User talk:Robert O'Rourke

Welcome[edit]

This is the first comment on my talk page. Robert O'Rourke (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

Your recent editing history at Assassination of John F. Kennedy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Robert_O'Rourke reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked per the original edit warring report due to your declaration that you intend to keep reverting at just under 3RR until your request is granted. See WP:Gaming the system for why evasion of the intent of policies is punishable. To avoid this result, please agree to accept whatever consensus is found on the article talk page regarding the POV tag, and promise not to restore the POV tag again until this is decided. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for promising to continue your edit war forever. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 17:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Robert O'Rourke (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not initiate an edit war. I tagged Assassination of John F. Kennedy for WP:NPOV. I had already stated in the talk page why the article's infobox violates NPOV. Location then undid the tag. The NPOV policy states, "An editor should not remove the tag merely because he or she feels the article does comply with NPOV: The tag should be removed only when there is a consensus that the disputes have indeed been resolved." I thus undid his removal of the tag. After Canada Jack removed the tag, I undid his removal. After NeilN removed the tag, I undid his removal. Acroterion subsequently removed the tag. Apparently, some assertions are unchallengeable. Robert O'Rourke (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yes, you did edit war, and your description of the events verifies that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, consensus was (and has consistently been over many years) against your use of "alleged" with respect to Oswald's actions. Your declaration that you had no intention of respecting consensus showed a deep misunderstanding of and disrespect for Wikipedia policy and process. Acroterion (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Robert O'Rourke (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please remove my block from editing Wikipedia. I filed an appeal after I was blocked. It was denied and I let the matter rest, but now I am retired and have more time to deal with the blocking. I have studied the article about edit wars, which I will comply with, along with all other Wikipedia rules. If there is any uncertainly about what is allowed under the rules, I will seek guidance. If I conclude that any rule should be changed or removed, I will propose doing so. One thing I will not do is collapse a section of comments behind a hide button, as was done here: [1]. The only value to doing this is sparing a reader the effort of going back to the table of contents. Nor will I delete a section of comments, as was done here: [2]. I eagerly await your decision. I don't envision making a massive number of contributions, but I do have some in mind. Robert O'Rourke (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Would you agree to refrain from editing about the Kennedy assassination? What do you want to edit about other than that? 331dot (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also interested in the answer to 311dot's question. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are none of you going to realize this account cannot be unblocked regardless without a username change? He's impersonating Robert O'Rourke. (I happened upon this while making a request for a particular IP address to be unblocked that I wanted to use...) ☕️ (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be fair to characterize it as deliberate impersonation. This account was created in 2010, when Beto O'Rourke was an El Paso city councilman. Robert and O'Rourke are relatively common names. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]