Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:50, 10 August 2005 editNoitall (talk | contribs)3,112 edits rv to Noitall, you have been inviting others to participate here, you can't pick and choose when you are filing an RfC← Previous edit Revision as of 20:33, 10 August 2005 edit undo-Ril- (talk | contribs)10,465 edits r.v. Noitall. This isn't filed yet. Its in my user space. Go away Noitall.Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
In order to remain listed at ], at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the ''same'' dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the listing of this dispute page at ](which was: ('''NOT YET LISTED''') {Time stamp: 17:37, August 10, 2005 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: <tt>{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)</tt>. In order to remain listed at ], at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the ''same'' dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the listing of this dispute page at ](which was: ('''NOT YET LISTED''') {insert UTC timestamp with <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: <tt>{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)</tt>.


---- ----
Line 33: Line 33:
=== Users certifying the basis for this dispute === === Users certifying the basis for this dispute ===
:#] ( ] | ] | ] ) 16:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC) :#] ( ] | ] | ] ) 16:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
:#]\<sup>]</sup> 18:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
:#




Line 49: Line 49:
Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>): Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>):
# #

I am going to edit here because '''it was my dispute with -Ril- that caused UninvitedCompany to be the current target of -Ril-'s rage, which I feel bad about'''. Numerous other editors have attempted to resolve problems caused by -Ril-, but he is so extreme they see the problem as unresolvable due to -Ril-'s attempts at vengence, which is what started this RfC. Here are a couple of points:
#-Ril- does not cite the page, here is the correct citation of problem: ]. Note UninvitedCompany attempted to discretely take the actions so he responded on -Ril-'s talk page.
#-Ril- does not give the reason for his 72 hour block, here it is: This is a cut from -Ril-'s talk page:

I am blocking you for 72 hours due to your 3RR violation on ''The Bible and history.''
Your fourth edit was 24 hours and <s>nineteen</s>21 minutes after your first. That's close enough for me, and here's why:
* You are making sterile reverts with no discussion on the talk page and no attempt at compromise in wording.
* You do not appear to be discussing your reverts with the other users on their talk pages or at any other location at Misplaced Pages.
* Both the edit summaries and the timing of your reverts make it clear that you feel that 3 reverts a day is an entitlement, when it's not.
* You appear to be engaging in sterile reverts on several other pages as well.
* I note that you have already been blocked twice in the past month for 3RR violations and therefore I have blocked you for 72 hours rather than the customary 24 hours.
] Co., ] 01:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
:3. prior instance of attempts at mediation with -Ril-:
:::], please be my guest. Two other editors have tried to intercede to no avail. The problem is that -Ril- does not have an edit dispute, he has targeted me. He has done so on about 40 pages so far as he trolls my edits. I keep threatening to do an RfC, but it seems like such a waste of time and effort when I would prefer to be editing. Bottom line, ignoring for the moment his personal vendetta against me, he says "POV" about 100 times without ever once stating what is POV. Jayjg suggested a change to the edit and made it and it was fine. -Ril- even reverted that thinking that I made the edit. ], if you want to stroll into -Ril-world, you are welcome to try. Note his stuborness and crazy disputes on his talk page, as we speak. In fact, I will follow whatever recommendation you make. --] 05:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

--] 17:01, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


== Outside view == == Outside view ==
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.'' ''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''


''{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}''


Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>):
Regarding this issue, see where '''-Ril- erased responses to his own requests and accusing 6 Admins of trolling''' Ril's reason: (→Administrators contacted by -Ril- who have declined to unblock - r.v. UninvitedCompany. This is my talk page. Stop trolling.):
#
Administrators contacted by -Ril- who have declined to unblock

# Hello. I have no interest in trying to be a part in the conflict about your recent reversions. It is certainly not reasonable for me to unblock you just because I had another opinion than the blocking admin. As I'm not part of the story and don't know about it's full extents I prefer to stay out of the discussion too. ] 01:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
# As do I. ]&#8756;] 05:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
# Ditto (correction: I had no opinion or for that matter knowledge of it, I simply can't spare the time to involve myself in the dispute). ] 05:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
#Since the block is not indefinite, I don't think it's appropriate to intervene, ] 05:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
# On a related note, I have received your email. I would prefer not to get involved in this matter at all due to the complexity of the case. There is a message about this block from Noitall at ] - ] 03:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
#I'm not interested in being a part of this either. I'm on vacation, anyway. ] ] 01:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


== Discussion == == Discussion ==

Revision as of 20:33, 10 August 2005

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the listing of this dispute page at WP:RFC(which was: (NOT YET LISTED) {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC).



Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it.

UninvitedCompany, an administrator. Basically, he violated the blocking policy, by blocking me (for 72 hours) after I made 2 reverts, claiming I had broken the 3RR policy listing 4 reverts - 22:51 5 August 2005, 23:00 5 August 2005, 08:58 6 August, 23:12 6 August 2005 - however, none of these cover a period over 24 hours. At the time of the fourth revert listed, there was only 1 prior revert in the prior 24 hours. This is also true for the time of the 3rd revert listed.

I accused UnivitedCompany of breaking the blocking policy, and UnivitedCompany openly admitted doing so - "I have indeed violated the letter of the blocking policy". I also accused UninvitedCompany of blocking me because he/she has an anti-Islamic POV and didn't like the fact that I was opposing anti-Islamic POV pushers, UninvitedCompany replied admitting that they have an "extremely anti-Islamic" POV.

I don't feel this is appropriate behaviour for an administrator - violating blocking policy, and reinterpreting 3RR as 1RR, simply to punish people whose opinions they disagree with, isn't really something that should be permissable. Several administrators have already stated that the block was probably inappropriate (and none have supported UninvitedCompany's stance), but they seem unwilling to become involved (possibly due to UninvitedCompany's status as a longstanding admin (which UninvitedCompany claims makes him a "senior administrator", a post which simply does not exist), not that a cabal exists).

Powers misused

  • Blocking (log):
  1. -Ril-

Applicable policies

  1. Blocking a user who did not break 3RR falsely claiming that the user had done so
  2. Blocking the user who had not broken 3RR for over 24 hours
  3. Blocking the user because the user opposes anti-Islamic POV pushers and UninvitedCompany has an extremely anti-Islamic POV (and therefore sides with the POV pushers) - POV admitted at

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. User talk:-Ril-#3RR violation on The Bible and history

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

  1. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Irishpunktom\ 18:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)


Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.