An anonymous user with the IP 184.108.40.206 - profile located here - appears to be blocked user Dibol attempting to circumvent his block. He is engaging in the same types of edits that remove neccessary content from pages, many of which are reversions that undid my edits restoring the content he removed.
Uh, what is considered "necessary" as far as manual of style of entry is concerned? The only things I removed were superfluous words, parentheses, and do we really need to know that the actors are playing fictional relatives in the context of the wiki? The way you worded it sounds like I'm deleting entire pages of content.
Those are not superfluous words and parentheses. The latter is grammatically correct, the former is necessary for context. We really need to know that the actors are playing fictional relatives in the context of the wiki because that is what the original website did and that gives further context to readers towards the weight of the death scenes. I said you are removing necessary content from pages and that's exactly what you are doing. More importantly, you are attempting to circumvent your block. You were blocked for these types of edits. You are not allowed to still be editing the wiki.
No amount of social engineering on your part makes you in the right on this, veteran editor or not. Arbino should make the policy clear in writing to avoid future edit wars like this. What I have seen from your behavior is if you tend to be revert happy just because the good-faith edits don't "look right" to you.
There is no "social engineering" here. Basic grammar does need a clear policy - the parentheses exist for sidenotes and deaths occurring off-screen is a side note. Context, which helps readers understand what's before them, doesn't need a clear policy. You broke the rules, were blocked for continuing to break the rules after you were warned, and are further breaking the rules by continuing to edit under a different profile after you were blocked from editing. Edits that you were warned against making are not good-faith edits. All edits that break the rules will be reverted. You are breaking the rules by continuing to make edits when you're not allowed to do so. And trying to circumvent a block definitely does not make you in the right on this.
How can I "break the rules" if they were never clear to begin with? All I have seen from you is remove the good faith edits that look like it's "just for kicks," which is why you were treated with hostility.
Basic grammar and basic context are clear to begin with. You were also warned about breaking the rules, yet you continued to make the same edits. When you are told your edits break the rules, but continue to make them, those are not good-faith edits. Those are you making edits in blatant disregard of what you are not allowed to do. Your edits are removed for breaking the rules after repeated warnings. You ignore the warnings and respond to the warnings with hostility, which is why you were blocked. If you listen to the warnings, you would still be allowed to edit here.