Hello all,
The blocked user page says we can appeal here about a block, so I'm doing that. I (User:Cookiecaper) was blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. This was in reaction to my edits on the pages Clitoris and Clitoris (censored). I feel obligated to point out that I did not violate the three-revert rule. I reverted only three times as Wikipedia policy mandates (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clitoris_%28censored%29&action=hi… and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clitoris&action=history). Please unblock. My IP address is 69.240.242.255 :)
Thank you very much.
Truly,
Jeff "cookiecaper" Cook
jeffc(a)gamebaboons.com
AOL Instant Messenger Screen Name iownyou000
Irate and Cookiecaper are now unblocked. I take strong issue with Irate's
over-the-top accusations of trigger-happiness and demands that I be blocked
for what is no more than poor understanding of accepted policy.
I have explained to Irate that as a professional I am not continuously
watching my inbox. The problem was dealt with amicably by Fred, without
accusations, name-calling and draconian demands.
With the new reading, we are now actually dealing with is a 4-Revert Rule.
In my view, three reverts would be fine as a blockable offense. Ideally,
every revert should be explained & discussed on the article's talk page. To
revert haphazardly without a good explanation is a policy crime in itself.
I demand that Irate is blocked for 1 day for every angry message on the
mailinglist and my inbox etc. etc. etc. :-)
Jfdwolff
-------------- Original message --------------
> actionforum(a)comcast.net wrote:
> > Shall we say one abuse per month per sysop, use it strategically?
>
> Perhaps you could show me where that came from in "absent a pattern of
> abuse" ?
That comes from making excuses such as "being human" and he was "baited", which look quite reusable, since sysops will still be human in the future and may be "baited" again. However, it wasn't just your statement, but the general sense of "deference" to other sysops. The sysop community should act as checks and balances upon each other, quickly correcting questionable actions. Their job is protect the community, not just from disruptive behavior below, but from abuses by each other.
-- Silverback
I still have not hear from your administrator jdfwolff about why he's blocked
me.
For every minute I am blocked for I demand that Jdfwolff be blocked for 10
minutes and that he have his privileges withdraw he is obviously triger
happy and unfit to be left in charge of anything.
Last time ignoring the rule about being sensible about when it's 3RR and
this time for no apparent reason.
If the operators of Wikipedia are so damn fussed about being polite etc
then perhaps they should beck it up with slightly more politeness
themselves by explaining their actions.
Yours
John Bradley
Loc: 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK.
Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238
Email: john(a)ontobus.co.uk
WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
Sorry but it seems I was a bit quick on the rudeness their. I got a reply from
the list uses as I sent my msg. Yours
John Bradley
Loc: 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK.
Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238
Email: john(a)ontobus.co.uk
WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
BJörn Lindqvist writes:
> stepping down sounds like a good idea.
Very well. I'll put in a request for de-sysoping.
--
Allan Crossman - a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
The Moon is Waning Crescent (40% of Full)
I wrote:
> > Very well. I'll put in a request for de-sysoping.
TBSDY writes:
> ABSOLUTELY NOT! There is absolutely NO call for this. I will NOT
> support this, unless Evercat absolutely wants this to happen.
It's already done. :-)
Actually I had a nice email from Libertas and I fear that I did indeed
gravely misjudge her, so that makes my actions even more questionable.
--
Allan Crossman - a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
The Moon is Waning Crescent (26% of Full)
Shall we say one abuse per month per sysop, use it strategically?
I agree that Evercat should resign, I'd feel differently if after his realization he had repented and reversed the blocking. BTW, has ANYONE reversed the libertas block yet and explained things to her?
In my case, I think AndyL believed he had a defensible reason (I disagree), but he has also agreed he should have referred it to another sysop and will do so in the future.
-- Silverback
> nas ral wrote:
>
> > Your last act as an admin should be to get another admin to block you
> > for the exact same time that Libertas was erroneously blocked. Its a
> > shame, since you seem like a nice person, and this may have been an
> > unfortunate lapse.
>
> I really don't think we need to actively punish admins for being human.
> He was baited, and absent a pattern of abusive behaviour, combined with
> his clear understanding that his actions were improper and what led to
> them, Allan needs some sort of pseudo-formal scolding. He doesn't need
> to be stripped of his adminship or banned.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:48:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Robert Dodier <robert_dodier(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Evercat v. Libertas
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <20050104174813.47923.qmail(a)web41302.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Robert Dodier wrote in reply to Fred Bauder:
>> Please don't. Just avoid being manipulated and provoked in the
>> future. Experience is a bit too good of a teacher, if this sort
>> of comedy of errors is to knock you out of the game completely.
>Agreed 100% -- no need for Evercat to resign over this incident.
>I'm puzzled that someone suggests resignation is appropriate,
and that Evercat apparently agrees. This incident is simply
being blown way out of proportion.
>Fwiw,
>Robert Dodier
>(Wile E. Heresiarch)
I think you're doing the right thing, Evercat. You acknowledged that
you misused your powers and that you should be relieved of them and
you plan to have the community judge and restore them if they think
it's fit.
I think that other editors, even ones such as Libertas, must have the
assurance that admins will not just block them on a whim.
Dr Zen
It was brought to my attention that Ruy Lopez twice reverted the
article on Joseph Stalin without discussing said reverts on the talk
page. According to remedy #4 of the aforementioned arbcom case
"Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VeryVerily, and Ruy Lopez are required to
discuss all reverts on the relavant talk page, with the goal of
finding mutually acceptable compromises." This he did not do.
The enforcement section states that:
1) If Gzornenplatz, Shorne, or VeryVerily should revert a page more
than once per day, an administrator may ban him for up to 24 hours.
2) If Gzornenplatz, Shorne, or VeryVerily should revert a page without
discussing it on the relevant talk page, an administrator may ban him
for up to 24 hours.
This is an impossible situation. If there is no option for
enforcement, then remedy #4 cannot apply to Ruy Lopez. I am concerned
about what I think is a serious oversight on the part of the
Arbitration Committee. I blocked Ruy Lopez for 24 hours based on my
interpretation of arbcom's intent. If I should not have done this I
apologize in advance and will unblock Ruy post-haste. I felt it
necessary to bring this matter to the community's attention as quickly
and publicly as possible.
-Charles Fulton