"

In your theoretical situation, a single revert might be an edit war.  But the situation here was different than that.  In this situation, my side was discussing things on the talk page, and the other side wasn't.  They repeatedly refused to answer my question about which part of my argument was wrong.  Because they couldn't answer the question, because they knew damn well that I wasn't wrong, but they were too petty to admit it.  I was following Wikipedia dispute resolution policy, and they're the ones who weren't.  And if the other side wasn't discussing their position, then my side was justified in changing the article to our version.  Especially if I only did it once.

And I'm not abusing the unblock templates.  All my requests for unblocks have been totally legitimate.  The fact that they get denied doesn't mean I'm abusing the block/unblock process.  It means that the admins are.

And as I've said several times now, these aren't personal attacks.  They're attacks on the substance of the issues.  If the so called ""edit war"" is about how to apply the Use Common Sense rule, then saying that the other side has no common sense applies to the substance of the issue.  If they're following the letter of the rules rather than the spirit, which is what bureaucrats do, then saying that the other side are bureaucrats applies to the substance of the issue.  I'm not breaking Wikipedia's policy on civility.  Although you are.  It says, and I quote again, ""to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks."" -   "