http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#Use...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversial_blocks
I feel I am a "logged-in user(s) with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reasoning for the block"
I feel that Mel Etitis has a long history of conflict with myself, and should not be blocking me once, much less twice. Comments he made to me by email after the incident (a conversation which I feel should be fully disclosed) make this especially clear. I further feel that I could have been warned, and challenge anyone to suggest that i was aware that my edits were seen to be a 3rr violation, or that if I had been advised thusly that I would have continued to revert. As I made clear in my comment to David here, I do not feel that I had violated the 3rr, and I have no intent to resume the questioned behaviours. I request that I be unblocked.
Jack (User:Sam Spade)
On 5/27/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
I feel that Mel Etitis has a long history of conflict with myself, and should not be blocking me once, much less twice. Comments he made to me by email after the incident (a conversation which I feel should be fully disclosed) make this especially clear.
Block by an administrator who has a history of dispute with you? ... Welcome to wikipedia!
There are plenty of admins (esp of the sort that are glad to undertake blocks but don't do much of the real grunt work like closing VFDs they are uninterested in), we need to avoid the perception of misuse by admins by enforcing a rule against administrative action against users where the admin has had a history of dispute with the same unblinking grind as we've used with 3rr.
Admins who unblock themselves or take administrative action against a user they are in dispute with should be subject to a self-enforced administrative suspension (which backed up by deadminship).
Sadly this is not the case and we currently have a few admins who regularly block people that they have had numerous arguments with, admins who unblock themselves after violating other rules, and admins who close VFDs that they have been vocally involved with. Hopefully this is just a temporary illness.
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 12:39:58PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
There are plenty of admins (esp of the sort that are glad to undertake blocks but don't do much of the real grunt work like closing VFDs they are uninterested in), we need to avoid the perception of misuse by admins by enforcing a rule against administrative action against users where the admin has had a history of dispute with the same unblinking grind as we've used with 3rr.
Agreed.
If administrative access is supposed to be "no big deal", then it mustn't be usable to get one's way in a dispute.
It would be much better if people who are in a dispute and happen to have administrative access would just temporarily forget that they have that access, so as not to give any impression of abusing it. In a dispute, an administrator should do the same things that any other experienced user would do -- including, if necessary, calling for some other administrator to take action such as blocking an offender.
Admins who unblock themselves or take administrative action against a user they are in dispute with should be subject to a self-enforced administrative suspension (which backed up by deadminship).
Deadmin? Isn't he that DC Comics character with the red suit and the pale expression? :)