Well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley , deleted my entry that I linked to below. This makes it very hard to make my case. The 3RR page states at the top it is about discussion of 3RR violations. Not that I intended it this way, but I should be able to report a admin who has violated the 3RR but the admin's instance to inact the block unequally or otherwise not by policy. Connolley tells me to discuss it on the talk page of the article, but I highly doubt that this issue belongs on the talk page of the article. I doubt it belongs this on the talk page of AN/3RR since that is about operation of the board. I've posted the entry below and cleaned it up a bit for this mail. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_not… === [[User:Cleared as filed]] === [[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR}}. {{3RRV|Cleared as filed}}: Reported by: — -Dzonatas 15:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC) '''Comments:''' *This is to hopefully make it more clear to what the dispute is about. The topic states this is the place to report violations of the 3RR. I believe that covers those who make reverts and those the implement the block on those that revert. There are ways for wikipedians to violate the 3RR and for admins to further violate the 3RR, and there a ways for the admin to violate the 3RR without the violation on the reported wikipedian. * Reference (above, in case this gets archived): ** [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Dzonatas]] ** [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:R.Koot]] * It is obvious that under the entries for Dzonatas that the reverts are not [[Wikipedia:revert|identical reverts]]. However, [[User:Cleared as filed]] still blocked Dzonatas. * It is obvious that under R.Koot that admins are technical to point out identical reverts and when reverts don't exactly fit within 24 hours as a means not to block. However, why was this technicality of identical reverts not addressed under entries of Dzonatas? I've seen instances where admin will not block because the reverts are not identical. I have seen admins block when the four reverts don't exactly fit within 24 hours (as policy notes). However, I have not seen admins block non-identical reverts except until I have been block. * I have called this violation on [[User:Cleared as filed]] on this matter. It is not meant to be punitive. However, it is disruptive when admins do not equally treat every wikipedians under the same justification to block. We can not expect equal outcome, but we can expect equal opportunity. The block limits the opportunities to edit wikipedia overall. The solution would have been either to block both Dzonatas and R.Koot, page protection, or realize that [[User:Cleared as filed]] could have taken few a minutes to also realize that R.Koot made identical reverts at the same time of R.Koot's report on Dzonatas and notice that equal blocks is the correct implementation. * I am done with this. I have wrote this in attempt to hopefully address a concern that should be noted. -Dzonatas 15:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC) ----- Connolley claims that I also made 4 reverts. I disagree, and discuss that issue previously with Cleared as Filed. At the same time I discussed it with Cleared as Filed, I noted that that R.Koot made 4 reverts and passed along links (the same ones under the entry on the AN/3RR for R.Koot). Cleared as Filed stated a lack of time to review the matter but unblocked me, but also stated the if indeed the R.Koot did make 4 reverts then R.Koot should be blocked. Connolley states that R.Koot made 4 reverts previously, and wasn't going to implement a block anyways. Forgive me if this sounds like a wine or a bicker, but it really isn't intended that way. I know admins deal with the daily grim, and I really hope that this is seen in a different light. It is hard since blocks on 3RR become so mainstream. When a users wants to responder like in my case, they have already have been processed and flush way down the river. I've reviewed the block logs and found that Cleared as filed's block on me is a pretty unique action for the admin. One thing to note is that you won't find a message that where either Cleared as filed or R.Koot has warned me about any revert before notice to AN/3RR. Have I made my concern clear? Do we just let this go as business as usual and not care about any injustice done to me or anyone else in this like manner? Wikipedia has grown fast, and I'm sure that 3RR method has been very effective. However, doesn't this instance present a perfect case that perhaps traditional 3RR implementation may need a watchful eye? Aren't regular wikipedians allowed to report admins that have not correctly followed policy on 3RR on the noticeboard itself? I know we have this mail-list, but such topic could easily be organized under the same 3RR board. Thank you for your time, Jonathan Jonathan wrote: