Hi,
I seem to have been disabled for breaking the 3RR. My last 3 msg being 10 hours after the previous bring it to four, and happened when User:Anthony DiPierro engaged in deliberate vandalism of the Clitoris page. I wasn't diabled until about 5 hours after the last revert.
User:Anthony DiPierro who revert four times to my three this morning has been left online by user:ChrisO.
I think my account should be reanabled and User:Anthony DiPierro disabled and user:ChrisO admin rights should be removed. It seems a pervers use of the 3RR for whatever reasons.
ChrisO should provide an explanation of his slective and deleyed action. Yours
John Bradley
Loc: 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK. Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238 Email: john@ontobus.co.uk WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
I've unblocked you but take heed. The _only_ reason i unblocked you is because anthony wasn't blocked. You violated the 3RR and so did desearve the block - note that the three reverts are in a 24 hour period - so if you revert the night before and again the next morining you may break the rule without really realising it.
I know you were restoring the consensus version, I know that sockpuppets were used - but there is no need for you to revert war. Do your three reverts and then step back from the article - I assure you that someone else will take up the reigns because as the votes on the talk page there is an overwhelming majority in favour of having the picture.
I do not support any action against chrisO. The policy is new, we are still finding our feet with it.
Please take my advice - a rule is a rule and we all have to follow them. (If you are going to the wikimeet tomorrow night - I'll see you there)
Therresa
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:48:28 -0000, John Bradley john@ontobus.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
I seem to have been disabled for breaking the 3RR. My last 3 msg being 10 hours after the previous bring it to four, and happened when User:Anthony DiPierro engaged in deliberate vandalism of the Clitoris page. I wasn't diabled until about 5 hours after the last revert.
User:Anthony DiPierro who revert four times to my three this morning has been left online by user:ChrisO.
I think my account should be reanabled and User:Anthony DiPierro disabled and user:ChrisO admin rights should be removed. It seems a pervers use of the 3RR for whatever reasons.
ChrisO should provide an explanation of his slective and deleyed action. Yours
John BradleyLoc: 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK. Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238 Email: john@ontobus.co.uk WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Theresa Knott wrote:
I've unblocked you but take heed. The _only_ reason i unblocked you is because anthony wasn't blocked. You violated the 3RR and so did desearve the block - note that the three reverts are in a 24 hour period - so if you revert the night before and again the next morining you may break the rule without really realising it.
I know you were restoring the consensus version, I know that sockpuppets were used - but there is no need for you to revert war. Do your three reverts and then step back from the article - I assure you that someone else will take up the reigns because as the votes on the talk page there is an overwhelming majority in favour of having the picture.
I think it should be noted that another user was blocked earlier for breaking the 3RR while Irate wasn't, despite many reverts on /both/ sides. There may have been other reasons to block the other user but it was the 3RR that was quoted. Irate should really have been warned and (if necessary) blocked at this time.
I didn't activate the block when I noticed because Irate hadn't been warned and because he evidently felt that the revert was of simple vandalism. (I agree that Irate was following consensus, but that doesn't make the other person's edits simple vandalism - this was clearly a content dispute). If Irate had broken the rule after I warned him and pointed him towards the relevant vandalism policies then I would have blocked him (and the same for Anthony of course).
All this isn't to pick a fight, it's just to say that we must be fair about this - as Teresa says, it's important to be even handed in using this rule.
--sannse
Certainly in such cases, both users should be blocked.
I am particularly disappointed with Anthony's statement "(fine, if he can violate the 3RR then so can I)". This is in very poor taste, and that kind of retaliatory behavior is what we should all strive to avoid whenever we can.
Take the higher path, improve your own behavior, even if others do not. Never sink to the level of an interlocutor who is behaving poorly.
This principle servers multiple purposes. First, it is good for you, it is something you can take pride in. Second, it helps the community to sort out who the problem user is... leave a clean paper trail. Third, it can very often inspire the counterparty to pay you the same courtesy in return.
--Jimbo