Brian Brockmeyer wrote:
User:Arigold reported me on the Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/3RR for alleged violation of the 3-revert rule, which was not the case. Phroziac, who handled Arigold's complaint, readily acknowledged that there had been no 3RR violation, writing:
"Maybe I'm blind, but i don't see any four reverts from him that fall into a 24 hour period. However, that is gaming the system, and I have blocked him for 24 hours. In the future, please sign posts on pages like this with ~~~~ --Phroziac (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)"
By Phroziac's own admission, I did not violate the 3RR, yet he proceeded to block me anyway with no basis in Wiki's Blocking Policy.
His claim that I was "gaming the system" amounts to nothing more than an affirmation that I did NOT violate the 3RR. Even still, it lacks all merit, since there were merely 4 reverts in a 5 day span (19:36 September 9 to 19:54 September 14, the date of my last reversion that precipitated Phroziac's block), which hardly evinces any kind of intent to manipulate and exploit the 3RR. The 3RR prohibits 3 reverts within a 24-hour window. I made 4 in 100+ (interestingly enough, the same # as AriGold, who was NOT blocked). Neither the 3RR was violated, nor its spirit, was violated. Not even close.
Alphax wrote:
Actually, it was. You continued to revert without discussing why you were doing so on the article's talk page, or the talk page of the other editor who was reverting you. /That/ is why we have the 3RR
Actually, it wasn't. You should familiarize yourself with Wiki's policies. The policy on blocking for "excessive reverts" reads as follows:
"Excessive reverts Sysops may block users who violate the three revert rule by reverting any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally. It is helpful to leave a notice of the block, with links to the differences that demonstrate the violation, on the user's talk page."
By Phroziac's own admission, there were no 3 reverts within a period of 24 hours, and, hence, no basis for blocking.
As the matter does not fall under any other grounds for blocking in Wiki's Blocking Policy, and that policy is acknowledged as an "exhaustive list" of situations that justify blocking, Phroziac clearly abused his administrative authority by issuing a block in contravention of Wiki's Blocking Policy. The block should be lifted and Phroziac should be called to the carpet for his violation of Wiki policy.
--Brian Brockmeyer
_________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
[[WP:NOT]] overly legalistic or bureaucratic. That's what [[WP:IAR]] is for. Nobody's going to "call to the carpet" Phroziac for issuing a perfectly respectable block against someone who is clearly gaming the system. You still haven't explained why you kept unilaterally removing information without ever discussing anything. As I said, the ultimate check on blocking is that there are more than 500 Wikipedia admins capable of blocking and unblocking. The fact that not one of them has done anything speaks volumes about your case, or lack thereof.
-FCYTravis @ en.wikipedia
On 9/16/05 9:41 AM, "Brian Brockmeyer" brianbrockmeyer@hotmail.com wrote:
<snipped a lot of policy pleading>
G'day Brian,
Alphax wrote:
Actually, it was. You continued to revert without discussing why you were doing so on the article's talk page, or the talk page of the other editor who was reverting you. /That/ is why we have the 3RR
Actually, it wasn't. You should familiarize yourself with Wiki's policies. The policy on blocking for "excessive reverts" reads as follows:
"Excessive reverts Sysops may block users who violate the three revert rule by reverting any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally. It is helpful to leave a notice of the block, with links to the differences that demonstrate the violation, on the user's talk page."
By Phroziac's own admission, there were no 3 reverts within a period of 24 hours, and, hence, no basis for blocking.
Not quite. Phroziac admits you did not revert 3 times. That's not the same as admitting there was no basis for blocking.
As the matter does not fall under any other grounds for blocking in Wiki's Blocking Policy, and that policy is acknowledged as an "exhaustive list" of situations that justify blocking, Phroziac clearly abused his administrative authority by issuing a block in contravention of Wiki's Blocking Policy. The block should be lifted and Phroziac should be called to the carpet for his violation of Wiki policy.
Bzzt! See [[WP:3RR]]: The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.
Now, if you double-check [[WP:BLOCK]], you may find that editors who exhaust the patience of the community by demonstrating an unwillingness to work well with others ... may be blocked.
Avoiding 3RR on a technicality does not prevent you being blocked for 3RR violations. I don't know if that's what you've done, but given Phroiac's comment that he felt you were "gaming the system", it sounds legitimate enough.
(And that's a non-admin's view. Imagine what the *admins* think of you ...)