User talk:Realist2/Archive 4
{{notice|This page is currently being utilised for discussion of an unblock request by Realist 2. Comments on this topic are welcome, but please remain calm and civil at all times.}}
Original block notice
|
|---|
|
[1]27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Realist2_reported_by_Kookoo_Star_.28Result:_72_hours.29 As of now, it looks like there won't be a block, but I'm not an admin. The report as filed was incomplete, and it hasn't been fixed yet. I don't know how long it takes before reports are considered stale, but blocking days later would be harder to justify as preventative instead of punitive. I will say that even if you didn't technically make 3 reverts, it would still likely be looked at as edit warring, especially since you're just coming off a block. Also, "tag-teaming" doesn't justify breaking 3rr. In cases that aren't blatant vandalism, you should consider a request for comment or third opinion instead of an edit war. --Onorem♠Dil 19:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 |
Final thoughts
[edit]I know you are all deciding my fait right know, ive proved my defence, what more can i say? Ive already served 12 hours for something i believe i havent done, i believe wikipedia takes appeals independantly of bias. Realist2 (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've noted your points. However, I'm currently contacting the blocking administrator, and unfortunately, I cannot act until he's been in touch :) Patience is a virtue, and a necessary one, in this case. AGK (contact) 23:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh sorry i was unaware of the procedure. Yours Realist2 (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Whether or not you think you've done something wrong is beside the point. Some things that I considered:
- As of me writing this now, it has been a little over 3 days, 20 hours since your last block expired for edit warring, and yet here we are again. This means that that from within a day of your first 3RR block being released, you were back at it again.
- I should note that the "unsourced info" clause of the biographies of living persons policy only applies to contentious material subject to claims of libel. Some minor wording on an album doesn't apply.
- You already received a warning about what the three revert rule is, were blocked for it, and subsequently proceeded to violate it again— all in under a week.
- Partial reverts still count as reverts.
- If you are unable to count the number of reverts you have made to an article, consider using the page history. It will help you to do so immensely. If, even after employing the use of it, you are still unable to keep under the limit of three, then it's simple— only revert once. That way, even if you forget the first revert, you still stay well under the 3RR limit.
- You still totally ignored discussion on the Talk:Michael Jackson and opted for edit warring instead of discussing on the article you were edit warring on. A simple note would have been sufficient for linking to the other talk page, but instead, you opted to revert.
- Personally, I'd leave you blocked, since you still don't seem to see anything wrong with the concept of edit warring (as evidenced by the reasons you've given in your unblock request), but I've been known to be wrong from time to time, so I'm hoping— hoping that this will be one of those times and that you'll prove me wrong. That way, I will be able to run around merrily singing "I was wrong!" while doing the chicken dance. :P --slakr\ talk / 04:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
