User talk:COD T 3

I've reported you

See here: [1].Faustian (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello COD T 3. If you wish, you may respond at WP:AN3#User:COD T 3 reported by User:Faustian (Result: ) and explain why you should not be blocked for edit warring. The report about your behavior by User:Faustian seems persuasive. This article is under WP:ARBEE, so admins are not likely to put up with this kind of a dispute much longer. Since you have reverted more than anyone else since August 1, blocking you appears to be the simplest solution. If you will agree to behave differently in the future that fact might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is underway at WP:AE concerning the edit warring. Please take a look, although you are currently blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Blue Army (Poland)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Blue Army (Poland). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

The full report is at WP:AN3#User:COD T 3 reported by User:Faustian (Result: 48 hours). EdJohnston (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

COD T 3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to alert the admin that the other party involved in the dispute also guilt of the 3 revert rule, is taking advantage of my block to re add the disputed material for the 4th time. I only would like to write a short statement to alert the admin involved in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement that this is happening right now. COD T 3 (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually added another user's edit, not my own, that included links, and I waited about 36 hours before editing: [2]. I did not add a lot of other material that I had added, and that this user had deleted, and do not plan on doing so at this time.Faustian (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still would like to alert the admin EdJohnston that you are inserting this disputed statement at the very moment a Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is taking place. That statement was being discussed on the Talk Page and you and that other user just re-added it with no explanation. --COD T 3 (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proof that user Faustian if violating edit warring rule:

12:14, 4 August 2014‎ Faustian 32,850 bytes +578) . . restored last version of User:Alex Bakharev and incorporated subsequent edit by User:John

I was not asked to refrain from editing this article at this time and if I was asked to do so by an uninvolved admin, I would comply. I waited over 36 hours before editing. Also, I chose to limit myself to only adding someone else's edit (that you had reverted) while also keeping a third person's edit. I'm not restoring a lot of other reliably sourced info you've been removing, that I had added. Only your reversion of someone else's edit. Faustian (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, can you stop writing in my Unblock Request… what the heck is your malfunction? You don't have to explain yourself to me tell it to the Admin. --COD T 3 (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User Faustian continuing to re-add the disputed statement and edit warring 12:14, 4 August 2014

Hello, Robert McClenon and EdJohnston as the two admins involved in this case, I would like to inform you that the other party involved in the dispute (who is also guilty of the 3 Reverts rule, though not blocked as myself in my case), is taking advantage of my block to re-add the disputed material form the Encyclopedia Judaica using the same Wikipedia editorial voice for the 4th time.

Proof that user Faustian if violating edit warring rule:

12:14, 4 August 2014‎ Faustian 32,850 bytes (+578) . . restored last version of User:Alex Bakharev and incorporated subsequent edit by User:John

I don't think that this is appropriate, as it creates confusion in regards to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement process underway, but also is an example of edit warring. The discussion regarding the statement was not over and as before user Faustin just re-adds the text without gaining a consensus. --COD T 3 (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Few people were involved there, but two different editors added the statement and you are the only one who reverted it. If there is any consensus, it is to keep the statement, and you are violating it by edit warring against two other editors.Faustian (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faustian, you can explain this to the admin if they contact you directly, I'm not interested in your explanation. There is an discussion on the talk page about that statement that you and that other user disregarded by re-adding that one claim you first inserted. --COD T 3 (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]