→Edit Warring by User:Collectonian: Request for unblock |
Ultraexactzz (talk | contribs) →Edit Warring by User:Collectonian: Declined |
||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
{{Unblock reviewed|I need a fresh set of eyes on this, Lifebaka, no offense but you come with baggage having chimed in before to support the attack group. So I am requesting an UN-BLOCK again, hopefully from some voice of reason (if there's one left on Wikipedia). I don't admit to edit warring, because I wasn't! I quietly made some good faith changes, many of which I discussed on talk page. Quite frankly, my contributions do not meet the level of "STRICT SCRUTINY" that must be used to NOT discourage or BITE editors. I reverted [[User:Collectonian]]'s vandalism, because it is vandalism to revert an entire edit two times without reason and without leaving anything that is considered "good faith." He/she even described my SINGLE edit as "good faith" in the summary of his/her first revert. If they are good faith, then by definition that is NOT EDIT WARRING! Again, I did NOT revert anything that had been discussed in recent debates (the year, the plot, etc). I have left the lengthy plot alone and only made some minor trims and adds to complete missing information or to clear up run on sentences -- leaving the majority of it, 99% in tact. Everything had actually quieted down at the article when Collectonian put me on the admin. list last night for doing nothing. So, if you are going to change the rules and lower the bar significantly to make it "2RR" that qualifies for a WEEK LONG BLOCK, then I guess your block is justified. I was very careful last night NOT to do 3RR and NOT to edit war. I was being provoked by [[User:Collectonian]] But my actions do not constitute "disruption" of any kind. So once again, Collectonian is PROVOKING a situation, stoking a fire, and then making false reports to Admin. Collectonian's only view is to delete whatever I contribute and to report me. So, if Wikipedia is starting some new policy I don't know about where if you are falsely blocked by a gang of hostile editors, then you can never contribute to that page again... then block me for that! But put that rule on the web site somewhere that says "YOU MAY NEVER CHANGE A PAGE ONCE YOU HAVE BEEN BLOCKED BY A "SUSPICIOUSLY ORGANIZED" GROUP EXPRESSING A MINORITY VIEW POINT and WHO SUPPORT UNSOURCED ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS and CHERRY-PICKING POLICY TO SUPPORT THEIR POV. IF YOU EVER CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING EVER AGAIN THEY MAY REVERT EVERYTHING YOU DO FOREVER CLAIMING THAT YOU ARE "EDIT WARRING." THEN YOU WILL BE BLOCKED FOR A WEEK AS IF YOU ARE A VANDAL WHO PUTS 'F-CK' ALL OVER EVERY PAGE." I remind folks, LEVEL OF SCRUTINY! I am not a vandal, but a valuable contributor. Wikipedia is damaged when I CAN'T contribute, not when I do. Thanks ELITE GROUP OF "DISCOURAGERS" HELPING TO SHRINK WIKIPEDIA'S GROWTH! Way to go! - [[User:Inurhead|Inurhead]] ([[User talk:Inurhead#top|talk]]) 18:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | decline=[[WP:NOTTHEM]]. No admin is going to read through that and unblock you. See [[WP:GAB]]; screams and rants are generally ignored. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|::==( o )]]</small></sup> 18:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)}} |
{{Unblock reviewed|I need a fresh set of eyes on this, Lifebaka, no offense but you come with baggage having chimed in before to support the attack group. So I am requesting an UN-BLOCK again, hopefully from some voice of reason (if there's one left on Wikipedia). I don't admit to edit warring, because I wasn't! I quietly made some good faith changes, many of which I discussed on talk page. Quite frankly, my contributions do not meet the level of "STRICT SCRUTINY" that must be used to NOT discourage or BITE editors. I reverted [[User:Collectonian]]'s vandalism, because it is vandalism to revert an entire edit two times without reason and without leaving anything that is considered "good faith." He/she even described my SINGLE edit as "good faith" in the summary of his/her first revert. If they are good faith, then by definition that is NOT EDIT WARRING! Again, I did NOT revert anything that had been discussed in recent debates (the year, the plot, etc). I have left the lengthy plot alone and only made some minor trims and adds to complete missing information or to clear up run on sentences -- leaving the majority of it, 99% in tact. Everything had actually quieted down at the article when Collectonian put me on the admin. list last night for doing nothing. So, if you are going to change the rules and lower the bar significantly to make it "2RR" that qualifies for a WEEK LONG BLOCK, then I guess your block is justified. I was very careful last night NOT to do 3RR and NOT to edit war. I was being provoked by [[User:Collectonian]] But my actions do not constitute "disruption" of any kind. So once again, Collectonian is PROVOKING a situation, stoking a fire, and then making false reports to Admin. Collectonian's only view is to delete whatever I contribute and to report me. So, if Wikipedia is starting some new policy I don't know about where if you are falsely blocked by a gang of hostile editors, then you can never contribute to that page again... then block me for that! But put that rule on the web site somewhere that says "YOU MAY NEVER CHANGE A PAGE ONCE YOU HAVE BEEN BLOCKED BY A "SUSPICIOUSLY ORGANIZED" GROUP EXPRESSING A MINORITY VIEW POINT and WHO SUPPORT UNSOURCED ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS and CHERRY-PICKING POLICY TO SUPPORT THEIR POV. IF YOU EVER CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING EVER AGAIN THEY MAY REVERT EVERYTHING YOU DO FOREVER CLAIMING THAT YOU ARE "EDIT WARRING." THEN YOU WILL BE BLOCKED FOR A WEEK AS IF YOU ARE A VANDAL WHO PUTS 'F-CK' ALL OVER EVERY PAGE." I remind folks, LEVEL OF SCRUTINY! I am not a vandal, but a valuable contributor. Wikipedia is damaged when I CAN'T contribute, not when I do. Thanks ELITE GROUP OF "DISCOURAGERS" HELPING TO SHRINK WIKIPEDIA'S GROWTH! Way to go! - [[User:Inurhead|Inurhead]] ([[User talk:Inurhead#top|talk]]) 18:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | decline=[[WP:NOTTHEM]]. No admin is going to read through that and unblock you. See [[WP:GAB]]; screams and rants are generally ignored. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|::==( o )]]</small></sup> 18:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)}} |
||
{{Unblock|1=First off, please don't jump to conclusions just because you can see that I have requested to be unblocked previously or that I have been blocked by the same group of users in the past month. Keep an open mind and read this. Per [[WP:EW]] I do not meet the criteria for edit-warring and was not reported to the proper board. I therefore should have this block removed. Please excuse this long missive, but I have so much evidence that my edits were good faith and not edit-warring.: |
{{Unblock reviewed|1=First off, please don't jump to conclusions just because you can see that I have requested to be unblocked previously or that I have been blocked by the same group of users in the past month. Keep an open mind and read this. Per [[WP:EW]] I do not meet the criteria for edit-warring and was not reported to the proper board. I therefore should have this block removed. Please excuse this long missive, but I have so much evidence that my edits were good faith and not edit-warring.: |
||
*1. Reversion exists to undo in full an edit that has no merit, not to refute a user with whom one happens to disagree. I was the one who was reverted, twice, not the other way around. I was merely trying to protect my good faith edit. The other user disagrees with me and did the first reversion and two others. The other users reverts had no merit. So my reverts were fine, his/her's were not. |
*1. Reversion exists to undo in full an edit that has no merit, not to refute a user with whom one happens to disagree. I was the one who was reverted, twice, not the other way around. I was merely trying to protect my good faith edit. The other user disagrees with me and did the first reversion and two others. The other users reverts had no merit. So my reverts were fine, his/her's were not. |
||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
*14. I do intend to continue to contribute to the article in question, which should not be taken as a threat to continue to edit war. Somehow that was mis-perceived or mischaracterized by one or both of the two admins. who have refused to remove this unfair block. What I was trying to say, is that I will not be discouraged from contributing to WIkipedia or to an article by hostile minority-POV editors who attempt to discourage, isolate or attack me. I will howevver, continue to seek some kind of consensus as best as I can, while remembering that Wikipedia encourages bold changes, especially when they are in line with policy and with the global majority, not necessarily the talk page majority. |
*14. I do intend to continue to contribute to the article in question, which should not be taken as a threat to continue to edit war. Somehow that was mis-perceived or mischaracterized by one or both of the two admins. who have refused to remove this unfair block. What I was trying to say, is that I will not be discouraged from contributing to WIkipedia or to an article by hostile minority-POV editors who attempt to discourage, isolate or attack me. I will howevver, continue to seek some kind of consensus as best as I can, while remembering that Wikipedia encourages bold changes, especially when they are in line with policy and with the global majority, not necessarily the talk page majority. |
||
*15. I don't think the point of blocking contributors is to discourage good faith edits. I hope you will agree. Thanks for understanding! - [[User:Inurhead|Inurhead]] ([[User talk:Inurhead#top|talk]]) 20:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)|decline=I'm not going to debate your block with you point by point. You were blocked for your actions, and the actions of others are not relevant to your block specifically. They may be relevant in a larger context, one that was discussed at length on [[WP:ANI]], but not here. Per [[WP:BLOCK|our blocking policy]], blocks are used to prevent disruption to the project, and your editing constituted an edit war, which is by its very nature disruptive. This is a textbook edit war: You make an edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hurt_Locker&diff=prev&oldid=313532183 here], which is reverted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hurt_Locker&diff=next&oldid=313532183 here]. You replace you edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hurt_Locker&diff=next&oldid=313533460 here], and are reverted again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hurt_Locker&diff=next&oldid=313533784 here]. You add the material a third time [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hurt_Locker&diff=next&oldid=313534095 here], and were reverted a third time [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hurt_Locker&diff=prev&oldid=313534853 here]. This was over the span of 24 minutes. By my math, Collectonian could well have been blocked; whether they were or were not blocked is immaterial to your block. The fact that you were not reported to the Edit warring board is irrelevant. I think dispute resolution would be of value in this situation, but the fact that there has not been any is irrelevant to this block. Due to the edit warring alone, your block is valid, and I see no cause to unblock at this time. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 20:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)}} |
|||
*15. I don't think the point of blocking contributors is to discourage good faith edits. I hope you will agree. Thanks for understanding! - [[User:Inurhead|Inurhead]] ([[User talk:Inurhead#top|talk]]) 20:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)}} |
Revision as of 20:56, 14 September 2009
Message Board for Inurhead
Messages will be deleted as soon as read. Thank you.
Premise section
Hey Inurhead! It looks like your premise section was removed again. I am trying to figure out what your intention for such a section is. If it is to summarize the plot, would it be more appropriate to merge into the lede section? What you have written is good so the removal isn't personal or because of poor writing, but the section is redundant of the plot section. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Blocked
{{unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 08:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Edit Warring by User:Collectonian
Every time I contribute something, the above person is bulk reverting it and then running and making false reports and accusations. I don't bulk revert anyone's work here, but have been making incrimental changes and seeking discussion. Collectonian feels he or she is "above" that rule. This is against Wikipedia policy, as bulk reverting good faith edits is extremely discouraged. Strict scrutiny must be applied when reverting. As a contributor, while I may seek consensus, I don't have to ask permission for every single line of addition or subtraction -- nor is that required by Wikipedia. What Collectonian is doing is attempting to re-ignite previous debates. It's not cool. I didn't do anything! It is COLLECTONIAN that is the problem. I ask for an honest admin. to unblock me as I did not commit 3rr and was making GOOD FAITH edits (even Collectonian put that in his/her descriptions!) TOTALLY NOT COOL! YOU PEOPLE ARE RUINING WIKIPEDIA! Inurhead (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- It was explained to you in the AN/I thread why your edits were disruptive. This is nothing to do with Collectionian; many others have reverted your changes and explained why they have done so, yet you have continued with the editing pattern that led to the problems. To request unblocking, please use {{ unblock | your reason for unblocking }} - but read WP:UNBLOCK first. Black Kite 08:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
And YOU said that "nobody was going to get blocked". Those people have since stopped their nonsense, but Collectonian hasn't. I guess he/she didn't "get the memo."
Here is why I've been wrongly blocked. The ONLY reasons to block someone for "disruption" are the following which I have NOT done. Admins. must use "strict scrutiny". That standard has NOT been applied here:
- persistent personal attacks -- didn't do!
- persistent vandalism -- didn't do! (Even Collectonian describes edits as "good faith")
- persistent gross incivility -- didn't do! Was politely making contributions!
- persistent harassment -- Didn't do! (But Collectonian is doing to me!)
- persistent spamming -- Didn't do! Added NO commerical spam or links or anything!
- edit warring or revert warring; -- Didn't do. NO bulk reverts on my part. *reverts. None. NO 3rr!!! Just some small trims and small changes and per MOS FILM, changes to names of headers, PER my talk page entry earlier and per the LONG description in the summary
- breaching the sock puppetry policy -- Didn't do. I'm firmly ANTI-sock puppet! (I can't speak about everyone "else" though... have a feeling there are still a few socks around)
I didn't do anything to be blocked! I insist that I Immediately be unblocked because this is obviously a MISTAKE. And NOBODY else has made any comments tonight. So I don't know what you are talking about when you mention other people.
You are not complying with Wikipedia policy when people like Collectonian and her "group" tries to target and chase away individual editors. Collectonian for some reason has it out for me alone. Nobody else who is contributing to this page is being blocked and they are reverting stuff, when I'm not! Someone is gaming the system here. - Inurhead (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- You were edit-warring to try to insert your preferred version of the article back; moreover, you were doing this after you had been informed multiple times by multiple editors, both on the ANI thread, on your talk page, and on the article talk page, that altering the article to remove criticism of the film is against Wikipedia policy. I said "no one is getting blocked" on Thursday - that was before you re-started the editing pattern that resulted in the ANI thread in the first place. Blaming other people for your own problems is not going to help here - and as I said, if you want to be unblocked, use the
{{unblock}}
template. Black Kite 09:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean when you say "my preferred version." Everybody puts whatever their preferences are. That's not against wiki policy. Again, I wasn't reverting everything or changing much. I made a few small trims and changes, not reverting everyting as you say. That's not edit warring. I didn't commit 3rr. You have no right to block me and you know it. Collectonian is once again busying herself making false claims and mischaracterizations. If she said my changes were "good faith" then how can I be blocked? Look at her summaries when she reverted "reverting GOOD FAITH EDITS" she says. How is that ME edit warring? It is AGAINST WIKI POLICY TO REVERT GOOD FAITH EDITS! So Block HER, not me! I'm not going to stop contributing to this page! You can't prevent that. I'm not undoing everything either. I'm making my contributions same as they make theirs. And actually, Collectonian doesn't even make contributions! She just reverts! That is disruptive to Wikipedia. - 09:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Inurhead (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Admins. must use "strict scrutiny". That standard has NOT been applied here. The ONLY reasons to block someone for "disruption" are the following which I have NOT done. Persistent personal attacks -- didn't do! Certainly didn't do tonight. Persistent vandalism -- didn't do! (Even Collectonian describes my edits she reverted as "good faith"). Nothing I have done has risen to qualify for "vandalism" ever. Incivility -- didn't do! Was politely making contributions! Persistent harassment -- Didn't do! (But Collectonian is doing to me!). Persistent spamming -- Didn't do! Added NO commerical spam or links or anything, just added some neutrality to POV comments in some sections, small trims! Edit warring or revert warring; -- Didn't do. NO bulk reverts on my part tonight or even recently. None. NO 3rr!!! Just some small trims and small changes and per MOS FILM, changes to names of headers, PER the talk page entry earlier and per the LONG description in the summary. Breaching the sock puppetry policy -- Didn't do. I'm firmly ANTI-sock puppet! (I can't speak about everyone "else" though... have a feeling there are still a few socks around. It is not wrong for me to "suggest" that and that is not being "uncivil" because it is likely during the last debate that there were some of them). So basically I didn't do anything to be blocked, certainly not tonight! I insist that I Immediately be unblocked because this is obviously a MISTAKE. And NOBODY else has made any comments tonight, except one person who has never contributed to that article who went back and made a comment about a really old post, where the other user was at fault. So I don't know what you are talking about when you mention "other people" complaining tonight. No one else is doing this except Collectonian. Collectonian only seems to show up to "report" me and "revert" any contributions I make while not being someone who contributes anything meaningful to the article. But rather someone who is "hounding" me for no reason. Again, I didn't do anything worthy of being blocked tonight at ALL. And certainly nothing to warrant the length of time that you are putting on this. Sounds like an "inside job" by the usual gang. Yeah, you guys are disrupting Wikipedia and mischaracterizing a contributor who you don't agree with and punishing that contributor as if that contributor is a "vandal." What these guys are doing is SO against wiki policy. - Inurhead (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You fail to admit that you were edit waring, and make it clear that you intend to continue to do so when your block expires. One need not ever break 3RR to be edit waring. Focus only on yourself in your unblock requests. Talking about others will not result in an unblock. lifebaka++ 11:21, 13 September 2009 (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.
Inurhead (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I need a fresh set of eyes on this, Lifebaka, no offense but you come with baggage having chimed in before to support the attack group. So I am requesting an UN-BLOCK again, hopefully from some voice of reason (if there's one left on Wikipedia). I don't admit to edit warring, because I wasn't! I quietly made some good faith changes, many of which I discussed on talk page. Quite frankly, my contributions do not meet the level of "STRICT SCRUTINY" that must be used to NOT discourage or BITE editors. I reverted User:Collectonian's vandalism, because it is vandalism to revert an entire edit two times without reason and without leaving anything that is considered "good faith." He/she even described my SINGLE edit as "good faith" in the summary of his/her first revert. If they are good faith, then by definition that is NOT EDIT WARRING! Again, I did NOT revert anything that had been discussed in recent debates (the year, the plot, etc). I have left the lengthy plot alone and only made some minor trims and adds to complete missing information or to clear up run on sentences -- leaving the majority of it, 99% in tact. Everything had actually quieted down at the article when Collectonian put me on the admin. list last night for doing nothing. So, if you are going to change the rules and lower the bar significantly to make it "2RR" that qualifies for a WEEK LONG BLOCK, then I guess your block is justified. I was very careful last night NOT to do 3RR and NOT to edit war. I was being provoked by User:Collectonian But my actions do not constitute "disruption" of any kind. So once again, Collectonian is PROVOKING a situation, stoking a fire, and then making false reports to Admin. Collectonian's only view is to delete whatever I contribute and to report me. So, if Wikipedia is starting some new policy I don't know about where if you are falsely blocked by a gang of hostile editors, then you can never contribute to that page again... then block me for that! But put that rule on the web site somewhere that says "YOU MAY NEVER CHANGE A PAGE ONCE YOU HAVE BEEN BLOCKED BY A "SUSPICIOUSLY ORGANIZED" GROUP EXPRESSING A MINORITY VIEW POINT and WHO SUPPORT UNSOURCED ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS and CHERRY-PICKING POLICY TO SUPPORT THEIR POV. IF YOU EVER CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING EVER AGAIN THEY MAY REVERT EVERYTHING YOU DO FOREVER CLAIMING THAT YOU ARE "EDIT WARRING." THEN YOU WILL BE BLOCKED FOR A WEEK AS IF YOU ARE A VANDAL WHO PUTS 'F-CK' ALL OVER EVERY PAGE." I remind folks, LEVEL OF SCRUTINY! I am not a vandal, but a valuable contributor. Wikipedia is damaged when I CAN'T contribute, not when I do. Thanks ELITE GROUP OF "DISCOURAGERS" HELPING TO SHRINK WIKIPEDIA'S GROWTH! Way to go! - Inurhead (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
WP:NOTTHEM. No admin is going to read through that and unblock you. See WP:GAB; screams and rants are generally ignored. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:10, 13 September 2009 (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.
Inurhead (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
First off, please don't jump to conclusions just because you can see that I have requested to be unblocked previously or that I have been blocked by the same group of users in the past month. Keep an open mind and read this. Per WP:EW I do not meet the criteria for edit-warring and was not reported to the proper board. I therefore should have this block removed. Please excuse this long missive, but I have so much evidence that my edits were good faith and not edit-warring.:
- 1. Reversion exists to undo in full an edit that has no merit, not to refute a user with whom one happens to disagree. I was the one who was reverted, twice, not the other way around. I was merely trying to protect my good faith edit. The other user disagrees with me and did the first reversion and two others. The other users reverts had no merit. So my reverts were fine, his/her's were not.
- 2. Reversion is not to be undertaken without good reason. The other user reverted my proposed change in its entirety even though it was in "good faith". I was merely restoring and protecting my one good faith edit with the reversion I did. Even the user who reported me User:Collectonian deemed to be "good faith" in his/her summary of the revert. Here is my good faith edit:[1]
- 3. User:Collectonian reverted my good faith edits here:
- [2] claims this was reversion of "good faith" edits for the reason of "no consensus" (which is not a valid reason to revert)
- [3] claims this same revert done the second time was something different, when it was the same revert. The user claimed "continuing non-neutrality; false edit summaries; and continuing to ignore consensus." (none of these claimes are true and this is a false edit summary, as the same revert was just previously called "good faith")
- [4] This is the THIRD revert that Collectonian made within a short period of time, provoking this editor. I did not respond to this third revert. Collectonian then saw that I would not engage and reported me to Admin. board. The user added yet another excuse for the same revert which was "Rv; nothing good faith about removing content that you disagree with - again you are edit warring. using TW"). This user clearly was the one not using good faith as their edit summary for each revert changed with the same revert, each time giving a different and unfounded excuse that escalated in rhetoric with each revert. Twinkle is only to be used for "vandalism." This does not meet that criteria and therefore is a misuse of twinkle to edit war when a regular revert would have served the same purpose but would have counted against the user (TW was not needed as no other changes had been made by others between these two reverts that User:Collectonian made).
- 4. I did not revert the contributions in full of any other user, as Collectonian did. I made some changes, some of which I discussed on the talk page prior to making them. Here is my entry on the talk page:
- [5] I made this entry several hours before making the changes to the page, to allow others to respond. There was no response. I made the changes to the article not expecting to be completely reverted.
- 5. I was adhering to the norms of the suggestions for structuring a film article suggested by User:Erik listed at MOS:FILM#Production, changing headers/subsections to reflect the status quo norm policy, not the "new norm" proposed by the other contributors which was already in effect on the page. My norm structure was: 1) production 2) pre-production 3) filmming 4) post-production, per MOS:FILM. I had moved the other user's non-conforming headers "cinematography" "writing", etc. in line with these suggested (by policy) headers, again which I had mentioned early that day on the talk page, in responding to others who sought a consensus. Since I'm assuming the policy at MOS:FILM is already consensus, global film article consensus (not talk page consensus), then I am the one who sought the status quo and followed true policy.
- 6. The other contributors have never sought dispute resolution, but merely revert all or many of my contributions and then report me to administration. To date, there has not been a move to seek dispute resolution, yet this user has been repeatedly reverted and attacked. Perhaps the other users fear that their position lacks global consensus and that they may be exposed for gaming the system to push their minority POV. It's easier for them to try to make it look like this user is disruptive and have me isolated and treated like a common vandal.
- 7. In general merely editing from a slanted point of view (even though that didn't happen), general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes, are not considered vandalism anyway. This does not meet the level of criteria to be considered disruptive or vandalism. My contribution the night in question was not vandalism and wasn't even a slanted POV, but was an attempt to make neutral statements in the article as well as the structure of the article which doesn't meet policy guidelines. As the user who reported me said, they were "good faith" edits that he/she reverted and which I believed to be optimal changes per WP:BRD. I have discussed these issues with past "Most Interested Persons", but the person who has reverted my changes does not regularly participate in the page and seems to have no interest in discussion, but only in edit warring.
- 8. Local consensus on the page differs from global consensus on the film in question. I represent the majority POV of global consensus. The others represent a majority-minority and are only a consensus on the talk page.
- 9. Some of the "criticism" section of the article might be scene as libelous as it attacks the physical appearance of one of the actors in the film, although done backhandedly in a quote from a film critic who actually praised the film. It's inclusion is problematic at best and certainly does not represent the thesis of the critic who called it "a near perfect" film. Since an actor can't "change" his looks, it is an odd thing to include and seems to ride that fine line between "libel" and "smearing" of a living person who makes their living at least partially based on "appearance." My attempt to remove that line or two of criticism, but to retain the rest of the quote from the same critic was to tone down the minority-pov and to bring some neutrality to the criticism section of the film, which should focus on the film itself and not on the aesthetics of an actor's face.
- 10. After my one contribution that night, I did NOT do a 3 revert. So I would not have assumed that I had met the level of scrutiny necessary to be blocked and didn't think I was in danger of it. Again, I was only reverting another user's 2 reverts of my good faith edits. I was not reverting anything else and did not start with a revert, as the other user did. Therefore I did not make the attack. I also have not been banned from this article, and have been a good contributor so the user has no reason to bulk revert all of my contributions.
- 11. User:Collectonian reported me to the ANI board and not to the EDIT WARRING board. So in effect, I was reported to the wrong board, a board that deals mostly with "vandalism" when I am not a vandal. The user should have reported an edit war to another more appropriate board, where the other user (as it takes "two" to tango) would also be challenged for provocation. It is my opinion that the user chose the board that the user felt would be most sympathetic to the user's cause where the user knows sympathetic administrators and where that user might not be questioned for provoking the incident or for doing 3 reverts himself/herself.
- 12. Some of my edits in the past have been in WP:BRD cycle. My edits are not reversions, they may at times be bold. Wikipedia encourages users to be bold, especially when talk page discussions go in circles or when one or two people takes WP:OWN ownership of an article, as has happened in recent weeks. This time however, I had placed a mention of what I was doing on the talk page, prior to making changes.
- 13. While I don't take blame for "edit warring" and while I did not commit 3RR. I do however take responsibility for not trying to discuss the issue with User:Collectonian more before reverting his/her first 2 reversions of my one edit. The next time I would not revert that user's reverts, but rather ask which parts of my edit the user objects with on the user's talk page. My feeling that this user's reverts are very hostile and he/she gives little explanation and is trying to cause the appearance that I am disruptive when I am not. It would be impossible to be required to have to discuss every change with every single user, but in the future I would perhaps try that once or twice before reverting another user's rash reverts, if only to prevent misinterpretation by administrators looking for someone easy to blame.
- 14. I do intend to continue to contribute to the article in question, which should not be taken as a threat to continue to edit war. Somehow that was mis-perceived or mischaracterized by one or both of the two admins. who have refused to remove this unfair block. What I was trying to say, is that I will not be discouraged from contributing to WIkipedia or to an article by hostile minority-POV editors who attempt to discourage, isolate or attack me. I will howevver, continue to seek some kind of consensus as best as I can, while remembering that Wikipedia encourages bold changes, especially when they are in line with policy and with the global majority, not necessarily the talk page majority.
Decline reason:
I'm not going to debate your block with you point by point. You were blocked for your actions, and the actions of others are not relevant to your block specifically. They may be relevant in a larger context, one that was discussed at length on WP:ANI, but not here. Per our blocking policy, blocks are used to prevent disruption to the project, and your editing constituted an edit war, which is by its very nature disruptive. This is a textbook edit war: You make an edit here, which is reverted here. You replace you edit here, and are reverted again here. You add the material a third time here, and were reverted a third time here. This was over the span of 24 minutes. By my math, Collectonian could well have been blocked; whether they were or were not blocked is immaterial to your block. The fact that you were not reported to the Edit warring board is irrelevant. I think dispute resolution would be of value in this situation, but the fact that there has not been any is irrelevant to this block. Due to the edit warring alone, your block is valid, and I see no cause to unblock at this time. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:56, 14 September 2009 (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.