Misplaced Pages

User talk:QuackGuru

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HighInBC (talk | contribs) at 18:31, 2 September 2007 (Regarding your emailed unblock request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:31, 2 September 2007 by HighInBC (talk | contribs) (Regarding your emailed unblock request)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello QuackGuru! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Cool Cosmos 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring. WP:3RR is not a license to revert 3 times per article per day. You have been warned three times in the last few days about edit warring- , , . The fact you haven't made a 4th revert in these cases is a clear attempt to game the system. Edit warring is not an accpetable way to deal with content dispute - discuss with other editors instead in future. WjBscribe 19:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

QuackGuru (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is an inappropriate block because the administrator WjBscribe is DIRECTLY involved in the content dispute as the Essjay controversy article. WjBscribe is very much involved at the Essjay controversy article and has abused is administrative powers to game the system.

Decline reason:

Regardless of any other factor, this is a fairly straightforward block. You were warned repeatedly about edit-warring, and you chose to ignore the warnings. — ELIMINATORJR 20:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(edit conflict) Your 3 reverts on 3 different articles are obviously an attempt to game the system. I endorse this block. Some of your reverts even seem not to be in phase with the current consensus that exists on these pages. Therefore, I suggest you to propose changes on the talk pages and gauge consensus before entering a fruitless and harmful edit-war. — -- lucasbfr 20:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate block because the administrator WjBscribe is DIRECTLY involved in the content dispute at the Essjay controversy article. WjBscribe is very much involved at the Essjay controversy article and has abused is administrative powers to game the system. Here is one example of his direct involvement in the Essjay controversy article. Here is another example of his involvement. An involved administrator does not have the right to abuse their administrative powers when that administrator is directly involved in the content dispute!

When blocking may not be used

Disputes http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disputes

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators.

The above is copy of blocking policy.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

But nevertheless, uninvolved administrators can agree to the block, and decline unblocking. Whoever pressed the button is usually irrelevant. Majorly (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Majorly has said it well for me. Since the block was plain and obvious, and the warnings fair and repeated, I'm inclined to be dubious of claims of "abuse". You can ask WJBscribe to reverse it, but frankly you'd be immediately reblocked for the identical purpose and duration by anyone else who looked at the article history. WP:3RR is a bright line rule, there isn't much judgement or abuse potential in it. As Majorly says others will review the reason, the person is usually secondary. There are rules on edit and revert wars, and these apply to the entire community equally. 3RR is one of them. Arguing about being blocked by "the wrong person" seems a bit unhelpful. FT2 20:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, WJB should not have made this block. That said, you were clearly edit warring. However, since others were edit warring too, what I'm going to do is unblock you and protect the page. JoshuaZ 20:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, I am taking a wikibreak.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Note. Reblocked by Moreschi given consensus in favour of block, with consent of JoshuaZ . WjBscribe 21:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

QuackGuru (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Another administrator who blocked me is directly involved in the content dispute at the Essjay controversy article. According to block policy, involved administrators are NOT allowed to block any editor when they are involved in the dispute. This shows a clear pattern of abuse of administrative powers. I strongly appeal this block.

Decline reason:

As a strongly uninvolved administrator I also strongly think that you have been repeatedly and sufficiently warned about edit warring. It is you who is trying to game the system here. Миша13 21:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=155078035

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Essjay_controversy

Here is the evidence above that the admin Moreschi is involved in a content dispute and therefore should not have blocked me. In fact, Moreschi reverted my edit.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have provided evidence that I was blocked repeatedly blocked by administrators who are directly involved in a content dispute. According to blocking policy, this was an inappropriate block.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why you are now blocked by an uninvolved administrator. Hence, this argument is now moot. You are welcome to contribute constructively after the block expires. Cheers, Миша13 22:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Both administrators blocked me against Misplaced Pages policy. I provided the evidence that they abused their admin powers which should not have been supported. Supporting blocks against Misplaced Pages policy is not appropriate. This block has essentially rewarded admins who have clearly violated their admin powers.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed - you are currently blocked by my humble self. And the block has been placed to prevent edit warring by you and is unrelated to any alleged misconduct by others. Wikilawyering gets people nowhere. Thank you, Миша13 22:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Please explain why you have rewarded admins who have clearly violated Misplaced Pages blocking policy.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Rewarded? I don't recall giving out barnstars recently... Миша13 22:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Misza13 has also edited the article. I was blocked three times in a row by administrators who have edited the Essjay controversy article.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Edited" != "was in content dispute". It took you quite a long time to pull up an argument this ridiculously weak. (Which smacks of WP:OWN too - what follows from this is that anyone who edits the same article as you do is forbidden to interact with you in any way?) Миша13 22:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
While the other editors edits were clearly in conflict with yours, Misza's edits appear to be very minor. I am however appalled that it took three tries before an essentially uninvolved admin made the block (a block mind you which I'm still not sure made sense given that little or no explanation of the edits was given and that QG attempted to discuss matters on the talk pages). JoshuaZ 17:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

This isn't a forum for you to dig up the contribution histories of every admin that blocks you, find an article you both edited, and then throw around bogus claims of admin abuse. This is disruption, and your user page is now protected. ELIMINATORJR 22:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your emailed unblock request

As on uninvolved admin I find this block justified. You can find more info about what admins think of this block at WP:ANI#Block_of_QuackGuru. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)