User talk:Penwhale/Dbachmann Incident

I'd appreciate if people would let this actually resolve. Dbachmann and I talked, we're okay now, please stop instigating. That's why this page is protected. I'd appreciate if you would respect that and leave the issue alone. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you there? Please either respond here or hop on irc. If I don't hear from you, I will unblock. Bishonen | talk 09:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

If you block an admin with 70,000+ edits, make sure to hang around and respond to the inevitable unblock request and think about the possibility of ANI drama when the unblocking admin can't reach you. To a troll, this looks like a juicy cheeseburger. Better yet, announce the block at WP:AN/I and request a review and state conditions on which you would approve of unblocking, such as "user promises to stop reverting". - Jehochman ^Talk 10:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

5:00AM is a little bit hard for me to actually be awake. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I came down hard on Bishonen for that. She's my friend, and now she'll probably hate me forever. If you expect a block to be controversial, invite review to help avoid drama. This is just a tip. Thanks for all you do. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I actually mentioned to #wikipedia-en-admins at the time when I blocked dab and no one (at that point) raised a complaint about it. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks Penwhale. Your block was certainly arguable, but see the reply on my talkpage for what I hope is a neutral take on how you could have handled the situation. dab (𒁳) 11:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that BOTH sides in this dispute are calling each other "trolls" and "vandals", BOTH sides are edit warring with each other, BOTH sides seem to be arguing back and forth on the talk page without progress. I don't think that it's quite fair to only label one side as wrong and the other as right since in my opinion both sides have are making things more difficult than they need to be. If a non-administrator would have violate 3rr on that page then I highly doubt they would have been unblocked so quickly. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second, your RfA barely makes it, largely due to lack of mainspace contributions and, generally experience, and then, not two months later, you take it upon yourself (you of all people) to block an admin with 70,000 edits for using rollback? What a slap in our collective faces. El_C 17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

He blocked Dbachmann for violation of 3rr. Neither of the editors edit counts are relevant. Is an administrator who has 8,000 edits not allowed to block me for 3rr if I have 18,000 edits? What if the admin has 8,000 edits and got a 75% support at his RFA? Can he not block me then? Or is he allowed to do so simply because I'm not an admin? C'mon. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to dignify that provocational distortion with a response. El_C 17:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a question. If it's not right for Penwhale to block Dbachmann for a violation of 3rr because Dbachman has more edits and Penwhale had less support at his RFA then when is an admin allowed and not allowed to block me? Is an admin allowed to block me for 3rr if he only has more edits than me and got at least 80% support at his RFA? Is an admin always allowed to block me for 3rr as long as I'm not a fellow admin? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

An admin with very little mainspace experience, should not be making-up as-they-go-along new rules for the mainspace. El_C 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit count has nothing to do with this case. Using admin rollback in a dispute is frowned upon, but I certainly wouldn't have blocked him just on that particular reason. I blocked him for the 3RR. I merely added the rollback bit to remind him that using admin rollback isn't the best idea, since the automatic edit comment it leaves gives onlookers no help when they try to investigate it. Let me ask you a question, El C: Would you have criticized me for the same thing if I had 40k mainspace edits?- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions. Here is another one, what rules did Penwhale make up? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Did I not italicize rollback? The more sheer text is added to my original comment, the more likely is that the user will disregard it contents. El_C 17:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

3rr is 3rr, rollback or no rollback. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. El_C 18:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow what? Are you saying that simply using rollback absolves a user of violating 3rr? Even if the revert isn't of obvious vandalism, in this case it wasn't? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman is merely challenging the apologists in this arena. Dab got what was coming to him, considering that he likes to use his weight to bully other users in his fields of editing. Having a couple yes-men ready to unblock him certainly would not adumbrate his bravado.Bakaman 22:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he's bullying others; he merely broke a rule while enforcing other policies. That is that. I treat dab as another (well-intended) editor, which is why that when I blocked him I left a message detailing the exact reasons that I blocked him. I don't agree with the notion that "He got what was coming to him". Not one bit. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is beyond satire - he broke a rule in enforcing policy. I take it you have read Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? -- !! ?? 00:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR isn't a rule, it's a policy last time I checked. By the way... Why is this issue still being instigated even when the participants have come to an agreement? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. El_C 02:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read that page again. The header on that page says that it's an official policy. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond to that... El_C 02:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you nicely: Please drop the issue. Dab and I talked about this and something productive came out of this. You're just trying to instigate here, which I will not tolerate (on my talk page, especially). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

IRC have no further comment at this time. El_C 02:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record: WP:IAR shouldn't be the end-all-be-all excuse (and it isn't for me). In fact, I think that civility and no personal attacks are just among the few things that I feel should be followed at all times-- after all, what are we doing here if we can't work together? You criticized me, I gave you my responses and am planning to move on, you don't like it and are still instigating it. I'm not going to go out of my way to persuade you. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Penwhale. I apologize if my posting here annoys you, and I certainly don't mean to instigate anything. Nor do I think El C was trying to instigate anything. I'm not an administrator, but I was surprised too when I saw dbachmann had been blocked, surprised for the reasons already mentioned (hadn't been editing the page for hours since the last revert, meaning the block wasn't preventive). While Wikipedia:Three-revert rule is in fact a policy, it only says an editor may be blocked for up to 24 hours in the first instance. It doesn't say he must be blocked. At any rate, I think what others are trying to tell you here, is that interpreting policy by the letter isn't always the best course of action. It might be better to look at each case individually, and put whatever breach occurred within context of both the editor's and the dispute's history. Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means says The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both. Thank you, for understanding (and thank you for setting Bakasuprman's unhelpful comment straight). Best wishes. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To reply to you, WP:3RR is supposed to stop edit-warring, and in this case the other parties complained about his edits. I also took into consideration that he did not address the issue on the article talk page, and things flared up. If the edit-warring had stopped, fine. I still stand by my decision that my block was okay (but the duration probably was too long, considering). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I don't quite know ... I see you and I both have never been blocked before, and, until yesterday, dbachmann was a member of that club too. While dabbling around here and there in this wikilabyrinth, I've noticed that being blocked is one of the things that frustrates editors most. While it can be a useful tool when dealing with acute disruptive or damaging behavior, I guess I think that particular button should be pushed very reluctantly when it comes to regular no-nonsense contributors. I won't bug you any longer. Peace. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Being blocked will cause frustration, and that's why that I didn't pursue it when Bishonen unblocked Dbachmann. The point of non-indefinite blocks is so that we are reminded to not commit the same mistakes (bans on the other hand are totally different). I don't think any less of Dbachmann just because he violated 3RR. Rather, I feel bad for having to remind him to keep his cool when in a dispute with multiple parties. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)