace means it is ready for readers to view. Sungodtemple (talk &#8226; contribs) 13:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * OK will do now, thanks! Mikemaccana (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Solana (blockchain platform), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stripe. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023
Hello, I'm Grayfell. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Solana (blockchain platform) have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of general sanctions
MrOllie (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You are in violation of the 1RR rule that is in place on all cryptocurrency related articles. I will give you a little while to self revert, but if you do not I will report the violation for administrator action. MrOllie (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @MrOllie. I did not re-add the notable information as part of an edit war. I responded with information on how developer use is a notable aspect of developer platforms including blockchains.
 * Given that constructive Wikipedian that did not wish to engage in edit wars would have responded with a rationale about why developer use is not relevant to development platforms, I'd consider that you are engaging in an edit war. I have recently raised this issue with you on your talk page.
 * I am happy to escalate this to some third part following whatever process Wikipedia has to ensure wikipedia remains a constructive place. Mikemaccana (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mikemaccana ‎ - violation of 1RR on blockchain article Solana. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * MrOllie I was about to comment, before I was blocked from responding: you mentioned elsewhere that 1RR requires a second revert in 24 hours. Where is the second revision? The 'revision 2' link has no edits shown.
 * Per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solana_(blockchain_platform)&action=history I have made:
 * 1 revert of 1500 characters
 * 1 a revert of four characters ('has '), both reverting the same content.
 * This is effectively one revision - they would have seen a single revert if I knew how to undo both at once. The 1RR accusation is clearly baseless. Mikemaccana (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Since you appear to be disinterested in understanding what vandalism actually is, resolving disagreements without attacking others, or citing sources to support your edits, you're blocked so you will have an opportunity to study those issues. You were asked to drop the stick and stop with the name-calling. You didn't. You're blocked.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Acroterion Thanks for reaching out. I don't think I did comment about MrOllie personally. I did specifically name policies from WP:Etiquette (assume good faith, discuss changes etc). What did I write about MrOllie personally? Mikemaccana (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally I have cited sources to support my edits. The edit we are discussing was removed my MrOllie on the basis that it was not relevant, not that it was not sourced. Hence my reply, and outreach to @mrollie explaining how the edit was relevant. Mikemaccana (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You specifically called his edits vandalism and speculated that they were motivated by malice. Disagreement is not vandalism, and the onus is on you convince other editors that your contributions are germane to the topic. You are also editing from a conflict of interest, and doing so disruptively. I have not reviewed the content dispute, nor will I, since administrators are not arbitrators of content. You are responsible for collaboratively discussing proposed changes, employing suggested sources that support your proposed changes.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I said @mrollie's actions constitute vandalism meet Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, and that MrOllie's actions do not meet wp:Etiquette, quoting both. This is not a personal accusation. I did question when someone else mentioned their actions were not malicious - but that's a matter of logic as no personal can ever know how another person's actions are motivated.
 * > You are responsible for collaboratively discussing proposed changes, employing suggested sources that support your proposed changes.
 * Completely agreed. My feeling is that having mentioned the rationale for the information's inclusion in the page history, and politely reaching out to the @mrollie on his talk page discussing the same and providing further evidence, a polite user that works collaborativly to others would gave responded rather than simply ignored discussion and deleted the information. Mikemaccana (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles: You have not mentioned anywhere I have made personal attacks against this user. If you have evidence, present it. "Between your edits leading to the AN/I". I re-added some relevant information that was relevant to a discussion, politely explaining how that information was relevant to a discussion. The information was then removed completely ignoring that discussion. WP:Etiquette says users should talk to each other. I discussed, MrOllie simply removed the additions without a response and then started a demonstrably false 1RR against me in retaliation (I've made 1 practical revision today - split into 1000 characters and 4 characters).

As I've mentioned:

> MrOllie's actions in this matter are very clearly a violation of good faith, etiquette, civility, being open to compromise, and being willing to discuss - you didn't attempt to respond to the reasoning given to you in two places - the edit history and your personal talk page - about how the information you deleted was relevant. Instead you just reverted the changes

This is against all the stated values on WP:Etiquette. I could happily "provide evidence in the form of WP:DIFFS to support your claims that MrOllie violated WP:Etiquette" but I've been banned before I can even reply! I don't have a 'stick' I simply wanted to try and fix the slander - maybe you should familiarize yourself with WP:Etiquette's concept of assuming good faith? That said yes, I will refrain from contributing to wikipedia. This has certainly been an awful experience.

Topic banned: General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
After a review of edits you have made since your return from a 13 year hiatus, I believe you have repeatedly failed to “adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process”, in particular NPOV. You are also repeatedly uncivil and pushing an agenda to promote something you disclose a COI over. Therefore, I am topic banning you from any edits to pages or content “related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed” under the community sanctions duly authorized. This restriction is indefinitely imposed until repealed by process outlined on the general sanctions page. Courcelles (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I have simply mentioned wikipedia policies MrOllie has violated, along with examples of how their behaviour violated those actions. Doing so is not uncivil. In this matter I followed General_sanctions and WP:Etiquette by reaching out to the user explaining the basis for the edits, and it was @mrollie did not follow General_sanctions and WP:Etiquette by ignoring the discussion, and reverting them.
 * I have previously asked you to provide evidence of anywhere I have made personal attacks against MrOllie, which you have been unable or unwilling to provide. I have been civil throughout this entire process, simply stating information that can be obtained by wikipedia policies and edit histories on the relevant pages. Mikemaccana (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, I suggest you examine the relevant pages and draw your own conclusion - wikipedia isn't here to promote anything, but it's not here to demote anything either. It wasn't me that added the 'Trump isn't notable or relevant' tag - it was another user, and many other people have the same concerns about the page being used in a non-neutral way to demote Solana as much as possible. Removing relevant information - like how many developers a developer platform has - and adding things like "someone that is disliked once used it" - is a step in the wrong direction. Mikemaccana (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * As an uninvolved admin, I endorse the WP:TBAN on Blockchain and crypto currencies. (Not that it was needed) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Why? User:Deepfriedokra Mikemaccana (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism accusation against MrOllie
Acroterion MrsSnoozyTurtle I am familiar with WP:Vandalism and have cited it - it seems very clear that MrOllie removing relevant information and readding malicious content, without engaging in discussion per WP:Etiquette and General_sanctions, obstructs or defeat the purpose of creating a free encyclopedia. I do understand what you mentioned in terms of "we must assume someone else's actions are not malicious" but it is very difficult to imagine someone would see a change stating why information is relevant and then take action to remove it without response.

Acroterion I know I need to cite published sources in reliable publications, not personal knowledge. I did not cite personal knowledge. Now was the reliability of the source the reason it was originally removed - rather it was MrOllie stating that he did not see how developer use was relevant to a blockchain platform.
 * You may be familiar with the page but you don't seem to understand it which didn't bode well for your future here. To be clear, accusing someone of vandalism is a personal attack unless there is actual evidence the editor has engaged in vandalism. As many experienced editors have already explained to you, there is zero evidence MrOllie's edits are vandalism. You continuing to insist it is will therefore just lead to you being blocked further so dropping that claim is an absolute bare minimum to continue editing anywhere here. Nil Einne (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * To be clear this also means you asking for evidence of personal attacks is silly since you've made further personal attacks right here after being blocked in this thread and others. Nil Einne (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne thanks for clarifying that accusing a user of vandalism is considered a personal attack. I have cited WP:Vandalism repeatedly, even on this page, and described how User:MrOllie's actions were deliberate were consistent with that definition in that they harmed wikipedia. No editor has responded to this. They have simply disagreed. If there is a flaw in my logic, state what it is, rather than simply telling me I am wrong without supporting evidence. Mikemaccana (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Others have already explained it to you, but there is no evidence that MrOllie's edits were a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia. Your inability to accept that another editor may in good faith disagree with you on what's best for the article doesn't change this instead it just reflects poorly on you as an editor. Part of editing here means accepting that sometimes others may disagree with your reasoning for an edit no matter how sound your feel your reason is or how well you feel it is supported by our policies and guidelines and rarely would it be considered vandalism. Nil Einne (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Others have already explained it to you" - no, they have disagreed. Repeating once again:
 * > I am familiar with WP:Vandalism and have cited it - it seems very clear that MrOllie removing relevant information and re-adding malicious content, without engaging in discussion per WP:Etiquette and Wikipedia:General_sanctions, obstructs or defeat the purpose of creating a free encyclopedia.
 * Not a single user has responded to that argument. There might be many rational explanations but one has not been provided.
 * Ultimately, all that has happened here is that:
 * an article has had significant relevant information removed
 * an article has had irrelevant information added for the purposes of demoting the topic
 * the above two have harmed wikipedia
 * the action of harming wikipedia was performed deliberately
 * familiarity with wikipedia tools and policies were used to enable this harm
 * General_sanctions and WP:Etiquette were ignored.
 * Mikemaccana (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've extended the block to a week, since despite explanations from at least four other editors, Mikemaccana hasn't yet stopped with the accusations that induced the block in the first place. This must stop. If it happens again, in any form, I will remove talkpage access.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Acroterion there have not been "explanations from at least four editors" about why User:MrOllie's behaviour does not constitute vandalism. Rather there has been a pile-on of other editors who seem intent on forcing me to disagree that the evidence provided in the page history and WP:Vandalism is somehow incorrect. I am not obliged to agree with you, particularly if you will not engage in discussion. Mikemaccana (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding again, for your own benefit, in case you wish to discuss:
 * > It seems very clear that MrOllie removing relevant information and re-adding malicious content, without engaging in discussion per WP:Etiquette and Wikipedia:General_sanctions, obstructs or defeat the purpose of creating a free encyclopedia. Mikemaccana (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As promised, talkpage access is revoked. If any of this recurs after the block expire, the next will be indefinite. You are expected to abide by community norms, which have been amply explained to you.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just an additional note that in any case, the question of whether MrOllie or any other editor has done anything wrong in any of those articles is no longer of concern to you, your topic ban ensures that. In so much as you were blocked over your unsupported claims, it may be technically correct that you can ask questions to help you understand why you were blocked including why your earlier characterisation was incorrect. But frankly you've already had it explained enough. And asking questions does not, and did not, require you to continually make unsupported allegations. Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne you are a wikipedia moderator: are not in a position to tell any other human being what they should or should not be concerned about. Mikemaccana (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what a "Wikipedia moderator" is, but I'm definitely not one. Also for clarity my point was it does not concern you as an editor. You can worry about it in your life in general if you want, it's no concern to me what do in your private life. But you are not entitled to discuss it anywhere on Wikipedia including this page as long as you are topic banned. If you aren't willing to accept that, then you will have to remain blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne I would define a wikipedia moderator as someone that moderates wikipedia. If you're definitely not one, I'm not sure why you're commenting here about moderation topics. I accept I am topic banned, blocked etc. - you clearly have the power to do this, so I have no choice to accept it. I don't understand on what basis Wikipedia moderators (let's call a spade a spade) would tell users to not be concerned about other users potentially violating wikipedia policies, including sanctioned topics, NPOV, etc. Mikemaccana (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again WTF is a Wikipedia moderator? There is no such thing. Any editor in good standing is allowed to discuss sanctions and proposed sanctions against another editor (or anything else that is on topic to Wikipedia), it's a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia. Even if the extremely abnormal case of arbcom proceedings and contentious topics i.e. the two examples of where certain other editors have special powers which do not apply to other editors and where consensus among regular editors isn't required or expected, it's something still allowed (albeit with restrictions on length and stronger enforcement of staying on topic). So of course it's even more so in the case in any normal area where no editor has any special powers and where consensus is expected. (Special tools, sure.) If you want any chance to be able to edit here, your history suggests you need to learn the basics of how Wikipedia operates which includes not making such fundamental mistakes about how Wikipedia operates. As long as you continue to believe nonsense about Wikipedia moderators, no wonder you have no chance of understanding other fundamentals. Nil Einne (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please use respectful language when interacting with others on Wikipedia. Swearing at people you're writing to and telling someone that isn't familiar with the inner working of wikipedia that they 'continue to believe nonsense' - even if you do think calling people that moderate the site 'moderators' is nonsense. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Mikemaccana (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Acroterion My understanding is Wikipedia's policies remain in place, including WP:Vandalism, WP:Attack, WP:Etiquette, and WP:GS. You have given me no reason to believe that @mrollie has an exception to these policies, not have you provided any explanation for why his behaviour does not fall under what is described in these policies. Repeating that "norms have been explained to me" will not change this, nor will further retaliatory behaviour towards those that have pointed out instances where these polcicies have not been followed. Mikemaccana (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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:.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Since you insist on abusing WIkipedia for vendettas against other editors, I've reinstated your block, this time for an indefinite term. Nobody but you thinks MrOllie was acting improperly, and you've been repeatedly advised of that. It does not appear to me that you are able to collaboratively contribute to this project.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * > Nobody but you thinks MrOllie was acting improperly, and you've been repeatedly advised of that.
 * This is patently untrue as most of the dialogue on this person's edits outside Wikipedia shows. Rather you mean that other other moderators are not willing to explore whether a moderator is breaking Wikipedia policies. I expected a retaliatory ban, rather than any meaningful engagement, thank you for meeting expectations. Mikemaccana (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It's up to you to convince an administrator that the block is unjustified. I don't think it is, but my opinion is not the final word. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Sam Kuru Thanks for responding quickly. The topic ban was laid out for the reasons I am disputing above: there is no evidence of any personal attack on MrOllie because no personal attacks were made, and raising concerns about potential policy violations against a user does not constitute a personal attack.

The complaints I bought against this user are that his edits to the Solana Wikipedia page - adding a section about the use of Solana by an unpopular individual (Melania Trump) to the introduction of the page violated:

1. NPOV. Wikipedia is not an attack site. There are many well known individuals and organisations using Solana, including citable references, focusing on a single controversial user in the introduction of the topic seems biased.

2. Edits should be encyclopaedic. Melania Trump is not a significant aspect of Solana.

3. Sanctions. A sanction applied to this page at the time, where edits to the page should have been discussed with others first. When I removed the non-encyclopedic content, I communicated why it was being removed, and I added a note to the page to discuss potentially re-adding the 'Melania Trump' content if MrOllie considered it needed to be re-added. Conversely, after I added stats about developer use of the blockchain, MrOllie removed them questioning their relevance, My own re-add, per the policy, calmly and politely explained how developer statistics are relevant to a blockchain platform. I followed the sanction rules, the user I raised the complaints about did not.

4. Not getting into edit wars. To his credit while MrOllie was re-adding non-encyclopedic content to the page in violation of 1, 2 and 3, he did not do this in the compressed amount of time to qualify as partaking in an edit war. I accept MrOllie's actions here do not constitute an edit was as defined by Wikipedia as the re-edits were made slowly, and thus this policy does not apply.

1, 2 and 3 weren't investigated, when I raised them I was blocked before I could respond. There is evidence of all the above on the dispute page I raised after MrOllie made the edit in question.

5. Vandalism is a wikipedia policy, rather than a personal attack. Vandalism is defined as "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" It's hard for the wikipedia policy to apply here as nobody can know the motivations of another individual, but I would say that it's reasonable to believe that adding tabloid-style attack content to the introduction of a topic constitutes vandalism. I'm not sure what other motivation there would be.