User talk:Histrange

Your recent editing history at Bain family murders 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 article's 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.-gadfium 21:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI investigation[edit]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turtletop AIRcorn (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this account as the edits it has been making are essentially the same as those of Offender9000 (talk · contribs) and his various alternate accounts. In particular:

Edits misrepresenting the minister Judith Collins: [1] (the source states that the lawyer for Mr Bain made this claim, yet it is presented as a fact), [2] (claims of a "spat" not really supported by the source, and the second source is an editorial)
Extensive editing concerning the cost of the trial which is similar to Offender's editing record on this topic [3]
Referencing obscure police reports apparently hosted on an obscure website [4] (the quote here doesn't appear in the news story)

All of this conduct is standard practice for Offender9000, and the material added through these edits is in line with the types of content Offender9000 has added (eg, that the NZ justice system is terribly flawed, that Judith Collins acts maliciously, etc). Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]