Wesley Wolf (talk | contribs) →3RR: re |
Wesley Wolf (talk | contribs) →Sandboxes: new section |
||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
:In all honesty, the reason given for this block is for exceeding 3RR by doing a 4th revert that shouldn't have been counted, and therefore kept me on the borderline of 3RR - if I was to have made another revert on he human right issue, then yes I could understand the reason for blocking as justified and would have taken the punishment accordingly. Now the unblock request based on an invalid 3RR reason is being decline, despite the fact that I haven't even exceeded into a 4th revert. [[User:Wesley Mouse|<font color="DarkSlateBlue" face="Tahoma">'''Wesley'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Wesley_Mouse|<font color="OrangeRed">☀</font>]][[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<font color="SaddleBrown" face="Tahoma">'''''Mouse'''''</font>]] 15:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC) |
:In all honesty, the reason given for this block is for exceeding 3RR by doing a 4th revert that shouldn't have been counted, and therefore kept me on the borderline of 3RR - if I was to have made another revert on he human right issue, then yes I could understand the reason for blocking as justified and would have taken the punishment accordingly. Now the unblock request based on an invalid 3RR reason is being decline, despite the fact that I haven't even exceeded into a 4th revert. [[User:Wesley Mouse|<font color="DarkSlateBlue" face="Tahoma">'''Wesley'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Wesley_Mouse|<font color="OrangeRed">☀</font>]][[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<font color="SaddleBrown" face="Tahoma">'''''Mouse'''''</font>]] 15:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Sandboxes == |
|||
Could someone be so kind to explain why I cannot edit my own sandbox area? I know there is a block in place which is due to expire in approx 1 hours time. But I thought that a user could still edit their own pages and nothing else. I could have used the duration of this block to continue the draft edit of the WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter, which a version exists at [[User:Wesley Mouse/sandbox/10]] - it would be nice to be able to continue editing that section as it has nothing to do with editing articles. Thanks you - [[User:Wesley Mouse|<font color="DarkSlateBlue" face="Tahoma">'''Wesley'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Wesley_Mouse|<font color="OrangeRed">☀</font>]][[User talk:Wesley Mouse|<font color="SaddleBrown" face="Tahoma">'''''Mouse'''''</font>]] 18:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:40, 27 May 2012
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Regards
Hey Wesley. I have not talked to you in a while as I was away for some time. Are you well? I hope everything went smoothly and you are slowly recovering. I see that you have continued to edit pages so that's a good sign : -). Regards.--Krosenstern (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- UPDATE: I'm sorry, I just saw your edit summary about the funeral and realized that its not yet over. Stay strong.--Krosenstern (talk) 08:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Krosen, yep I did a bit of editing over the last few days, trying to take my mind off things, which it did help slightly. The funeral has now took place, and its back to business. Although I might take it easy for a few days and stick to editing topics that I am more familiar with and avoid areas that I might get too-deep over my head. Keep in touch yeah!? And if you're interested in joining a project, there is always room at WP:ESC, and we'd all be glad of the extra help. Wesley☀Mouse 20:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 May 2012
- From the editor: New editor-in-chief
- WikiProject report: Trouble in a Galaxy Far, Far Away....
- Featured content: Lemurbaby moves it with Madagascar: Featured content for the week
- Arbitration report: No open arbitration cases pending
- Technology report: On the indestructibility of Wikimedia content
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Controversy
I can't do anything at the moment, I'm on my phone and ready to watch ESC and I'm away from the computer. Sorry. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- No worries, I'm about to watch it too. Beers, snacks, and TV volume turned up veerrrrry loud - check! Hopefully everyone will be watching it too, so the article may go into a state of sleep for a couple of hours. Wesley☀Mouse 18:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
3RR
[1] This appears to put you in violation of 3RR. I'd ask that you consider reverting yourself, and continue discussing this issue with Eugen and I on the article talk page. Khazar2 (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately 3RR hasn't been breached, as the removed content is still in dispute discussion, and is exempt from 3RR rules. But thanks anyway. Wesley☀Mouse
- Well, it's always possible that there are exceptions to 3RR that I'm not aware of, but I don't appear to see it in WP:NOT3RR. Khazar2 (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Its quite understandable, but I have come across a similar scenario as this several times now, so I know 3RR hasn't been reached. However, as yourself and Eugen both re-added the information 3 times despite the reasons for removal on the edit summaries, could be seen as tag-team editing and therefore you'd both be in breach of 3RR yourselves. Wesley☀Mouse 19:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)This is getting increasingly ridiculous. Per WP:TAGTEAM: "Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil. Care should be made to frame assertions in an appropriate way, citing evidence in the appropriate venues, following our dispute resolution process." I barely know who Eugen is; the idea that I'm conspiring with him against you is a reach. Khazar2 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Its quite understandable, but I have come across a similar scenario as this several times now, so I know 3RR hasn't been reached. However, as yourself and Eugen both re-added the information 3 times despite the reasons for removal on the edit summaries, could be seen as tag-team editing and therefore you'd both be in breach of 3RR yourselves. Wesley☀Mouse 19:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it's always possible that there are exceptions to 3RR that I'm not aware of, but I don't appear to see it in WP:NOT3RR. Khazar2 (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. You were told of your violation and asked to self-revert. Your understanding of the three-revert rule is off; the fact that an item is being discussed on the talk page does not give you license to repeatedly revert efforts to change the article. -- tariqabjotu 19:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Wesley Wolf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I fail to see how 3RR has been breached, when firstly 3RR means an editor must not make more than three reverts, only 3 reverts where made and not a 4th. Secondly, the edit summaries alone explain that the content inclusion is still being discussed at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012#Criticisms and controversy; Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012#Loreen gets criticism from Azeri official and Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012#Proposed addition of new content on human rights. As no conclusion/consensus has been reached yet, then the details where purposely being omitted from the article. Wesley☀Mouse 19:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
At this time I am not willing to unblock, given that the further conversation indicates you still seem to consider it important to have your version in place while discussion occurs. Also next time, if you believe a potential BLP issue to be occurring but other editors disagree, it is best to bring it to a venue such as the BLP Noticeboard for more eyes, rather than presuming you are right. Your block expires soon, good luck in the future. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:16, 27 May 2012 (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.
- You're probably not counting this revert. -- tariqabjotu 19:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Erm that edit you've just referenced isn't even connected to the content removed on Human Rights. That edit was correcting a living persons name as it appears on the source used for that particular section. The section on human rights have only been removed 3 times thus far, and I did leave messages on Khazar2 (talk · contribs) and Eugen Simion 14 (talk · contribs) talk pages, explaining to them why the content on human rights isn't being included at this current time, and that they may wish to engage in the on-going discussion regarding this the human rights issue on the article talk page. Wesley☀Mouse 19:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- That comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. That edit wasn't really a big deal, and I don't care for it either way. That is just what permitted me to use "three-revert rule" rather than "edit warring" in the block reason; it honestly had/has no bearing on the validity of the block.
- Cutting to the point, you just can't have it both ways. You're trying to lawyer your way out of a block for violating the three-revert rule because you supposedly only made three reverts. However, above, you claim that because Khazar2 and Eugen Simion 14 have both reverted the same content, they are "in breach of the 3RR [themselves]" -- even though together they've only reverted twice. You, on the other hand, have actually reverted four times (again, if counting is what you're looking for). The fact that the reversions were regarding different content does not change anything. The fact that it is being discussed on the talk page doesn't change anything. It's a clear-cut violation. And you have not demonstrated in any way that you see a problem with what you did or indicated that you'll stop. On the contrary, while you have accused Khazar and Eugen of tag-teamming, you have attempted to ask someone for assistance. And then given a chance to revert, you claimed, somewhat arrogantly, that you are exempt.
- I can't and won't reject your unblock request, but you really don't have a leg to stand on here. While you're blocked, please re-read Wikipedia:Edit-warring and the relevant section on the three-revert rule. -- tariqabjotu 20:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I can't comprehend how I have tried to lawyer my way out of something - what do you mean? As I pointed out, I never accused the two users of tag-teaming, the words I used was their reverts could be seen as tag-teaming, which isn't accusing anything of the sort, but merely an observational statement. If however, I was to have said "the users are being seen as tag-teaming", then that would have been an accusation comment. As far as I knew about 3RR it meant reverting the same content on an article, not different content on the same article. And to say that I have shown indications that I won't stop reverting is very false. I was still discussion with issue with Khazar2, and would have self-reverted if Khazar2 provided clear reason for it. As for contacting AxG for advice, I did that as most users on this project know that I suffered a bereavement last week when my mother sadly passed away; and the funeral itself was earlier this week. People who know of this, also understood that I'm not fully focused on a lot of issues, and probably be prone mistakes. Asking another user (in this case Axg) for advice is plausible due to this circumstance, as I felt that I may have been unfocused on the situation and wanted to seek an opinion just in case. Wesley☀Mouse 20:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm extremely sorry to hear that, Wesley. I know from recent experience how devastating the loss of a parent can be. Though we've disagreed today, I'll look forward to working together in the future, and I promise on my end to try to do a better job of it. Hang in there, Khazar2 (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Khazar for the kind words there. Yes, it is proving to be more difficult coping with the loss than I thought it would be. I was always under the impression that removing content from an article, when a discussion about whether to include it or not is still on-going, was perfectly acceptable. Editors discussing it so far have been in mixed opinion over it; some say no it shouldn't be there as it isn't in connection to the article subject and would benefit inclusion in an article such as Human Rights in Azerbaijan or Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest where the contents main issue fits into those article subjects better. Yet some other editors have said that a small inclusion should be added to ESC 2012 page - which there is coverage of the human right issue near the top of the article under "Venue" (why its there God only knows). Wesley☀Mouse 20:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm extremely sorry to hear that, Wesley. I know from recent experience how devastating the loss of a parent can be. Though we've disagreed today, I'll look forward to working together in the future, and I promise on my end to try to do a better job of it. Hang in there, Khazar2 (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I can't comprehend how I have tried to lawyer my way out of something - what do you mean? As I pointed out, I never accused the two users of tag-teaming, the words I used was their reverts could be seen as tag-teaming, which isn't accusing anything of the sort, but merely an observational statement. If however, I was to have said "the users are being seen as tag-teaming", then that would have been an accusation comment. As far as I knew about 3RR it meant reverting the same content on an article, not different content on the same article. And to say that I have shown indications that I won't stop reverting is very false. I was still discussion with issue with Khazar2, and would have self-reverted if Khazar2 provided clear reason for it. As for contacting AxG for advice, I did that as most users on this project know that I suffered a bereavement last week when my mother sadly passed away; and the funeral itself was earlier this week. People who know of this, also understood that I'm not fully focused on a lot of issues, and probably be prone mistakes. Asking another user (in this case Axg) for advice is plausible due to this circumstance, as I felt that I may have been unfocused on the situation and wanted to seek an opinion just in case. Wesley☀Mouse 20:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I've just found the comment posted by CT Cooper (talk · contribs) that states the Human Rights content "should not be re-added without a major re-write, some relevance to the actual content, and talk page consensus". Bold, revert, discussion would come into force (I think) here; as yes a new section was re-written added with some relevance included in the re-write (which I assume comes under BRD). However, the third part of the condition "and talk page consensus" still hadn't been reached, nor did either user put forward their suggestion to the talk page thread to seek a consensus - therefore in removing the content I was sticking to the decision for it not to be re-added. I would assume that as the conditions set out on the article talk page had not been adhered to, that the new inclusions could potentially be viewed as vandalism - although I treated them as good faith edits, in case the users weren't aware of the conditions set out on the talk page. Wesley☀Mouse 22:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I am not infallible, but I do think it is sensible that content that controversial should be fleshed out on the talk page and added when a clear consensus has formed, particularity on an article this high profile. However, I would not recommend reverting an editor beyond WP:1RR on a human rights section unless the content violated WP:BLP in serious manner, and would instead focus attention to the talk page. As for the vandalism issue, yes they should be treated as good faith edits since they are a million miles away from vandalism - vandalism is a deliberate attempt to damage the project (and is distinct from edit warring or going against what other editors say e.t.c.), something established editors are extremely unlikely to be doing. CT Cooper · talk 23:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm too involved too review the unblock request, but I think this block was heavy handed. If Wes did not understand 3RR someone should have taken a moment to correct him before the block, not afterwards. The discussion on this is ongoing on the talk page but now Wes can't participate for a day which is not very helpful. The first revert that allegedly tipped this over into a 3RR violation was reverting a change on content about a living person which removed some changes which deviated from the sources, so it may be exempt under WP:NOT3RR #7, although I admit whether it is "contentious" is a sticking point as the content wasn't particularly controversial. However, I would still argue in favour of discounting it in spirit as i) it was on a unrelated issue which hasn't cropped up again, so it was not edit warring and ii) the change was appropriate under WP:BLP policy and does not fall under the type of reverts that the community wishes to discourage. If Wes agrees to stay within 3RR, or possibly 1RR in future, then the preventative nature of the block is redundant and hence I see no reason for an unblock request to be denied. CT Cooper · talk 23:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Of course I agree to sticking to 1RR, although I allow at least 2RR in extreme circumstances. When the discussion on the talk page about these issue where raised, and a decision to omit them for the time being while consensus was built; then I assumed that removing the re-added content was within talk page consensus to keep the details omitted. I thought the revert for a spokespersons name shouldn't be counted due to it being BLP, but I couldn't pin-point where I had read it before - so to show the link for WP:NOT3RR#7 is a kind helpful refresher; thank you. I am slightly disappointed that things have escalated this far, and agree that someone could have had the courtesy to correct myself before the block and not afterwards. I wish I could continue the current debate about this content on the article talk page, but as I am blocked this cannot be done. Also, the block has prevented me from continuing work on the project newsletter, which I had planned to complete the final draft tonight, so that it allowed enough time for another editor to proof-read it before publication. Alas, this is now on the back-burner and delaying things slightly. Wesley☀Mouse 23:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- He was given a chance. He was told "Well, it's always possible that there are exceptions to 3RR that I'm not aware of, but I don't appear to see it in WP:NOT3RR," to which he replied "Its quite understandable, but I have come across a similar scenario as this several times now, so I know 3RR hasn't been reached." What else did you expect me to do? I don't think he would have changed his mind about the acceptability of his actions until he was blocked. And, even then, that didn't occur until he was pressed about it. -- tariqabjotu 05:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- He clearly didn't understand how 3RR operated, so it should have been explained to him that it didn't need to be separate content to count, but that didn't happen - the WP:NOT3RR was clearly not the cause of the confusion so is beside the point. I don't see anything before the block was issued which justifies assuming that Wes wouldn't listen to a simple explanation, so I stand by my assessment. CT Cooper · talk 13:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well that has just confused me even more than what I already was to begin with. This thread is headed 3RR in relation to the 3rd revert of the human rights content. With the wording of the original comment posted by the user, I replied back politely that I couldn't see how I have exceeded 3RR when the revert I made was the 3rd one on the human rights issue. The user then replied back (still in regards to the human rights issue) with "Well, it's always possible that there are exceptions to 3RR that I'm not aware of, but I don't appear to see it in WP:NOT3RR". Seeing as we were both still discussing about the human rights issue and nothing else, then the referencing of 3RR was in that regards nothing else; hence my reply of "Its quite understandable, but I have come across a similar scenario as this several times now, so I know 3RR hasn't been reached." - I had an inkling that I hadn't gone over 4RR on this issue. However, I then get blocked stating I had exceeded 4RR, and then told a previous edit in regards to the spelling of a living person's name, was being counted as part of the 4RR. When I questioned about this mysterious 4RR, I get told my reply was "somewhat tongue-in-cheek", and that the edit regarding the name change "wasn't really a big deal". The editor then went on to say that they don't care for it either way and that it was only being counted to assist in highlighting the "three-revert rule" blocking reason; rather then an edit warring reason. To me personally, that alone looks like a grasping at straws manoeuvre to cover someone's back; rather than look at the facts and determine whether or not 4RR had occurred. The fact that I was sounding vague should have been a trigger point to someone that there is an air of confusing somewhere, and politely explained the issue to me, rather than block first ask questions later. That kind of behaviour is what's commonly known as "locking the stable door after the horse has bolted". Wesley☀Mouse 13:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been reading the above discussion in the process of reviewing your unblock request. Please first allow me to offer my condolences, as the loss of a parent is difficult indeed. That being said, with the business at hand, I'm somewhat concerned that the language of your unblock request seems to regard three reverts as an entitlement. Realistically, there are very few good reasons to revert even three times. If you revert once, and the matter's still disputed, it's generally time to start a dialogue rather than reverting again. Someone who disagreed with you on the first revert is unlikely, in the absence of discussion, to suddenly agree with you after the second or third. Do you understand, then, that edit warring can be harmful even if it does not technically breach 3RR? Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oh gosh yes, I do understand where you're coming from with your latter question. What I found confusing is that a few days ago one editor added something about human rights to the Eurovision 2012 article. I sat myself on the fence at that time and weighed up all sides of what was being suggested about the content. After much deliberation I had commented that the topic on human rights was very controversial and with the excessive detail that was originally being added, didn't really suit the articles main subject. This point was also raised by a few other editors too. The discussion was still on-going and as CT Cooper pointed out (and I also linked to his comment) that the information was omitted for the time being so that a diplomatic discussion could take place to resolve the issue.
- Now Khazar2 may not have been aware of that prior discussion at the time when he added more human rights content to the article, and rightfully I did a WP:BRD and left a note on the users talk page explaining the reason for the revert and invited him to participate in the on-going discussion on the article talk page. However, he never engaged in discussion and re-reverted my actions instead. Now correct me if I'm wrong but that action by Khazar2 is BRDR, and as the policy states the second R should never have taken place, the user should have engaged in discussions; and that never happened until after I boldly reverted again.
- The other thing concerning is that an edit that I made in regards to a living person has also been taken into account and thus making me look like I done 4RR, when really that 1st edit (from what Cooper said) is something to do with NOT3RR#7; and after reading that part on 3RR, it does make sense - if you know what I mean. Anyhow, if I knew I had done something seriously wrong, then I would have happily put up with the punishment and allowed the block to run its course. However, as I had a small inkling that something wasn't quite adding up, then I had to put forward my case to show that I disagreed with the way this block was enforced to begin with. Wesley☀Mouse 03:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- On my part, I do apologize for my single revert; it was wrong. At the same time, though, I'd like to humbly suggest you take a minute to review WP:BRD, particularly WP:BRD-NOT:
- BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.
- BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.
- BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.
What are you implying? You may be misinterpreting my words. I never said BRD is a policy nor have I used it as such. Why is it that every time I reply to a question that someone has asked me, that my answers get thrown out of context? I used BRD as an example, not a policy or excuse. My reply to the admin's question was that I reverted your original insertion using BRD, and I was further detailing what had happened. In a way, we're both at fault in a few areas. As you rightfully have said, you were wrong for the single-revert. Instead of doing a single-revert it would have been courteous to engage in dialogue at the article's talk page, to which I made you aware of immediately after you made added the new content. But rather than taking that action you re-reverted and then only engaged in dialogue after the second removal. I too was wrong in the 3rd revert; yes I left a message on Eugan's talk page asking them to self-revert it and again making him aware of the same discussion in progress. Impatience got the better of me, and I ended up reverting it back myself - which at the time I thought was the correct thing to do as it was content that had been previous advised to keep omitted whilst the discussion where still in progress. The other disturbing factor is that my 3rd revert of that content has been classified as a 4th edit; and it wasn't anything of the sort. The edit in regards to a living person's name (Aleksey/Oleksiy) was within #7 of WP:NOT3RR. The official EBU source listed the spelling as Aleksey; yet an editor changed it to Oleksiy. The latter spelling may be correct, but as the EBU source is official and being used as a reliable source for that section I changed it back - especially when we are dealing with a BLP issue there. Wesley☀Mouse 13:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't want to get overly bogged down here, but if you read what you wrote directly above me, you wrote "Now correct me if I'm wrong but that action by Khazar2 is BRDR, and as the policy states the second R should never have taken place, the user should have engaged in discussions; and that never happened until after I boldly reverted again." Twelve hours later you say I never said BRD is a policy nor have I used it as such. I'm sorry you feel your words are being misinterpreted, but you can see how the rest of us can get confused. Khazar2 (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- So sorry for getting my words mixed - geeze considering the circumstances here and the hell I've been through the past 2 weeks, it is easily done. I meant policy as in guidelines - its just my terminology that I use policy for both meanings. Sorry that you don't understand my jargon. Wesley☀Mouse 18:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- I feel that my comments and explanations are being misinterpreted, which may be a fault of my own, in finding it difficult to explain clear enough. The further conversations that I have had in regards to this issue are not an indication of myself indicating my version is important. I would like to highlight that the version of having the human rights details omitted for the time being, isn't even my version; but a version of a wider consensus of the project, to which I was abiding to that decision by assisting in the removal of such content.
- As I have tried to explain a few times prior to this, Human Rights content was added to Eurovision Song Contest 2012 article, and a few editors on the project expressed deep concerns about the wording of the content, as it was written in an objective point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. One editor in particular advised that the details should remain omitted from the article, so that a discussion could take place in order to work on a re-write of the content - posting the proposed variations to the article's talk page first. A user posted a re-write directly to the article itself, and therefore did not comply to the decision of posting it to the talk page first, as set by the wider community. By removing the content and courteously invited the user to participate to discuss the issue, I was abiding to the decision set by the project community; and was in no way whatsoever, trying to indicate that the omitted version was a version of belonging to myself.
- CT Cooper very kindly explained and highlighted the revert of a living person's name as a BLP issue, and that the edit in regards to the living person shouldn't have been counted as part of a 4RR violation. The list of spokespersons on the Eurovision 2012 article is as shown on the official Eurovision website, and I used their list as a citation to show that the details were correct in accordance to the officials. The change of name by the user deviated away from the actual citation, and thus the reversion was justified - or so I thought.
- In all honesty, the reason given for this block is for exceeding 3RR by doing a 4th revert that shouldn't have been counted, and therefore kept me on the borderline of 3RR - if I was to have made another revert on he human right issue, then yes I could understand the reason for blocking as justified and would have taken the punishment accordingly. Now the unblock request based on an invalid 3RR reason is being decline, despite the fact that I haven't even exceeded into a 4th revert. Wesley☀Mouse 15:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Sandboxes
Could someone be so kind to explain why I cannot edit my own sandbox area? I know there is a block in place which is due to expire in approx 1 hours time. But I thought that a user could still edit their own pages and nothing else. I could have used the duration of this block to continue the draft edit of the WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter, which a version exists at User:Wesley Mouse/sandbox/10 - it would be nice to be able to continue editing that section as it has nothing to do with editing articles. Thanks you - Wesley☀Mouse 18:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)