1) Silverback, you were clearly warned that a fourth revert would result in a tempban 2) the question was about your inclusion of a paragraph of original research. Readding that paragraph after it has been removed is a reversion. It doesn't matter if that's the only thing you do in your edit or if you do other things as well, it's still a reversion. If it wasn't then that would create a huge loopholw in revert wars, one could get around the 3R rule simply by reverting whatever text is in question and editing something else in the article at the same time. Indeed the paragraph was readded 4x within a 24 hour period without any alterations, additions, or subtractions to it. The fact that you simultaneously changed *other* parts of the article doesn't mitigate the fact that you reverted on four occasions. 3) In retrospect I should have either asked another admin to implement the tempban or, failing that, put in a request on the admin discussion page. I don't implement bans very often so I'm not as familiar with protocol as I am with the protect page protocol and only recently learned that there was such a thing as an admin discussion page. The only time I've used it to request a tempban was in the case of an editor against whom I have an ArbComm complaint so I thought it would be better to ask someone else to administer the ban. 4) in any case, regardless of who administered the tempban, the fact is you broke the 3RR after you were warned not to.
Regards, AndyL
- Silverback, you were clearly warned that a fourth revert would result in
a tempban 2) the question was about your inclusion of a paragraph of original research. Readding that paragraph after it has been removed is a reversion. It doesn't matter if that's the only thing you do in your edit or if you do other things as well, it's still a reversion. If it wasn't then that would create a huge loopholw in revert wars, one could get around the 3R rule simply by reverting whatever text is in question and editing something else in the article at the same time. Indeed the paragraph was readded 4x within a 24 hour period without any alterations, additions, or subtractions to it. The fact that you simultaneously changed *other* parts of the article doesn't mitigate the fact that you reverted on four occasions. 3) In retrospect I should have either asked another admin to implement the tempban or, failing that, put in a request on the admin discussion page. I don't implement bans very often so I'm not as familiar with protocol as I am with the protect page protocol and only recently learned that there was such a thing as an admin discussion page. The only time I've used it to request a tempban was in the case of an editor against whom I have an ArbComm complaint so I thought it would be better to ask someone else to administer the ban. 4) in any case, regardless of who administered the tempban, the fact is you broke the 3RR after you were warned not to.
Regards, AndyL
Looking at the edit history (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&action=history) of communism I see:
Dec 30, 10:34, Silverback, adding stuff about genes Dec 31, 05:51, 172, reverting Dec 31, 06:15, Silverback, reverting Dec 31, 06:36, 172, reverting Dec 31, 06:45, Silverback expanding and reinserting the gene stuff Dec 31, 06:48, 172, reverting Dec 31, 07:22, Silverback, reverting Dec 31, 15:06, AndyL, reverting
Jan 1, 20:30, Silverback reverting AND changing the paragraph Jan 1, 20:34, AndyL, reverting stuff about genes Jan 1, 21:38, Silverback, reverting AndyL's revert Jan 1, 21:56, AndyL, reverting stuff about genes Jan 1, 22:12, Silverback, reverting AndyL's revert Jan 1, 22:21, AndyL, reverting stuff about genes Jan 1, 22:29, Silverback, reverting AndyL's revert
Comparing Silverback's edit at Jan 1, 20:30 to the one at Dec 31, 07:22 it seems to not have been a revert, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&diff=9017540&old... since he changed the disputed paragraph quite a bit. If that is the case, then there was no reason for Silverback to be banned. Especially not by the admin with whom he was having an edit war with.
I don't think these are errors that can or should slip. Every admin should now that they can NOT use their administrative powers in disputes in which they themselves are involved in. "I didn't know" is not a valid excuse for someone whos job is to know.