| Revision as of 03:30, 6 February 2019 editDr.K. (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers110,824 edits Warning: Three-revert rule on 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. (TW★TW) | Latest revision as of 03:24, 7 February 2019 edit undo331dot (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,864 edits decline unblock | ||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=I have been unjustly blocked, without even being given a chance to defend myself. I have been trying to insert the simple, objective fact into the Brexit referendum page that the triggering of Article 50 means that the UK leaves the EU on 30 March 2019. Which it obviously does. No-one has even attempted to offer a rational argument as to why I am wrong or why it does not mean that. Rather people keep spouting nonsense about how we can't say it because it's in the future - even though it's certain and they can't argue otherwise. People have even started aggressively threatening me with unjust and false warnings (presumably because they knew they couldn't win the argument on its merits) despite the fact that I had consistently and patiently explained my reasoning every single time, and no-one could refute it. I now see that someone escalated this bullying campaign by making a completely false report to the W authorities. Who, I am staggered to see, have completely unjustly blocked me without even giving me a chance to state my case, without even a shred of fairness or due process. Thank you for considering my case. | decline = The issue is not your argument, but your ]. There are proper ways to resolve a dispute here, edit warring is not one. To be unblocked early you will need to describe the ] and indicate that you understand the edit warring policy. Also see ]. I am declining your request. ] (]) 03:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)}} | |||
| == February 2019 == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] ] 03:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits, consider ] for yourself or ] so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
Latest revision as of 03:24, 7 February 2019
86.134.62.138 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been unjustly blocked, without even being given a chance to defend myself. I have been trying to insert the simple, objective fact into the Brexit referendum page that the triggering of Article 50 means that the UK leaves the EU on 30 March 2019. Which it obviously does. No-one has even attempted to offer a rational argument as to why I am wrong or why it does not mean that. Rather people keep spouting nonsense about how we can't say it because it's in the future - even though it's certain and they can't argue otherwise. People have even started aggressively threatening me with unjust and false warnings (presumably because they knew they couldn't win the argument on its merits) despite the fact that I had consistently and patiently explained my reasoning every single time, and no-one could refute it. I now see that someone escalated this bullying campaign by making a completely false report to the W authorities. Who, I am staggered to see, have completely unjustly blocked me without even giving me a chance to state my case, without even a shred of fairness or due process. Thank you for considering my case.
Decline reason:
The issue is not your argument, but your edit warring. There are proper ways to resolve a dispute here, edit warring is not one. To be unblocked early you will need to describe the proper way to work out a dispute and indicate that you understand the edit warring policy. Also see WP:CRYSTAL. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2019 (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.