Someone please unblock me. �var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason has gone off his rocker.
VeryVerily
_______________________________________________ No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com
Nah, VV, you could use the time off. Maybe when your block expires you'll stop engaging in edit warfare and POV-pushing.
! blankfaze
You seem to have reverted Henry Kissenger 4 times.
Fred
From: "VV" veryverily@myway.com Reply-To: veryverily@myway.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 17:52:02 -0400 (EDT) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)
Someone please unblock me. ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason has gone off his rocker.
VeryVerily
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Kate wrote:
On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 23:11, Fred Bauder wrote:
You seem to have reverted Henry Kissenger 4 times.
Is this an accepted policy?
Yes, [[WP:3RR]].
Was VV given suitable warning before the block?
All I can see on VeryVerily's talk page is a rude remark from Ævar, and it's only 3 minutes older than the block.
Timwi
On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 23:36, Timwi wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 23:11, Fred Bauder wrote:
You seem to have reverted Henry Kissenger 4 times.
Is this an accepted policy?
Yes, [[WP:3RR]].
"In the case of edit wars on important pages, users are sometimes blocked."
Is this an important page that required a block? Is it appropriate to block under that "policy" with (apparently) no warning?
I cannot see it that way myself.
Was VV given suitable warning before the block?
All I can see on VeryVerily's talk page is a rude remark from Ævar, and it's only 3 minutes older than the block.
Yes, I saw that - I assumed it was set after the block as there was no suggestion that VV would be blocked if hir behaviour continued.
Kate.
Kate wrote:
On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 23:36, Timwi wrote:
Yes, [[WP:3RR]].
"In the case of edit wars on important pages, users are sometimes blocked."
Is this an important page that required a block? Is it appropriate to block under that "policy" with (apparently) no warning?
I cannot see it that way myself.
There was also a degree of provocation from VV's edit war partner, node_ue, who commented "rv vandal" in his summary. The dispute was clearly a content dispute as the talk page proves, to label it vandalism was tantamount to incitement.
I would've protected rather than blocked.
Pete/Pcb21
Obviously I think it is accepted policy. The only question to my mind, is can any sysop block him. As to a warning, he's an old hand.
Fred
From: Kate wikipedia@postoffice.intern.lythe.org.uk Reply-To: wikipedia-reply@postoffice.intern.lythe.org.uk, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 23:30:24 +0100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] VeryVerily's block (was: (no subject))
On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 23:11, Fred Bauder wrote:
You seem to have reverted Henry Kissenger 4 times.
Is this an accepted policy? Was VV given suitable warning before the block?
Kate.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 00:57, Fred Bauder wrote:
Obviously I think it is accepted policy. The only question to my mind, is can any sysop block him. As to a warning, he's an old hand.
Continual problem users should be referred to arbitration, not unilaterally blocked.
I think the fact that sie was immediately unblocked shows that it should not have been done in the first place without (at the very least) discussion.
Kate.
Yes, guess I'm wrong.
Fred
From: Kate wikipedia@postoffice.intern.lythe.org.uk Reply-To: wikipedia-reply@postoffice.intern.lythe.org.uk, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:12:25 +0100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] VeryVerily's block (was: (no subject))
On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 00:57, Fred Bauder wrote:
Obviously I think it is accepted policy. The only question to my mind, is can any sysop block him. As to a warning, he's an old hand.
Continual problem users should be referred to arbitration, not unilaterally blocked.
I think the fact that sie was immediately unblocked shows that it should not have been done in the first place without (at the very least) discussion.
Kate.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l