380:] This article has a banner at the top stating there is an issue with balance. An editor removed a long standing part of the introduction which further created problems with balance. It had not been discussed on the Talk Page. Am I not entitled to revert such a major and controversial edit?" Yet I got no reply; only a message telling me I'd been indefinitely blocked. Blocked for what? For asking when I can and cannot revert an edit. An edit that was done without having achieved a consensus! Please could somebody independently look at this. I didn't even do any editing on Knowledge (XXG) yesterday. All I did was ONE legitimate revert the day before.
119:
784:
289:
22:
225:
801:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see
734:
You are wikilawyering here and its unlikely to get a positive response. I've seen a lot of people getting banned by arguing detail when the overall behavioural pattern is seen as problematic. Thats where you are so accepting a self ban on reverts and mentoring is (in my opinion) one of the few ways
77:
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
591:
was made while you were already under notice for edit warring, and without you having made any response to the noticeboard complaint. You seem to feel that your confidence that you are right is enough to justify making any number of reverts, with no reference to the opinions of others. Your block
199:] This article has a banner at the top stating there is an issue with balance. An editor removed a long standing part of the introduction which further created problems with balance. It had not been discussed on the Talk Page. Am I not entitled to revert such a major and controversial edit?
633:
Just an idea - agree a voluntary bad on any reverts for three months as a gesture of good behaviour. Agree to propose them on the talk page and allow other editors to act (or not to act). I'm sure a few of us would be happy to mentor you if Ed would buy into that as a solution.
596:
policy. For example, "Am I not entitled to revert such a major and controversial edit?" In this case, no you are not. You are expected to wait for consensus. By this time, your ignorance of the edit warring policy doesn't deserve much sympathy.
571:
I am sincerely sorry that I keep getting things wrong. I find knowing when to revert and when not to such a minefield. I regularly have edits reverted, so didn't realise the danger of reverting. Please could you reconsider this ban. Thank you
592:
might be lifted if we were sure you would behave differently in the future, but after six previous blocks your credibility is low. In your above unblock request you ask questions that could easily be answered if you had read the
495:
Shouldn't you have explained this when I asked what I'm entitled to do and what I'm not; instead of blocking me in spite of me having done NO further edits. I'd only asked for help. I did no more edits, yet I was blocked.
560:
At 15:48, 17 September 2018 you then said on my Talk Page (above) "You've continued to revert the article while making no response... You have a chance to avoid this if you will promise to change your approach. Thank
703:
I can see what I've been doing wrong all along. I had thought that controversial edits could be reverted regardless of the number of them. I can't believe how stupid I've been by not being fully aware of the
532:
Apologies for keep getting things wrong. I'm not always able to respond quickly (due to work) and I made a deliberate decision to not do any more edits or reverts precisely because of the warning.
567:
At 03:17, 18 September 2018 I was suddenly blocked even though I HAD made a response, I had asked about reverts and I had done NO more edits at all. I honestly thought I had done what was needed.
564:
At 18:39, 17 September 2018 I DID indeed respond stating "Can you tell me what on earth I am entitled to do and what I'm not... Am I not entitled to revert such a major and controversial edit?"
518:
and were given a chance to answer it, but you didn't do so. At any point in this process you could have stopped and asked for advice. You are not a beginner at this edit warring business.
123:
453:
It is hard to see how some of those were reverts not covered by (for example) BLP. Moreover it is hard to see how making one edit well after 24 hours if an edit war breach.
97:
I'm not involved in an edit war. I'm involved in protecting an article. Editors are entitled to revert edits. Especially edits that have not been discussed and agreed.
171:
You've continued to revert the article while making no response. Study of your block log shows a lot of past problems including a six month block, suggesting you were
445:
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.
470:#7 explains what reverts are exceptions under the BLP policy. Unsourced defamation is an example. The reverts in question here were mostly in the area of
474:
where all the information is sourced but editor consensus is required to determine if a balanced summary is being provided. Reverting in the service of
329:
813:
536:
You've stated that "At any point in this process you could have stopped and asked for advice." Please would you look again at the sequence of events.
611:
So the block was for the edit whilst I was under notice for edit warring. Sorry, I didn't realise it was as serious as this. Apologies once again.
45:
36:. 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
430:
246:
270:
150:
29:
324:
37:
555:
At 15:36, 17 September 2018 you said "I'm planning to issue one final warning, and if no response, will consider an indef block."
418:
53:
797:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a
57:
802:
798:
410:
closely; I would advise any future unblock request to have some sort of pledge such as a self-imposed 1RR restriction.
302:
238:
233:
65:
296:
343:
301:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
154:
593:
127:
70:
49:
33:
793:
458:
48:
for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant
41:
122:
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
602:
523:
483:
416:
278:
184:
162:
172:
406:. What do I see? Revert, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert. You need to look at our
467:
760:
709:
664:
612:
573:
497:
454:
381:
307:
200:
135:
98:
87:
273:. As explained above, this is a long term problem and there is not much hope for the future.
439:
252:
705:
515:
475:
471:
146:
821:
694:
598:
533:
519:
492:
479:
411:
375:
274:
194:
180:
179:. You have a chance to avoid this if you will promise to change your approach. Thank you,
158:
700:
407:
74:
374:
I wrote yesterday "Can you tell me what on earth I am entitled to do and what I'm not
242:
from editing for Long term pattern of edit warring. No understanding of consensus.
478:
is not excused from revert-counting under 3RR; you still need to wait for consensus.
755:
736:
658:
635:
511:
131:
83:
663:. I'm wary of putting in another appeal. I don't want to cause any more trouble.
82:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly..
44:
among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See
21:
817:
549:
At 15:02, 17 September 2018 I did my very last edit and made no more edits.
825:
768:
741:
717:
672:
640:
620:
606:
581:
527:
505:
487:
462:
420:
389:
282:
224:
208:
188:
166:
139:
106:
91:
245:
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
552:
Indeed this edit still stands; it was even reinstated by another editor.
249:, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:
157:
and promise to wait for consensus before editing the article again.
193:
Can you tell me what on earth I am entitled to do and what I'm not
514:, yet you kept on reverting. You were told about the complaint at
73:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
126:
regarding a possible violation of
Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on
782:
287:
223:
20:
427:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
269:. The most recent article where you have been warring is
447:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
124:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
588:
556:
550:
403:
357:
353:
347:
338:
334:
320:
316:
312:
266:
176:
64:
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being
295:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
177:
I've proposed you should now be indefinitely blocked
56:. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary
812:will be deleted after seven days, as described in
40:to work toward making a version that represents
80:even if you don't violate the three-revert rule
814:section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion
808:Note that any non-free images not used in any
779:Orphaned non-free image File:CR76 Summer15.jpg
153:. It might be in your interest to respond to
113:Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
8:
267:a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard
32:shows that you are currently engaged in an
510:You were warned above for edit warring by
402:I looked at your mainspace contributions
589:article edit of 15:02 on 17 September
7:
271:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party
151:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party
30:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party
14:
219:Long term pattern of edit warring
117:
708:. Rather embarrassed actually.
69:—especially if you violate the
28:Your recent editing history at
769:20:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
742:20:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
718:19:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
673:19:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
641:17:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
621:18:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
607:18:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
582:18:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
528:16:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
506:16:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
488:12:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
463:09:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
421:13:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
390:08:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
283:03:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
209:18:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
189:15:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
167:03:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
140:08:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
107:07:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
92:06:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
1:
803:our policy for non-free media
826:18:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
754:Okay thanks for the advice.
378:. I did ONE revert today.
299:, who declined the request.
197:. I did ONE revert today.
841:
783:
431:guide to appealing blocks
247:guide to appealing blocks
764:
713:
668:
616:
577:
501:
385:
204:
102:
794:File:CR76 Summer15.jpg
788:
292:
228:
25:
791:Thanks for uploading
786:
701:edit warring policies
408:edit warring policies
344:change block settings
291:
257:Your reason here ~~~~
227:
24:
145:You may have broken
66:blocked from editing
789:
699:. Having now read
293:
229:
54:dispute resolution
26:
799:claim of fair use
155:the AN3 complaint
71:three-revert rule
832:
785:
444:
438:
363:
361:
350:
332:
330:deleted contribs
290:
260:
130:. Thank you.
121:
120:
840:
839:
835:
834:
833:
831:
830:
829:
816:. Thank you. --
781:
594:WP:Edit warring
450:
442:
436:
435:, then use the
424:
393:
351:
341:
327:
310:
303:blocking policy
288:
263:
262:
250:
243:
221:
118:
115:
58:page protection
19:
12:
11:
5:
838:
836:
780:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
747:
746:
745:
744:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
626:
625:
624:
623:
569:
568:
565:
562:
558:
553:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
425:
400:
396:Decline reason
372:
368:Request reason
365:
286:
244:
231:You have been
230:
222:
220:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
114:
111:
110:
109:
18:
17:September 2018
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
837:
828:
827:
823:
819:
815:
811:
806:
804:
800:
796:
795:
778:
770:
766:
762:
759:
758:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
743:
740:
739:
735:forward -----
733:
732:
731:
730:
719:
715:
711:
707:
702:
698:
697:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
674:
670:
666:
662:
661:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
642:
639:
638:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
622:
618:
614:
610:
609:
608:
604:
600:
595:
590:
586:
585:
584:
583:
579:
575:
566:
563:
559:
557:
554:
551:
548:
547:
535:
531:
530:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
508:
507:
503:
499:
494:
491:
490:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
466:
465:
464:
460:
456:
452:
451:
449:
448:
441:
434:
432:
423:
422:
419:
417:
415:
414:
409:
405:
399:
397:
392:
391:
387:
383:
379:
377:
371:
369:
364:
359:
355:
349:
345:
340:
336:
331:
326:
322:
321:global blocks
318:
317:active blocks
314:
309:
304:
300:
298:
297:administrator
285:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
258:
254:
248:
241:
240:
236:
235:
226:
218:
210:
206:
202:
198:
196:
192:
191:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
169:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
143:
142:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
112:
108:
104:
100:
96:
95:
94:
93:
89:
85:
81:
76:
72:
68:
67:
61:
59:
55:
51:
47:
43:
39:
35:
31:
23:
16:
809:
807:
792:
790:
761:Garageland66
756:
737:
710:Garageland66
695:
665:Garageland66
659:
636:
613:Garageland66
574:Garageland66
570:
512:User:Icewhiz
498:Garageland66
455:Slatersteven
446:
428:
426:
412:
401:
395:
394:
382:Garageland66
373:
367:
366:
339:creation log
308:Garageland66
306:
294:
264:
256:
239:indefinitely
237:
232:
201:Garageland66
128:edit warring
116:
99:Garageland66
79:
63:
62:
27:
50:noticeboard
696:Ritchie333
693:Thank you
657:Thank you
599:EdJohnston
534:EdJohnston
520:EdJohnston
493:EdJohnston
480:EdJohnston
413:Ritchie333
376:EdJohnston
335:filter log
275:EdJohnston
195:EdJohnston
181:EdJohnston
173:WP:NOTHERE
159:EdJohnston
429:read the
354:checkuser
313:block log
42:consensus
38:talk page
810:articles
468:WP:3RRNO
325:contribs
255:|reason=
78:warring—
52:or seek
34:edit war
757:Snowded
738:Snowded
660:Snowded
637:Snowded
440:unblock
348:unblock
253:unblock
234:blocked
132:Icewhiz
84:Icewhiz
75:reverts
706:WP:3RR
516:WP:AN3
476:WP:DUE
472:WP:DUE
147:WP:3RR
818:B-bot
634:-----
587:Your
561:you,"
433:first
822:talk
765:talk
714:talk
669:talk
617:talk
603:talk
578:talk
524:talk
502:talk
484:talk
459:talk
404:here
386:talk
279:talk
265:Per
205:talk
185:talk
163:talk
136:talk
103:talk
88:talk
805:).
358:log
305:).
149:at
60:.
46:BRD
824:)
767:)
716:)
671:)
619:)
605:)
580:)
526:)
504:)
486:)
461:)
443:}}
437:{{
398::
388:)
370::
352:•
346:•
342:•
337:•
333:•
328:•
323:•
319:•
315:•
281:)
261:.
259:}}
251:{{
207:)
187:)
175:.
165:)
138:)
105:)
90:)
820:(
787:⚠
763:(
712:(
667:(
615:(
601:(
576:(
522:(
500:(
482:(
457:(
384:(
362:)
360:)
356:(
311:(
277:(
203:(
183:(
161:(
134:(
101:(
86:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
