User talk:ZrbtWm

Hola Zerebat. La RAE no es la autoridad suprema de la manera en que la gente hable o escriba. Aquí se utiliza evidencia de uso escrito (p.ej. en Google Books), y la palabra « inflicción » pertenece en Wiktionary porque muchos escritores la han usado: google books:"inflicción". Por favor pregunta si tienes alguna duda. Gracias —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

ZrbtWm (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

User Chuck Entz (talk • contribs) illegally blocked me for a month for an editorial dispute that was already being addressed in RFV-NE, where community was asked for input on an entry without a single source, claiming that an English word was also an Spanish one, without a single source at all confirming this fact. This supposed word was added by a now blocked user due to abuse of multiple accounts.

I left a message in his or her user talk page saying that I would not revert a 3rd time or more times his or her revert in order not to break 3RR rule, and also added my opinion on this editorial dispute in RFV-NE. I also asked him or her to provide sources stating this supposed Spanish word is such. (Here I do not have to provide a proof that the word is not part of Spanish language, but the user stating this word has to provide proof the word is part of).

This block should have never be done without a proper warning (that the user did not do) and should not be performed by him or her, because the user was involved in the conflict, therefore being judge and party. I am not a vandal, neither editwarring. I was doing what has to be done in order to preserve factual accuracy of the content of this project. And be noted that 30-day block is at most disproportionate if the reason of blocking is being taken in account. And that without mentioning that "block" is a "last resource" option to use after other means proven not to be effective.

Therefore, I am asking to completely revoke this abusive block, delete the logs to this stain to my wikireputation (that my completely clean record was destroyed by him or her) and to review and eventually sanction if it is considered so, this administrator due to misuse of the block tool. I ask the intervention of an uninvolved administrator to solve this case. --Zerabat (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

First of all; the block is partial and only affects one page, which lets you freely edit elsewhere. Edit warring is still edit warring even if you don't break some magical 3 revert rule. The moment you were reverted for removing an entry (again, something you shouldn't do; this is standard Wiktionary practice, and it's hard to blame anyone else for not trying to get a hang of it before doing something this drastic), you shouldn't have chosen to revert it again, even if granted, the revert could have suggested using WT:RFVN which is what you should've done from the start (I always put such a suggestion in my summaries). — surjection ⟨?⟩ 22:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Surjection Thanks for your kind answer. It's nice to have users like you trying to make this project great. Although I think I am right (because even if I undid a 2nd time that edit, I received that sanction under the basis I'd keep editwarring even if I told him or her I wouldn't do so), in order to avoid creating a heat environment, let's move on. From now, I will abstain from editing in this project completely so I don't upset other users and keep the contents as they want to keep them regardless of what I think. --Zerabat (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that as necessary. The "sanction" is barely that, as it only concerns the editing of one page only, and should be viewed through that lens. When disputing the existence of terms or meanings, WT:RFV is the standard way of disputing them (not to be confused with WT:RFD for deleting meanings that may be attestable but should be removed for some other reason). It's a fairly common mistake for editors not familiar with Wiktionary policies to assume that they can just remove entries or meanings on the basis that they don't think they exist, which makes it more understandable. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 00:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)