User talk:Rm w a vu/Archives/2014/November

October 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36hrs for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. 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. the panda ₯’ 10:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been editing Wikipedia for about 10 years now. In all of my time, I've never seen the addition of any content on the basis of a bold edit being the instrument resulting in a ban. Furthermore, I only reverted three times, not four. Finally, the onus of consensus is for the first person making the reversion, hence my listing of the 3RR taking place. I intend on taking this matter forward for arbitration unless you can clearly explain why upon a third reversion I've been banned, when a sockpuppetry of two users who between them reverted four times is the supported side? An edit for which, I might add, adds encyclopaedic value to the article in question. As I said, I would like a clear explanation, as it seems like WP:SOCK and poor judgement is at play here. No one editor, nor even group of editors "owns" any page, and as such just because someone makes an edit that one person doesn't like, doesn't mean that its merit is any less. Furthermore, as Adamston said "Constantly re-adding it, without actually discussing, is not the way." That's an ironic statement, because its reasons for removal were wishy washy and only indicated a willingness to maintain the status quo, rather than to accept a view that it could be an acceptable addition. Open mindedness is supposed to be a core tenet of Wikipedia, otherwise there would never be any growth. -- rm 'w a vu  21:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not banned, you're blocked - that's a huge difference. Edit-warring does not require you to cross the three reverts - it's just that 3RR is what's called a "bright line".  Now you're also in very bad faith accusing 2 editors of being the same person?  If you've been here for 10 years, then you must know WP:BRD like the back of your hand - "encyclopedic" or not, consensus trumps all.   the panda ₯’  22:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there was no suggestion of going to WP:BRD, and perhaps I'm assuming bad faith, but the initial reversion which has been referred to as vandalism, is similarly an assumption of poor faith. And while sock puppetry may be poorly accused, it could be meatpuppetry: a position from which no consensus should be considered, as theirs is a view whereby an ally is brought into a situation only to divide the numbers. Sorry for calling a "block" a "ban". That's semantics, though, because I know that while they're different, it's still an action which inhibits me even being able to contribute to the discussion. That's a matter for arbitration and I believe poor faith has been extended by yourself by not allowing even a reply from me before taking said action. -- rm 'w a vu  23:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Now you're accusing them of sitting down in the same room and discussing in order to improperly sway consensus (that's the definition of meatpuppetry)? Come on, really?  Have you even read the Guide to Appealing Blocks?  You need to a) understand the reason behind your block, and b) convince the community that it won't recur.  The idea that when you make an edit and someone removes it that you're then REQUIRED discuss and not re-add is the basic background of Wikipedia - always has been.  It doesn't matter if it's sourced, awesomely-worded, genius-level stuff ... once it's removed once, you are (and always have been) required to discuss and gain consensus before re-adding  the panda ₯’  23:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Rm w a vu, I am sorry that you were blocked after being warned and before you had a chance to reply. This is all water under the bridge. Do you now promise to stop edit warring?  3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement to revert 3 times.  As soon as you confirm that you will stop reverting, and instead begin a talk page discussion and possibly an RFC to gather input from additional users, I think you could be unblocked. Jehochman Talk 14:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been editing again today, and all seems well. I will avoid controversial actions in the future. I still hold fast that my contribution was a worthy and valid one, however I will concede to the seeming consensus that it was not required content. -- rm 'w a vu  03:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)