This is hilarious:
I have been blocked before for edit warning with only two reverts. Why? Because it's apparently about "intent". I guess that part doesn't apply to admins.No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.
Now contrast this with how normal people are treated: https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2022/08/b ... pedia.htmlI don't care if was the "wisest" course of action; it clearly was the right action though. As clear and unambiguous a case of enforcing policy as preventing a copyright violation or an NFC breach. There simply cannot be a legitimate disagreement among good-faith Wikipedians whether it is legitimate to spam hundreds of user talkpages with political messages of opinion. It simply isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
FP was endorsed by none other than... Bbb23:
...who was the same admin who blocked the person in the linked article for:I endorse FP's actions. He said he was acting administratively, so I don't see how full protection makes him involved. More importantly, the project should not use Wikipedia resources to express opinions about controversial figures. They can report on things that affect their project, including the death of Bill Graham and the blurb posted to ITN, but they can't characterize Graham's legacy. It may not be in an article, but it's out of line, nonetheless.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Good job, sire. Good job.Disruptive editing, including edit-warring, refusal to collaborate with other editors, claiming that scientific articles can only be edited by experts, e.g., the user
It eventually went to ArbCom. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ator_Tools
