Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:36, 1 September 2007

Welcome!

Hello QuackGuru! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Cool Cosmos 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Getting started Misplaced Pages tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The "perfect" article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring. WP:3RR is not a license to revert 3 times per article per day. You have been warned three times in the last few days about edit warring- , , . The fact you haven't made a 4th revert in these cases is a clear attempt to game the system. Edit warring is not an accpetable way to deal with content dispute - discuss with other editors instead in future. WjBscribe 19:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is an inappropriate block because the administrator WjBscribe is DIRECTLY involved in the content dispute as the Essjay controversy article. WjBscribe is very much involved at the Essjay controversy article and has abused is administrative powers to game the system.

Decline reason:

Regardless of any other factor, this is a fairly straightforward block. You were warned repeatedly about edit-warring, and you chose to ignore the warnings. — ELIMINATORJR 20:07, 1 September 2007 (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.

(edit conflict) Your 3 reverts on 3 different articles are obviously an attempt to game the system. I endorse this block. Some of your reverts even seem not to be in phase with the current consensus that exists on these pages. Therefore, I suggest you to propose changes on the talk pages and gauge consensus before entering a fruitless and harmful edit-war. — -- lucasbfr 20:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate block because the administrator WjBscribe is DIRECTLY involved in the content dispute at the Essjay controversy article. WjBscribe is very much involved at the Essjay controversy article and has abused is administrative powers to game the system. Here is one example of his direct involvement in the Essjay controversy article. Here is another example of his involvement. An involved administrator does not have the right to abuse their administrative powers when that administrator is directly involved in the content dispute!

When blocking may not be used

Disputes http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disputes

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators.

The above is copy of blocking policy.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

But nevertheless, uninvolved administrators can agree to the block, and decline unblocking. Whoever pressed the button is usually irrelevant. Majorly (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So far 4 admins have given their opinion, mine's looking like the fifth. Majorly has said it well. Since the block was plain and obvious, and the warnings fair and repeated, I'm inclined to be dubious of claims of "abuse". You can ask WJBscribe to reverse it, but frankly you'd be immediately reblocked for the identical purpose and duration by anyone else who looked at the article history. WP:3RR is a bright line rule, there isn't much judgement or abuse potential in it. As Majorly says others will review the reason, the person is usually secondary. There are rules on edit and revert wars, and these apply to the entire community equally. 3RR is one of them. Arguing about being blocked by "the wrong person" seems a bit unhelpful. FT2 20:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)