Yrstruly

Edit War Warning

Your recent editing history at Article 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—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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Alephb (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  - Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:29, 7 January 2018 (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. Alephb (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yrstruly (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand that there is a three revert limit and I have exceeded it. It was unfortunate but necessary. I posted a well-sourced, cogently worded contribution to the Joshua article about the significance of inscriptions transcribed by Procopius. This information was deleted immediately and repeatedly. I appealed each time to go to the Talk Page and to present a case if there was one. User AlephB responded with what amounted to intimidation (e.g. there is a vast academic consensus against you...; you are only one against many; you are "cherry picking" etc. The user claims to have "oodles" of evidence, and yet refuses to present a shred of it. I notice now that another alias -- Beauty School Dropout -- has now reverted another three times in one minute -- nose snubbing I suppose! Anyhow this is my case. Please let me know. I would like to believe that Wikipedia is committed to the diffusion of knowledge rather than the suppression of it.

Decline reason:

Only one unblock request is needed. Multiple requests will not make this progress any faster. SQL^{Query me!} 07:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am being accused of engaging in intimidation and of refusing to present evidence. I haven't refused to present evidence -- I simply stopped discussing once the other user was blocked. It seemed, unsporting, I guess, to carry on a conversation with someone who was not allowed to respond. If I have said anything that amounts to indimidation, I'd like to see it quoted here. Alephb (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yrstruly (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

At the talk page I made a simple request inviting others to present sourced evidence prior to engaging in an edit war. The response I got from Alephb was "the views of tiny minorities are not supposed to be given equal treatment with majority views on Wikipedia. We have oodles of citations which confirm that the majority opinion sees Joshua as essentially not historical..... unless you can show us a reliable scholarly work that supports Frendo's work, by someone who is still breathing, Frendo is completely alone in his creative theory about Procopius....you have cherry-picked here." Rather than actually presenting sources/material to support a case, the user lectured as if representing US against you -- clearly an intimidation tactic.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The "oodles of citations" are in the article itself, in a section helpfully titled "historicity." I had assumed that you read the section, or at least skimmed it, before editing. I did not realize that you expected me to copy-paste the citations from the article into the talk page. Oh well.

As for "intimidation," thank you for quoting me directly. I'll leave it to others to judge for themselves whether your selected fragments from my broader comment show signs of "clearly an intimidation tactice." Alephb (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Consecutive reverts count as one revert. No “nose-thumbing” there. Doug Weller talk 08:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I am troubled by your statement "It was unfortunate but necessary", which seems to indicate that given the chance you would continue the edit war. This content dispute does not appear to fall under any policy exceptions listed at WP:NOT3RR. The notice given before your final revert which triggered the block had provided links to both the WP:BRD cycle, as well as the dispute resolution tools at WP:DR. I encourage you to use the time during the block to become more familiar with the guidance provided at each of those pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)