Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:34, 28 September 2006

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 creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC).

Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:

• protecting and unprotecting pages
• deleting and undeleting pages
• blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Example user.

• (User:William M. Connolley | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

Inappropriately blocked a user for a 3RR violation which manifestly did not happen, using a definition of the 3RR which promotes editing disputes rather than promoting compromise.

Description

This dispute arises out of Justif's insistence on removing whole sections from Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox. It is generally agreed that, while Justif claims exemption under WP:BLP, this is incorrect. His edits are in fact vandalism by removing sourced and neutrally phrased information.

Reverting is undoing another editor's work. The editor in question makes clear here his concerns (in the lower of the two passages he added): they are (a) Cox did not found CSW; (b) She did not break from CSI; (c) Cox left the board of CSW (although this is not quite true: she is still hon. President); (d) the Wilberforce award was not for slavery work but for human rights work in general. So the next time I edit the article, I make changes along exactly the lines Justif suggested. That counts as doing another editor's work, not undoing it.

William M. Connolley's interpretation of 3RR enforcement seems to found itself on the assumption that if that two editors are constantly changing an article (as opposed to three or more), then they must both have broken the 3RR. Not so, and that's a very unsophisticated way of looking at it. If one editor is insisting on their version and only their version, and the other is trying to take account of their concerns and making good faith attempts at a compromise, then the first editor is breaking 3RR but the second isn't.

Holding to this misinterpretation of 3RR simply furthers revert wars, and deters compromise.

The block was reversed by User:Mackensen.

Powers misused

• Blocking (log):

1. User:Dbiv

Applicable policies

• Blocking policy

1. Blocked User:Dbiv for an alleged 3RR violation when User:Dbiv had manifestly not breached the 3RR.

• Three revert rule

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Discussion on the 3RR noticeboard.
2. See User talk:William M. Connolley#Dbiv nonexistent 3RR generally.
3. Here I make a further attempt to solve the dispute, but William M. Connolley immediately deletes it.
4. I make another attempt to solve the dispute, but William M. Connolley deletes that describing it as a 'waste of time'.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. David | Talk 10:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Irishpunktom\ 11:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

Many people get blocked for 3RR, few take it as badly as Dbiv. However... just a quick note to start: The block was reversed by User:Mackensen. Yes it was. To avoid misunderstanding thnough, I don't think M reversed it because of not-breaking 3RR. In fact I'm not perfectly sure why M reversed the block. M should probably explain this.

Continuing: the edits in question are , , and . Three of these are clearly reverts - they are marked as such. So the issue is whether the 4th is too. I would claim that it pretty clearly is: it re-introduces Baroness Cox is one of 18 co-founders of the One Jerusalem organisation... just like the others; it re-adds Anti-Slavery campaigning.

This seems clear enough to me. Its possible I'm wrong, but I don't see how User:Dbiv had manifestly not breached the 3RR can possibly be supportable.

Dbiv may (or may not) be restrospectively claiming justification for his reverts as anti vandalism (if so, why is he compromising with a vandal). But he doesn't indicate this in the edit summaries. Also, the 3RR exception for vandalism is very narrowly drawn; I don't think this is included.

Dbivs attempts to "resolve" this dispute essentially consist of asking for an apology. Thats hardly dispute resolution.

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

1. William M. Connolley 11:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to the response

A reversion of vandalism is a reversion of vandalism, whether mentioned in the edit summary or not. I can't go back through time and retrospectively add to edit summaries the fact that they were vandalism reverts, and especially not when blocked without a chance to explain.

When Justif did explain his problems, I did not revert back to my version. I took his comments on board and incorporated them with mine, to move forward to try to produce a compromise.

But why I am 'taking this badly' ought to be fairly obvious. Here am I, trying to make an informative, sourced, neutral article, and trying to work with a user who will shout "Libel! Lies!" at everything, even when it is obviously not defamatory and is sourced. Here am I trying to reach a consensus, and I get prevented from editing when I haven't broken any rules and have tried to help the encyclopaedia.

Worse, not merely am I prevented from editing, I get a black mark in the teacher's register that might be held against me in the future on any unrelated item. I'm not in the market for another RFA right now, but I might be in the future, and I do not want to have to explain your ludicrous interpretation of the 3RR and how it wrongly led you to block me. But I will have to, unless you apologise. As you ought to know, ignorant and wrong comments in the block log are there indefinitely, and have already caused a serious problem this month with productive and useful editors leaving.

That's why I want an apology on the block log. If you refuse, I want that block log entry deleted entirely. David | Talk 13:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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.