"
According to your logic, reverting vandalism would be disruptive too, and should lead to blocking.  I think the problem here is that, like many admins, you barely contribute to Wikipedia, and care little about its content.  You are mainly a janitor and policeman, and tend to develop a janitor's and a policeman's attitude.  It is an issue of systemic bias.  Ordinary users tend to have an editor's attitude, i.e. their priority is making articles as good as possible, and not accept other people's bad edits.

Your mention of discussion on talk pages is fantasy.  Oh, I do of course discuss matters on talk pages at great length (look at this for example), but I am under no illusions that people like you or Eiorgiomugini will be swayed by any amount of logical argument.  At the end of the day, the only way that editors can make sure that articles have good content and not bad content is by inserting good content and removing bad content.  This is my observation after long examination of Wikipedia.

In the specific case of me versus Eiorgio, your mention of discussion is also a straw man because you are trying to imply that I only discussed in the edit summaries.  In reality, I tried to reason with him on his talk page, but he simply deleted all my comments, showing he had no interest in debating it.

Your mention of sockpuppetry is fantasy and a straw man.  Please do not introduce irrelevant, insulting concepts into the discussion.  With as much validity, I could warn you to make sure that Tawker is not your (good-cop/bad-cop) sockpuppet.

Since you enjoy linking to policy with which I am in most cases more familiar than you, have a look at WP:SOCK, WP:3RR, WP:DICK and a few more. —  ✉ "