http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/In... I have five edits there. The first was adding the top and bottom templates; it was not a revert. The last was making my "vote"; it was also not a revert. Yet I've been blocked for a "3RR vio". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&u...
SPUI wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/In...
I have five edits there. The first was adding the top and bottom templates; it was not a revert. The last was making my "vote"; it was also not a revert. Yet I've been blocked for a "3RR vio". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&u...
I forgot to mention that I talked with karmafist on IRC and he maintains that the "vote" was a revert. What the fuck?
The reason given was not exactly what you did, but it was vandalism, "Roadcruft at its worst"
Fred
On Nov 12, 2005, at 5:48 PM, SPUI wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ Interchanges_on_Ontario_provincial_highway_401&action=history I have five edits there. The first was adding the top and bottom templates; it was not a revert. The last was making my "vote"; it was also not a revert. Yet I've been blocked for a "3RR vio". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special% 3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ASPUI _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Look at the edit history of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 40
and check the diffs. 4 times you tried to close it as a "Speedy Keep" although it was just listed today.
Fred
On Nov 12, 2005, at 6:04 PM, SPUI wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
The reason given was not exactly what you did, but it was vandalism, "Roadcruft at its worst"
Exactly what are you talking about? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day SPUI,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/In...
I have five edits there. The first was adding the top and bottom templates; it was not a revert. The last was making my "vote"; it was also not a revert. Yet I've been blocked for a "3RR vio". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&u...
You disruptively attempted to close an AfD on an article that falls into your area of ... what's that word that isn't "obsession" but means the same thing? You did so four times. You then voted "speedy keep", with your first sentence being the same as your edit summary. Now, correct me if I'm wrong --- feel free to add extra interpretations, anyone who reads this --- but I think this could be interpreted in one of four ways:
a) You closed an AfD you *knew* you shouldn't close, and were reverted. You *knew* you would get into trouble if you kept going, but nonetheless attempted to disrupt the subpage a further three times. This is blatant disruption, and warrants blocking. b) You deliberately continued to rv User:Aranda56's edits right up until you knew you'd hit the 3RR limit, then suddenly decided that maybe a note would be more appropriate than wholesale reversion. This is blatantly gaming the 3RR by engaging in an edit war within the "legal" limit, and warrants blocking. c) Your vote could be interpreted as a third rv, given that you'd already "expressed" your opinion so very disruptively so very many times and had it rvted. This is an explicit violation of 3RR, and warrants blocking. d) You were being a dick. This doesn't warrant blocking (necessarily), but is bloody annoying just the same.
Looking at the pages in question, I can see 'a', 'b', and 'd'. I admit that I don't agree with 'c' anymore than you do. But it doesn't really matter --- either way, you're blocked, deservedly so.
Of course, I'm not an admin. Wiser heads may disagree.
You disruptively attempted to close an AfD on an article that falls into your area of ... what's that word that isn't "obsession" but means the same thing? You did so four times. You then voted "speedy keep", with your first sentence being the same as your edit summary.
Have you looked at the article in question? I don't know about others, but to me it's a blatantly obvious speedy keep. People obviously keep the AfD discussion going only because it's "accepted practice" or "policy" or whatever you call it this time. If anyone actually sat down and thought about what we really want, it would be a speedy keep.
It doesn't matter if you were RIGHT. The three revert rule is designed precisely to sidestep discussions of who's right, in order to prevent edit wars. If you want to continue reverting an article inside a 24 hour period, you have to contact someone else and have them do the reverting. The three revert rule is full of loopholes in that sense, but it's purpose is only to make revert wars difficult and annoying enough to carry out that they become rare. It has to be enforced or wikipedia gets clogged up.
On 11/13/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
You disruptively attempted to close an AfD on an article that falls into your area of ... what's that word that isn't "obsession" but means the same thing? You did so four times. You then voted "speedy keep", with your first sentence being the same as your edit summary.
Have you looked at the article in question? I don't know about others, but to me it's a blatantly obvious speedy keep. People obviously keep the AfD discussion going only because it's "accepted practice" or "policy" or whatever you call it this time. If anyone actually sat down and thought about what we really want, it would be a speedy keep.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ben Yates wrote:
It doesn't matter if you were RIGHT. The three revert rule is designed precisely to sidestep discussions of who's right, in order to prevent edit wars.
I think you didn't follow this thread in its entirety. This was about SPUI removing an entry from AfD that was an obvious speedy keep. If people had acknowledged that this was right, instead of insisting that everything must go strictly according to protocol and norm, then there would never have been any reverting, no 3RR violation and no edit war.
Timwi
I think you didn't follow this thread in its entirety. This was about SPUI removing an entry from AfD that was an obvious speedy keep. If people had acknowledged that this was right, instead of insisting that everything must go strictly according to protocol and norm, then there would never have been any reverting, no 3RR violation and no edit war.
For an "obvious speedy keep" it's sure getting a lot of delete votes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Interchanges_on...
This is exactly why we have the 3RR; different people have different opinions and revert warring won't solve anything. Carbonite