661:
differently? the remaining 3 reverts (1-3) I do not dispute, but they are all good faith attempts to take the discussion to the talk page. And I repeat, the other editor involved made 4 clear reverts in 24 hours and 12 minutes; it seems inconsistent to make an issue of my reverts while not addressing his. If it helps, I will avoid editing the article itself, but I would like to put my side of the debate on the talk page, to counter the statements that are being made there.
160:. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant - it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point.
305:
574:
370:
792:
836:
459:
as a revert, becaue I wasn’t undoing anything, but attempting to identify common ground). If you look at the page, you will see that a discussion was taking place on the talk page during the period in question, and that my reverts were directed solely at trying to maintain a tag around some disputed
528:
I invite reviewers of the block to check these five edits, all of which modify the article to defend
Thunderbird2's position in the binary vs. decimal controversy. The third of these is the one he is questioning above. Though it continues to change the article to support his position in the dispute,
29:
It is resolved, as shown in the talk page archive. Your point of view is shown to be weak and you did not support it with any valid argument. "Resolved" does not mean "what
Thunderbird2 wants". The problem was discussed openly and civily, you failed to answer questions and you then continued to use
660:
5 is not a revert because I was just flagging a piece of (previously existing) text as dubious; I did not see #4 as a revert when I made the edit, and I find it hard to see why it is interpreted as such now – I was simply rewording the text to make it more neutral – can you explain why you see it
484:- "If someone challenges your edits, discuss it with them and seek a compromise, or seek dispute resolution. Don't just fight over competing views and versions". The place to identify common ground and seek consensus is on the talk page of the article - not on the article itself —
176:
Disruptive editors may seek to disguise their behavior as productive editing, yet distinctive traits separate them from productive editors. When discussion fails to resolve the problem and when an impartial consensus of editors from outside a disputed page agree (through
673:
Unless I'm mistaken, you've made the exact same edit 4 times. Since you are the one being reverted, I suppose you technically did not "revert more than 3 times", but this is still edit warring. I would suggest you address this in any further unblock requests.
49:
knowing full well it is archived. This is disruptive editing and you can be blocked for it, do not continue to edit this case page or the talk page. I have reverted your edits and so you are in no doubt there is now a talk archive template there as well.
871:
were made after the case has been closed. Do not edit case pages after the case has been closed. I have corrected the page by removing your edits and restoring it to the last correct version at the point when the case was closed.
479:
is not an entitlement to revert up to 3 times but an absolute limit that should not be crossed. In general the limit should never be approached—revert wars are harmful to the encyclopedia. You would do well to heed the line from
167:
Knowledge is a collaborative writing environment where chaos would reign supreme if 1) editors didn’t follow the rules, and 2) there were no remedies for editors who refuse to follow the rules. Note also, the following from
263:
I always treat other editors with respect, and to suggest otherwise is a bit rich coming from you. I do not wish to discuss your accusation further on my page. If you have anything further to say, please do so
464:
made 4 reverts in a period of 24 hours and 12 minutes between 12:57 on 10 August and 13:09 on 11 August. Gamesmanship? I am not saying that excuses my reverts, but that I made only 3 of them
153:, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and disruptive editing upon the erroneous statement to make a point.
142:
136:
283:
Yes
Thunderbird2 your changes are dispruptive. Please stop posting your version of events all over the place because your interpretation is not consistent with the evidence presented.
939:
Thunderbird2 this is another warning that you stop repeating misrepresentation and making personal attacks against me because when you do so it is unwarranted harassment.
918:
Thunderbird2 this is another warning that you stop repeating misrepresentation and making personal attacks against me because when you do so it is unwarranted harassment.
840:
198:
753:
859:
and keep this in mind while editing. Note that you keep on repeating false accusations about other editors instead of tackling their arguments and that is ad hominem.
856:
809:
805:
716:
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.
516:
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.
46:
Thunderbird2, you know the case is closed and archived and since your edits to the main page were correctly reverted you then continue to edit the talk page
892:
265:
221:
614:
410:
82:
while giving a completely incorrect edit summary and despite earlier warnings given directly to you not to edit closed RfCs you continued to do so.
78:. Obviously the RfC was closed and archived a long time before your latest attempt to edit it. You then edited the page to remove the talk archive
529:
it is arguable that it may not be a revert. Even if you discount that one, there are still four reverts in 24 hours, according to my calculation:
182:
868:
701:
501:
609:
405:
460:
text. (the proof that the text was indeed disputed is on the talk page). While you are visiting the page, you will also see that
851:, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to
242:
If you adhere to the requirements of MOSNUM and treat other editors as you would have them treat you, then there is no problem.
190:
149:
In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited,
333:
178:
455:
I confess I was not keeping track of my reverts, but I have gone back at the page history and can see only 3. (I don’t see
844:
132:
976:
948:
927:
907:
885:
821:
773:
745:
691:
567:
491:
363:
292:
277:
255:
233:
214:
186:
169:
107:
91:
59:
39:
345:
628:
586:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
424:
382:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
197:
Consider yourself warned. If you continue to be disruptive, disciplinary action may follow. Please discuss this at
852:
587:
383:
321:
312:
581:
377:
972:
801:
475:
Per the note from EdJohnston below there appears to be clearly four reverts, and possibly one non-revert.
273:
229:
17:
780:
754:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Requesting a review of my decline of an unblock request
163:
Note that it is the disruptive editing itself, not the mere holding of the opinion, that is the problem.
150:
964:
563:
359:
766:
738:
725:
684:
488:
157:
968:
944:
923:
903:
881:
817:
481:
288:
87:
55:
35:
592:
388:
269:
225:
710:
510:
250:
209:
559:
355:
304:
74:
and you know the RfC has been closed and archived because the same link is given above by
70:
Thunderbird2 stop misrepresenting the situation. I did not archive the RfC, that was done
758:
730:
676:
485:
960:
956:
941:
920:
900:
878:
876:
it has been archived to reflect the correct version at the time the case was closed.
828:
814:
549:
19:12 on 10 August (Might or might not be a revert. Asking if it's binary or decimal)
476:
461:
329:
325:
285:
84:
52:
32:
341:
337:
791:
245:
204:
934:
A warning to
Thunderbird2 about repeated misrepresentation and personal attacks
913:
A warning to
Thunderbird2 about repeated misrepresentation and personal attacks
189:
process. In extreme cases this could include a site ban, either though the
181:
or similar means), further disruption should be liable to blocking at the
835:
898:
As per normal procedures you may choose to comment if you wish.
808:
for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with
156:
Knowledge is based upon collaborative good faith editing, and
185:
and may lead to more serious disciplinary action through the
572:
368:
303:
30:
ad hominem against other editors, that is why you failed.
698:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
498:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
718:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
518:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
137:
Knowledge:Do not disrupt
Knowledge to illustrate a point
642:
638:
632:
623:
619:
605:
601:
597:
553:
548:
543:
538:
533:
456:
438:
434:
428:
419:
415:
401:
397:
393:
129:
126:
123:
120:
117:
114:
111:
79:
75:
71:
47:
580:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
376:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
344:. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may
841:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
199:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
174:
147:
806:Knowledge:Suspected sock puppets/Thunderbird2
8:
863:Do not edit cases after the case is closed.
874:Do not make any futher changes to the page
145:says the following that you should read:
102:Warning about editing against consensus
869:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Greg L
7:
812:before editing the evidence page.
24:
834:
790:
151:repeating it almost without end
110:on computer-related articles,
1:
977:23:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
949:11:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
928:11:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
908:15:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
886:08:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
786:
348:by adding the text {{unblock|
334:discuss controversial changes
316:from editing for a period of
133:Knowledge:Tendentious editing
60:04:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
40:05:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
332:. Please be more careful to
170:Knowledge:Disruptive editing
92:02:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
839:Regarding your comments on
822:05:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
774:13:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
746:19:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
692:18:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
584:, who declined the request.
568:23:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
492:05:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
380:, who declined the request.
364:21:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
340:rather than engaging in an
322:Knowledge's blocking policy
183:administrators' noticeboard
993:
143:Refusal to 'get the point'
891:You are the subject of a
843:: Please see Knowledge's
800:You have been accused of
702:guide to appealing blocks
524:Comment by blocking admin
502:guide to appealing blocks
293:16:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
278:11:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
256:21:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
234:18:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
215:18:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
131:constitute violations of
855:for disruption. Please
577:
373:
308:
195:
165:
18:User talk:Thunderbird2
867:Your recent edits to
810:notes for the suspect
629:change block settings
576:
534:15:25, 11 August 2008
425:change block settings
372:
307:
191:arbitration committee
752:The thread is here:
179:requests for comment
106:Thunderbird2: These
965:tendentious editing
847:policy. Comment on
845:no personal attacks
544:22:22, on 10 August
539:07:42, on 11 August
320:in accordance with
804:. Please refer to
728:at my talk page. –
578:
554:17:01 on 10 August
482:Knowledge:Edit war
374:
338:dispute resolution
324:for violating the
309:
193:or by a consensus.
187:dispute resolution
798:
797:
346:contest the block
326:three-revert rule
984:
838:
794:
787:
772:
769:
763:
744:
741:
735:
724:I've replied to
715:
709:
690:
687:
681:
648:
646:
635:
617:
615:deleted contribs
575:
515:
509:
444:
442:
431:
413:
411:deleted contribs
371:
350:your reason here
254:
213:
108:disruptive edits
992:
991:
987:
986:
985:
983:
982:
981:
936:
915:
896:
865:
832:
785:
767:
759:
757:
739:
731:
729:
721:
713:
707:
706:, then use the
695:
685:
677:
675:
664:
636:
626:
612:
595:
588:blocking policy
573:
526:
521:
513:
507:
506:, then use the
495:
466:
432:
422:
408:
391:
384:blocking policy
369:
353:
301:
243:
220:I have replied
202:
104:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
990:
988:
980:
979:
952:
951:
935:
932:
931:
930:
914:
911:
895:
889:
864:
861:
831:
825:
796:
795:
784:
778:
777:
776:
749:
748:
696:
671:
667:Decline reason
663:
662:
657:
653:Request reason
650:
571:
557:
556:
551:
546:
541:
536:
525:
522:
496:
473:
469:Decline reason
453:
449:Request reason
446:
367:
310:You have been
302:
300:
297:
296:
295:
261:
260:
259:
258:
237:
236:
103:
100:
99:
98:
97:
96:
95:
94:
63:
62:
44:
43:
42:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
989:
978:
974:
970:
969:WorkingBeaver
967:has to stop.
966:
962:
958:
955:I agree with
954:
953:
950:
947:
946:
943:
938:
937:
933:
929:
926:
925:
922:
917:
916:
912:
910:
909:
906:
905:
902:
894:
890:
888:
887:
884:
883:
880:
875:
870:
862:
860:
858:
854:
850:
846:
842:
837:
830:
827:Violation of
826:
824:
823:
820:
819:
816:
811:
807:
803:
793:
789:
788:
782:
779:
775:
770:
764:
762:
755:
751:
750:
747:
742:
736:
734:
727:
723:
722:
720:
719:
712:
705:
703:
694:
693:
688:
682:
680:
670:
668:
659:
658:
656:
654:
649:
644:
640:
634:
630:
625:
621:
616:
611:
607:
606:global blocks
603:
602:active blocks
599:
594:
589:
585:
583:
582:administrator
570:
569:
565:
561:
555:
552:
550:
547:
545:
542:
540:
537:
535:
532:
531:
530:
523:
520:
519:
512:
505:
503:
494:
493:
490:
487:
483:
478:
472:
470:
465:
463:
462:User:Fnagaton
458:
452:
450:
445:
440:
436:
430:
426:
421:
417:
412:
407:
403:
402:global blocks
399:
398:active blocks
395:
390:
385:
381:
379:
378:administrator
366:
365:
361:
357:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
330:Binary prefix
327:
323:
319:
315:
314:
306:
298:
294:
291:
290:
287:
282:
281:
280:
279:
275:
271:
267:
257:
252:
248:
247:
241:
240:
239:
238:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
218:
217:
216:
211:
207:
206:
200:
194:
192:
188:
184:
180:
173:
171:
164:
161:
159:
154:
152:
146:
144:
140:
138:
134:
130:
127:
124:
121:
118:
115:
112:
109:
101:
93:
90:
89:
86:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
67:
66:
65:
64:
61:
58:
57:
54:
48:
45:
41:
38:
37:
34:
28:
27:
26:
25:
19:
940:
919:
899:
897:
877:
873:
866:
848:
833:
813:
802:sockpuppetry
799:
781:Sockpuppetry
760:
732:
726:your comment
717:
699:
697:
678:
672:
666:
665:
652:
651:
624:creation log
593:Thunderbird2
591:
579:
558:
527:
517:
499:
497:
474:
468:
467:
454:
448:
447:
420:creation log
389:Thunderbird2
387:
375:
354:
349:
317:
311:
284:
270:Thunderbird2
262:
244:
226:Thunderbird2
203:
196:
175:
166:
162:
155:
148:
141:
105:
83:
72:by this edit
51:
31:
299:August 2008
963:that this
620:filter log
560:EdJohnston
416:filter log
356:EdJohnston
352:}} below.
857:stay cool
700:read the
639:checkuser
598:block log
500:read the
486:Peripitus
457:this edit
435:checkuser
394:block log
158:consensus
961:Fnagaton
957:Headbomb
610:contribs
406:contribs
342:edit war
336:or seek
318:24 hours
80:template
76:Quilbert
849:content
711:unblock
633:unblock
511:unblock
429:unblock
313:blocked
853:blocks
829:WP:NPA
489:(Talk)
477:WP:3RR
246:Greg L
205:Greg L
128:, and
893:RfC/U
704:first
504:first
16:<
973:talk
959:and
945:aton
942:Fnag
924:aton
921:Fnag
904:aton
901:Fnag
882:aton
879:Fnag
818:aton
815:Fnag
783:case
768:talk
761:xeno
740:talk
733:xeno
686:talk
679:xeno
564:talk
360:talk
289:aton
286:Fnag
274:talk
266:here
251:talk
230:talk
222:here
210:talk
135:and
88:aton
85:Fnag
56:aton
53:Fnag
36:aton
33:Fnag
756:. –
643:log
590:).
439:log
386:).
328:at
975:)
714:}}
708:{{
669::
655::
637:•
631:•
627:•
622:•
618:•
613:•
608:•
604:•
600:•
566:)
514:}}
508:{{
471::
451::
433:•
427:•
423:•
418:•
414:•
409:•
404:•
400:•
396:•
362:)
276:)
268:.
232:)
224:.
201:.
172::
139:.
125:,
122:,
119:,
116:,
113:,
971:(
771:)
765:(
743:)
737:(
689:)
683:(
674:–
647:)
645:)
641:(
596:(
562:(
443:)
441:)
437:(
392:(
358:(
272:(
253:)
249:(
228:(
212:)
208:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.