User:Jtdirl blocked me (Leifern) for allegedly violating the 5 reverts in 24 hour rule. This is both unreasonable and an abuse of his admin privileges, for the following reasons: - There are actually 4 reverts in about 4 hours - The reversions were of deletions of graphs - since it's simply not possible to reword images, I had little option besides reverting the deletions - The person who kept deleting the graphs did very little to justify them besides saying that they were irrelevant - My adversary (Geni, also an admin) reverted three times, but this apparently didn't bother Jtdirl - Jtdirl has an axe to grind - we had an editing dispute that he lost about heirs apparent - I can't help but think this is a vindictive act. - Jtdirl gave no warning, made no effort to mediate, simply went ahead and blocked
I don't know what the remedy for this is, but I would propose that both Jtdirl and Geni lose their admin privileges. If I am not unblocked immediately, I am happy to find another hobby. I believe my contributions speak for themselves - that would be a great loss for the WP community.
Leif-
- There are actually 4 reverts in about 4 hours
It's called the three-revert-rule, not the five-revert-rule. You made more than 3 reverts, so you violated it; the other user did not. It's generally considered good form to educate users about the rule before blocking them when they are in violation of it, which is the reason you were unblocked fairly quickly. I see no evidence of bad faith on Jtdirl's part.
As for the graphs, I have responded on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaccine_controversy
Erik
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni wrote:
I don't know what the remedy for this is, but I would propose that
both Jtdirl and Geni lose their admin privileges.
Again? Can you show where I have abused my admin powers?
"My adversary (Geni, also an admin) reverted three times, but this apparently didn't bother Jtdirl"
It shouldn't have bothered him. The limit is three reverts per day.
- -- Blog: http://frazzydee.ca
Leif Knutsen wrote:
If I am not unblocked immediately, I am happy to find another hobby. I believe my contributions speak for themselves - that would be a great loss for the WP community.
And again. Why do newbies keep posting this? How many people actually fall for this? How many people actually read this and go "OMG we're gonna lose a valuable contributor! Must unblock quick!!!"?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
Timwi wrote:
And again. Why do newbies keep posting this? How many people actually fall for this? How many people actually read this and go "OMG we're gonna lose a valuable contributor! Must unblock quick!!!"?
Er, because they're *new*? They don't know what's come before.
Very few people will actually make a significant difference to what happens here. We all like to think that things would fall apart on Wikipedia without us, but it's rarely true.
It kinda pisses me off when people 'threaten' to leave if we don't give in to their requests. It comes off as really arrogant and somewhat like attempted blackmail, IMHO.
- -- Blog: http://frazzydee.ca
Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
Timwi wrote:
And again. Why do newbies keep posting this? How many people actually fall for this? How many people actually read this and go "OMG we're gonna lose a valuable contributor! Must unblock quick!!!"?
Er, because they're *new*? They don't know what's come before.
Yes, but isn't that all the more reason to assume that we won't de-admin two long-time trusted contributors just to save one contributor whom we don't even know? I just don't get why so many newbies instantly think that they're the most valuable Wikipedian ever born and that established admins must leave to make room for them.
Timwi wrote:
Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
Timwi wrote:
And again. Why do newbies keep posting this? How many people actually fall for this? How many people actually read this and go "OMG we're gonna lose a valuable contributor! Must unblock quick!!!"?
Er, because they're *new*? They don't know what's come before.
Yes, but isn't that all the more reason to assume that we won't de-admin two long-time trusted contributors just to save one contributor whom we don't even know? I just don't get why so many newbies instantly think that they're the most valuable Wikipedian ever born and that established admins must leave to make room for them.
Given that we just topped 250,000 contributors, it is clear that the proportion of newbies doing this (1 or 2 a month?) is vanishingly small, its just that you notice them more.
Wow! Wikipedia is now a small city!
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
Timwi wrote:
And again. Why do newbies keep posting this? How many people actually fall for this? How many people actually read this and go "OMG we're gonna lose a valuable contributor! Must unblock quick!!!"?
Er, because they're *new*? They don't know what's come before.
Yes, but isn't that all the more reason to assume that we won't de-admin two long-time trusted contributors just to save one contributor whom we don't even know? I just don't get why so many newbies instantly think that they're the most valuable Wikipedian ever born and that established admins must leave to make room for them.
Given that we just topped 250,000 contributors, it is clear that the proportion of newbies doing this (1 or 2 a month?) is vanishingly small, its just that you notice them more.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
They're trying everything in their arsenal, that's why.
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Timwi wrote:
Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
Timwi wrote:
And again. Why do newbies keep posting this? How many people actually fall for this? How many people actually read this and go "OMG we're gonna lose a valuable contributor! Must unblock quick!!!"?
Er, because they're *new*? They don't know what's come before.
Yes, but isn't that all the more reason to assume that we won't de-admin two long-time trusted contributors just to save one contributor whom we don't even know? I just don't get why so many newbies instantly think that they're the most valuable Wikipedian ever born and that established admins must leave to make room for them.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No offense, but I thought this was a 3RR rule - 3 reverts and revisions on a page. Since when did it go to 5 reverts/24 h?
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Leif Knutsen wrote:
User:Jtdirl blocked me (Leifern) for allegedly violating the 5 reverts in 24 hour rule. This is both unreasonable and an abuse of his admin privileges, for the following reasons:
- There are actually 4 reverts in about 4 hours
- The reversions were of deletions of graphs - since it's simply not possible to reword images, I had little option besides reverting the deletions
- The person who kept deleting the graphs did very little to justify them besides saying that they were irrelevant
- My adversary (Geni, also an admin) reverted three times, but this apparently didn't bother Jtdirl
- Jtdirl has an axe to grind - we had an editing dispute that he lost about heirs apparent - I can't help but think this is a vindictive act.
- Jtdirl gave no warning, made no effort to mediate, simply went ahead and blocked
I don't know what the remedy for this is, but I would propose that both Jtdirl and Geni lose their admin privileges. If I am not unblocked immediately, I am happy to find another hobby. I believe my contributions speak for themselves - that would be a great loss for the WP community. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Look at Eric's reply. It never changed. I don't see any reason to strip someone from their admin powers for enforcing the rules.
--Mgm
On 5/9/05, Richard Rabinowitz rickyrab@eden.rutgers.edu wrote:
No offense, but I thought this was a 3RR rule - 3 reverts and revisions on a page. Since when did it go to 5 reverts/24 h?
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Leif Knutsen wrote:
User:Jtdirl blocked me (Leifern) for allegedly violating the 5 reverts in 24 hour rule. This is both unreasonable and an abuse of his admin privileges, for the following reasons:
- There are actually 4 reverts in about 4 hours
- The reversions were of deletions of graphs - since it's simply not possible to reword images, I had little option besides reverting the deletions
- The person who kept deleting the graphs did very little to justify them besides saying that they were irrelevant
- My adversary (Geni, also an admin) reverted three times, but this apparently didn't bother Jtdirl
- Jtdirl has an axe to grind - we had an editing dispute that he lost about heirs apparent - I can't help but think this is a vindictive act.
- Jtdirl gave no warning, made no effort to mediate, simply went ahead and blocked
I don't know what the remedy for this is, but I would propose that both Jtdirl and Geni lose their admin privileges. If I am not unblocked immediately, I am happy to find another hobby. I believe my contributions speak for themselves - that would be a great loss for the WP community. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/9/05, Richard Rabinowitz rickyrab@eden.rutgers.edu wrote:
No offense, but I thought this was a 3RR rule - 3 reverts and revisions on a page. Since when did it go to 5 reverts/24 h?
It is more than three (ie 4 or greater) in 24 hours. Always has been.