| Revision as of 05:43, 2 July 2014 editMelbourneStar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers82,993 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Paul Keating. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:43, 2 July 2014 edit undo190.44.133.67 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| One more revert on Keating and you'll get blocked, and for a much longer period. ] (]) 05:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | One more revert on Keating and you'll get blocked, and for a much longer period. ] (]) 05:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :I trust you're having fun being pointlessly dickheaded. ] (]) 05:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == July 2014 == | == July 2014 == | ||
Revision as of 05:43, 2 July 2014
Edit warring
Please read WP:BRD: whie one of your Bold edits is Reverted, you Discuss, not edit war: please do so. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Don't confuse an essay with policy, and stop reverting for no reason. 190.44.133.67 (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not edit warring is a policy, so stop. I am not reverting for no reason: there is a reason. - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- If there is a reason, then put it in edit summaries, and give it on the talk page. 190.44.133.67 (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've given it to you already in the summaries, if you don't understand it (or if you can't grasp why your edit warring is wrong), then perhaps you should find a new hobby, rather than being a pain? - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, you haven't given any reason. And learn to indent. 190.44.133.67 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've given it to you already in the summaries, if you don't understand it (or if you can't grasp why your edit warring is wrong), then perhaps you should find a new hobby, rather than being a pain? - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- If there is a reason, then put it in edit summaries, and give it on the talk page. 190.44.133.67 (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not edit warring is a policy, so stop. I am not reverting for no reason: there is a reason. - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
{{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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
190.44.133.67 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I had, in fact, reverted to the previous version of the article to avoid breaking the 3RR and prolonging the edit war. 190.44.133.67 (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unambiguous edit warring. --jpgordon 16:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
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.
- I think you are trying to game the system here. Regardless of the legitimacy of your stance you tried to force the exact same edit through four times, while User:SchroCat forced it out four times. However, you think you should be unblocked on a technicality simply because you made the first edit, which doesn't count as a "revert" and presumably SchroCat stays blocked because his first edit does count as a revert? I don't think that is very fair. Since you did re-revert in your last edit I do actually believe this block is no longer necessary as a preventative measure so I would support your unblock request here, but only if the other editor is unblocked too, and on the condition you agree to get a consensus on the talk page before altering the wording again. Betty Logan (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's hardly a technicality that an edit only counts as a revert if it's a revert. 190.44.133.67 (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's a technicality because your behavior was essentially identical, regardless of what you call the first edit: you both installed your preferred versions four times over. That is why the 3RR rule doesn't just prohibit four "reverts", it also prohibits "edit-warring". It makes provisions for an admin to assess your conduct in a behavioral capacity. The fact is this dispute can't be resolved while one of you is blocked so there isn't much point in unblocking only one of you. Betty Logan (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Identical? No. I explained the edit I made, and I acted to try to stop the edit war. SchroCat never gave any reason for reverting - he seemed to be reverting just for the sake of it, which is tantamount to vandalism. He also left personal attacks and removed the link to the AN discussion that I left on his talk page. 190.44.133.67 (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's a technicality because your behavior was essentially identical, regardless of what you call the first edit: you both installed your preferred versions four times over. That is why the 3RR rule doesn't just prohibit four "reverts", it also prohibits "edit-warring". It makes provisions for an admin to assess your conduct in a behavioral capacity. The fact is this dispute can't be resolved while one of you is blocked so there isn't much point in unblocking only one of you. Betty Logan (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
190.44.133.67 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It looks like you didn't understand and your "review" does not make any mention of what I said, so I'll repeat. I had, in fact, reverted to the previous version of the article to avoid breaking the 3RR and prolonging the edit war. 190.44.133.67 (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It's totally irrelevant whether or not you broke the so-called "three revert rule", as you were blocked for edit warring, not for breaking the "three revert rule". You were edit warring, and were blocked for edit warring, and there is no reason to unblock. (Also, it is totally disingenuous to pretend that your revert was aimed to stop the edit war: your edit summary when you reverted said "just temporarily", making it abundantly clear that you fully intended to continue the edit war. Every indication is that you were trying to game the system by avoiding breaking the "three revert rule", because for some obscure reason, like an amazing number of other editors, you thought that if you didn't break that "rule" then you couldn't be blocked, even though you were edit warring.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
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.
- Fine. See you on the next IP, and you can obviously expect a less collegial approach from me in future. 190.44.133.67 (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
One more revert on Keating and you'll get blocked, and for a much longer period. Timeshift (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- I trust you're having fun being pointlessly dickheaded. 190.44.133.67 (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
July 2014
Your recent editing history at Paul Keating shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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.
You have been asked to discuss the removal of content (which to your credit, you are doing) and further gain consensus to have the content removed. —MelbourneStar☆ 05:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)