Well,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley , deleted
my entry that I linked to below. This makes it very hard to make my
case. The 3RR page states at the top it is about discussion of 3RR
violations. Not that I intended it this way, but I should be able to
report a admin who has violated the 3RR but the admin's instance to
inact the block unequally or otherwise not by policy. Connolley tells me
to discuss it on the talk page of the article, but I highly doubt that
this issue belongs on the talk page of the article. I doubt it belongs
this on the talk page of AN/3RR since that is about operation of the
board. I've posted the entry below and cleaned it up a bit for this mail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_not…
=== [[User:Cleared as filed]] ===
[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR}}. {{3RRV|Cleared as
filed}}:
Reported by: — -Dzonatas 15:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
*This is to hopefully make it more clear to what the dispute is about.
The topic states this is the place to report violations of the 3RR. I
believe that covers those who make reverts and those the implement the
block on those that revert. There are ways for wikipedians to violate
the 3RR and for admins to further violate the 3RR, and there a ways for
the admin to violate the 3RR without the violation on the reported
wikipedian.
* Reference (above, in case this gets archived):
** [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Dzonatas]]
** [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:R.Koot]]
* It is obvious that under the entries for Dzonatas that the reverts are
not [[Wikipedia:revert|identical reverts]]. However, [[User:Cleared as
filed]] still blocked Dzonatas.
* It is obvious that under R.Koot that admins are technical to point out
identical reverts and when reverts don't exactly fit within 24 hours as
a means not to block. However, why was this technicality of identical
reverts not addressed under entries of Dzonatas? I've seen instances
where admin will not block because the reverts are not identical. I have
seen admins block when the four reverts don't exactly fit within 24
hours (as policy notes). However, I have not seen admins block
non-identical reverts except until I have been block.
* I have called this violation on [[User:Cleared as filed]] on this
matter. It is not meant to be punitive. However, it is disruptive when
admins do not equally treat every wikipedians under the same
justification to block. We can not expect equal outcome, but we can
expect equal opportunity. The block limits the opportunities to edit
wikipedia overall. The solution would have been either to block both
Dzonatas and R.Koot, page protection, or realize that [[User:Cleared as
filed]] could have taken few a minutes to also realize that R.Koot made
identical reverts at the same time of R.Koot's report on Dzonatas and
notice that equal blocks is the correct implementation.
* I am done with this. I have wrote this in attempt to hopefully address
a concern that should be noted. -Dzonatas 15:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-----
Connolley claims that I also made 4 reverts. I disagree, and discuss
that issue previously with Cleared as Filed. At the same time I
discussed it with Cleared as Filed, I noted that that R.Koot made 4
reverts and passed along links (the same ones under the entry on the
AN/3RR for R.Koot). Cleared as Filed stated a lack of time to review the
matter but unblocked me, but also stated the if indeed the R.Koot did
make 4 reverts then R.Koot should be blocked. Connolley states that
R.Koot made 4 reverts previously, and wasn't going to implement a block
anyways.
Forgive me if this sounds like a wine or a bicker, but it really isn't
intended that way. I know admins deal with the daily grim, and I really
hope that this is seen in a different light. It is hard since blocks on
3RR become so mainstream. When a users wants to responder like in my
case, they have already have been processed and flush way down the river.
I've reviewed the block logs and found that Cleared as filed's block on
me is a pretty unique action for the admin. One thing to note is that
you won't find a message that where either Cleared as filed or R.Koot
has warned me about any revert before notice to AN/3RR.
Have I made my concern clear? Do we just let this go as business as
usual and not care about any injustice done to me or anyone else in this
like manner? Wikipedia has grown fast, and I'm sure that 3RR method has
been very effective. However, doesn't this instance present a perfect
case that perhaps traditional 3RR implementation may need a watchful
eye? Aren't regular wikipedians allowed to report admins that have not
correctly followed policy on 3RR on the noticeboard itself? I know we
have this mail-list, but such topic could easily be organized under the
same 3RR board.
Thank you for your time,
Jonathan
Jonathan wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#Us…
(active until archived)
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 1/18/06, Jonathan <dzonatas(a)dzonux.net>
wrote:
The user that reported the 3RR has in fact made identical reverts with
no attempt to update the text. Cleary, the report was made to
frustrate the
situation.
Could you back that up with some links/diffs?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l