User talk:Decosw1988
Welcome!
|
January 2014
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Development of Star Wars Episode VII 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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. STATic message me! 18:17, 12 January 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. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Decosw1988 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This blocking is completely unjustified. First of all, all my edits had reasonable and justified explanations, while the other user (Lemaroto) who kept reverting them didn't even mention why he was making his edits. Second, before I received this warning about edit warring, I had posted a message on the article's discussion page in order to try to reach a consensus, exactly as the policy you mentioned states. Did Lemaroto try to reach a consensus? No. Third, Lemaroto has a recurrent behavior of arbitrarily reverting other users' edits without providing any explanations. Check his message's page and you'll see other users complaining about the exact same thing. Finally, I sent personal messages to both Lemaroto (in order to try to reach a consensus directly with him, which he completely ignored) and to STATic (in order to explain the situation), before being blocked. So, I am providing you evidence to make a better judgement. I honestly believe that instead of punishing the offender you're punishing the victim and encouraging Lemaroto's reckless behaviour. Decosw1988 (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Have you read the edit warring policy? Have you read the guide to appealing blocks? If you have read and understood either or both of those then you can scarcely have expected this unblock request to succeed. You were blocked for edit warring, not for making edits that were not justified, so insisting that your edits were justified is missing the point. Likewise, explaining at length how you think another editor has behaved badly is missing the point, because your block was for what you did, and your unblock request is assessed on the basis of what you did, not on the basis of what anyone else did. So, let us look at the two issues which are relevant to this unblock request. Did you edit war? Yes. Has anything you have said here indicated that you understand that, and won't do it again? Absolutely not: on the contrary, everything you say indicates that you think you were right to edit war, so presumably you would be likely to do it again. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:05, 13 January 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.
Decosw1988 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Once again, I have read the policies you mentioned and, after having read them, it becomes crystal clear to me that the victim is being treated as an offender. The fact that I've been punished without a proper judgement does not mean that I'm guilty or that I should accept everything you accuse me without trying to defend myself. Have you at least analysed the evidence I have provided? Probably not. This is not how judgements are conducted. If you had analyzed them, you would have seen that I had tried to reach a consensus on the article's talk page BEFORE I had received a warning about a supposed edit warring. And according to the policy, this is an evidence of trying to settle the dispute. Has this been taken into account? If it hasn't, once again, am I the one who is violating policies?Decosw1988 (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Once again, being right does not exempt you from edit waring prohibition. And neither does pursuing dispute resolution. Simply don't repeatedly revert an article and you'll be OK. Max Semenik (talk) 15:31, 13 January 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.
Decosw1988 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yeah, right ... you guys are so blind and lazy that is an unnecessary effort trying to convince you and show evidence that Lemaroto was the one pursuing edit warring, not me ... instead of impartially analyzing the situation, analyzing my brief but always correct history here on Wikipedia, going through the evidence I've provided, you prefer to stick to the easy solution, which is incorrectly applying the 3R rule (the rule is clear that an admin should consider a user seeking consensus as an evidence of him/her trying to settle a dispute and adopting a community-friendly behavior.) I guess you should ban me permanently, then ... I have no interest in participating in a community where arbitrary and unfair judgements are the rule. Decosw1988 (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:22, 13 January 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.