If blocking me for reverting vandalism (tag placement and replacement with no discussion despite requests) isnt bad enough I am also blocked from my own user discussion page. I want this violation corrected and the violating administrators warned about their abuses.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant
- John Stuart Mill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't be blocked from your own user talk as the software doesn't allow it afaik
On 1/14/06, prgibbons@ou.edu prgibbons@ou.edu wrote:
If blocking me for reverting vandalism (tag placement and replacement with no discussion despite requests) isnt bad enough I am also blocked from my own user discussion page. I want this violation corrected and the violating administrators warned about their abuses.
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant
- John Stuart Mill
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
On 1/15/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
You can't be blocked from your own user talk as the software doesn't allow it afaik
User talk page protection.
-- Sam
Oh, I'm sorry...didn't quite think that far.
On 1/15/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/15/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
You can't be blocked from your own user talk as the software doesn't
allow
it afaik
User talk page protection.
-- Sam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
On 1/15/06, prgibbons@ou.edu prgibbons@ou.edu wrote:
If blocking me for reverting vandalism (tag placement and replacement with no discussion despite requests) isnt bad enough I am also blocked from my own user discussion page. I want this violation corrected and the violating administrators warned about their abuses.
Please give your username and IP address first. Without those it's impossible for someone to investigate this matter. We have hundreds of blocks a day and finding out which one is on you would be impossible without that info.
Mgm
I believe this is KDRGibby.
K
On 1/15/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/15/06, prgibbons@ou.edu prgibbons@ou.edu wrote:
If blocking me for reverting vandalism (tag placement and replacement
with
no discussion despite requests) isnt bad enough I am also blocked from
my
own user discussion page. I want this violation corrected and the
violating
administrators warned about their abuses.
Please give your username and IP address first. Without those it's impossible for someone to investigate this matter. We have hundreds of blocks a day and finding out which one is on you would be impossible without that info.
Mgm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/14/06, prgibbons@ou.edu prgibbons@ou.edu wrote:
If blocking me for reverting vandalism (tag placement and replacement with no discussion despite requests)
In certain circumstances putting some tags on an article without discussion may be close to vandalism, but if this is going on you shouldn't just edit war over it. Usually this kind of thing is more of a content dispute.
On Jan 14, 2006, at 5:00 PM, prgibbons@ou.edu wrote:
If blocking me for reverting vandalism (tag placement and replacement with no discussion despite requests) isnt bad enough I am also blocked from my own user discussion page. I want this violation corrected and the violating administrators warned about their abuses.
For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special% 3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AKDRGibby
And I suggest you read up about what vandalism is and what is a content dispute, because the exemption for 3RR only applies to the first.
Regards, [[en:User:Bbatsell]]
On 1/16/06, Brock Batsell wikipedia@theskeptik.com wrote:
For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special% 3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AKDRGibby
And I suggest you read up about what vandalism is and what is a content dispute, because the exemption for 3RR only applies to the first.
Regards, [[en:User:Bbatsell]]
No it doesn't. 3RR can be about any edit unless there's a concensus. One should always discuss a change and try to come to an agreement rather than revert more than 3 times. If it's clearly vandalism and everyone but the vandal agrees to that, 3RR is in fact not a problem at all. Vandalism can always be reverted (though usually it's best to still not violate 3RR). In content disputes you always need to take care not to break the 3 revert rule.
Mgm
On Jan 16, 2006, at 12:02 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
No it doesn't. 3RR can be about any edit unless there's a concensus. One should always discuss a change and try to come to an agreement rather than revert more than 3 times. If it's clearly vandalism and everyone but the vandal agrees to that, 3RR is in fact not a problem at all. Vandalism can always be reverted (though usually it's best to still not violate 3RR). In content disputes you always need to take care not to break the 3 revert rule.
Mgm
I don't understand what you said that is contrary to what I said. I quote from the 3RR policy:
The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours of their first reversion. (This does not apply to self- reverts or correction of simple vandalism)
I said that exemption from the 3RR rule only applies to reverting vandalism, which is word-for-word from the policy. The policy is clear that content disputes do not count as "simple vandalism".
[[en:User:Bbatsell]]
On 1/16/06, Brock Batsell wikipedia@theskeptik.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 2006, at 12:02 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
No it doesn't. 3RR can be about any edit unless there's a concensus. One should always discuss a change and try to come to an agreement rather than revert more than 3 times. If it's clearly vandalism and everyone but the vandal agrees to that, 3RR is in fact not a problem at all. Vandalism can always be reverted (though usually it's best to still not violate 3RR). In content disputes you always need to take care not to break the 3 revert rule.
Mgm
I don't understand what you said that is contrary to what I said. I quote from the 3RR policy:
The policy states that an editor must not perform more than threereversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours of their first reversion. (This does not apply to self- reverts or correction of simple vandalism)
I said that exemption from the 3RR rule only applies to reverting vandalism, which is word-for-word from the policy. The policy is clear that content disputes do not count as "simple vandalism".
[[en:User:Bbatsell]]
My bad. I didn't take the word exemption into account when I read that. You're absolutely right. Sorry.
Mgm
On Jan 16, 2006, at 3:13 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
My bad. I didn't take the word exemption into account when I read that. You're absolutely right. Sorry.
Mgm
Oh good, I was afraid I'd completely misunderstood a policy for a whole year! Thanks for the clarification.
[[en:User:Bbatsell]]