User talk:81.208.95.27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Regarding edits made during September 10, 2006 (UTC) to User:Redvers

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning if you did not make any unconstructive edits. MER-C 06:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Nazanin Mahabad Fatehi

Your recent edit to Nazanin Mahabad Fatehi (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 08:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporarily blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR on Palestinian refugee, and another 7 hours for blatant wikilawyering. Please work out issues on Talk: in the future. Jayjg (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request.

Request reason: ""Wikilawyering" carries no specified penalty, and in any case is being applied arbitrarily and selectively: see below"

Decline reason: "The 24h block is uncontested. The 7h block does not warrant a lot more wikilawyering and an RfU. You may discuss your issues at Jayig's talk page after the block expires. Sandstein 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)"

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.
I don't contest the 3rr block: reading the policy more closely I see my first edit was in fact technically a reversion, though the intention was not to revert but to remove content which for which no consensus on inclusion exists.
More importantly, the admin seems to view the 3rr block as a punitive rather than, as WP policy states it ought to be, a preventative tool -- to prevent edit warring. If the blocking admin -- or please, God, any admin -- would look more closely into the dispute about this article and a variety of related articles, he would see that the primary cause of the edit-warring is a small group of extremely stubborn editors who insist on inserting scads of material other editors view as propagandistic and unreliable, and who will not seek consensus with other editors but simply restore the material day after day over the strong and reasonable objections of other editors. So if the point of a block is to prevent edit-warring, the admin who blocked me has picked up this problem by the wrong handle: the problem would be better solved with sanctions against this group of editors.
Which brings me to the topic of "wikilawyering". In fact, it is the other editor, User:Amoruso, who ought to be sanctioned for this practice: WP:LAWYER offers the following as a prime example of the practice:
  • "An editor who intentionally reverts three times every day is not breaching the letter of this rule, but violates the spirit of the rule - and can thus be sanctioned for revert warring."
This is precisely the practice this user, together with User:Shamir1 and User:Isarig, engages in virtually every day, and none of them have ever faced any sanction for the behavior, with the exception of an occasional 3rr block when they forget how to count. The admin who blocked me has never blocked any of them, even though their actions are obviously much more disruptive, especially as they are repeated daily. To block me for "wikilawyering" and not User:Amoruso is to apply the principle (not policy, because it isn't one) selectively.
81.208.95.27 18:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../8/1/2E/User_talk%7E81.208.95.27.html"