Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Please revise " Superintendent of Police (India)" as it contains numerous unnecessary paragraphs and lacks language refinement. Please edit it similar to the District Magistrate article that you previously edited. Thank you. 2409:4073:F:6EDC:0:0:2298:28AD ( talk) 14:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Certainly, I'll add that to my to-do list. Will address it during my spare time.-- The Doom Patrol ( talk) 15:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Done--
The Doom Patrol (
talk) 18:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Please consider the following articles for revision:
2409:4073:307:6341:0:0:1132:B0 ( talk) 11:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- I will consider. But don't expect anytime soon.-- The Doom Patrol ( talk) 19:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- I checked Civil Police Officer. There is a problem. The article is actually a content fork, as CPO and constable are the same. Hence, it is likely to be deleted in future. So, I have decided to nominate it myself to see if it gets deleted (most likely). Otherwise, it would be a waste of effort and time to improve an article which would be deleted in future.-- The Doom Patrol ( talk) 12:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ The Doom Patrol,
While I appreciate the effort you put into reverting my talk page, I am a bit at loss as to the reason for that... I do not see how that comment could have constituted vandalism or "off topic" editing. Could you please explain?
Cheers,
AriTheHorse talk to me! 01:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- If it's okay with you, then fine.-- The Doom Patrol ( talk) 16:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Kannappa film poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Acroterion
(talk) 14:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, that's not what the noticeboard is for, you appear to be pursuing a vendetta rather than a sober examination of an administrator's actions. You may not use the noticeboard as a venue for making unsubstantiated (and frankly ludicrous) accusations of sockpuppetry. You don't get a pass because you're casting aspersions against an administrator rather than a regular editor, and you're also making aspersions against an editor too without any actual proof than what appears to be a grudge you're pursuing against both editors.
Acroterion
(talk) 14:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you realize what you just said above is personal attack and accusations? You said no arguments, just accusations. Why don't you give answer to this part —
I wonder why those two—Ratnahastin and Rzvas, were not blocked based on the same logic, as they were engaged in the same process as I and personal attacked me (dumping garbled verbatim, unconstructive editor, disruptive editing, WP:CIR) with hostile battleground attitude. This sets a bad precedent, as it now seems easy to engage in edit wars when there are two of you against one. No questions asked. Now they can revert back to their POV versions, which they did. How convenient!
. Not "accusations", I am expecting an "argument" that refutes my question. One rebuttal and I will be on my way.-- The Doom Patrol ( talk) 15:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)- Nobody is obligated to answer you.
Bbb23, me, and now Acroterion is the third uninvolved admin to advise you that continuing this feud with Ratnahastin and Rzvas is not in your interest. So either we're all wrong and ganging up on you for no reason, or it's time to
drop the stick. Which do you think is more likely? –
Joe (
talk) 15:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Bbb23 clearly owes an explanation for their actions. I don't go by "count", which cannot supersede merit. Admins have accountability and being an admin doesn't gives them "pass". And stop labelling an issue as "feud". FYI, I am not asking to "block" anybody, I am seeking an answer for the question I posted above. All you give are undemocratic response.--
The Doom Patrol (
talk) 15:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1 then.
Good luck with that. –
Joe (
talk) 15:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Add this one too: It appears that there are authoritarian and undemocratic behaviors being exhibited by certain administrators, who seem to be protecting one of their own and justifying their actions by suppressing reporting and showering accusations and aligning their actions in a way that does not compromise Bbb23's decision, rather than acting in the interest of democracy and equal justice. I am not expecting anything other than an indef block, convenient thing to do.-- The Doom Patrol ( talk) 16:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1 then.
Good luck with that. –
Joe (
talk) 15:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Bbb23 clearly owes an explanation for their actions. I don't go by "count", which cannot supersede merit. Admins have accountability and being an admin doesn't gives them "pass". And stop labelling an issue as "feud". FYI, I am not asking to "block" anybody, I am seeking an answer for the question I posted above. All you give are undemocratic response.--
The Doom Patrol (
talk) 15:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody is obligated to answer you.
Bbb23, me, and now Acroterion is the third uninvolved admin to advise you that continuing this feud with Ratnahastin and Rzvas is not in your interest. So either we're all wrong and ganging up on you for no reason, or it's time to
drop the stick. Which do you think is more likely? –
Joe (
talk) 15:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you realize what you just said above is personal attack and accusations? You said no arguments, just accusations. Why don't you give answer to this part —
Hi! for the record, you're looking for WP:ANI. XRV is specifically for testing individual administrative actions an admin has performed against community consensus without imposing sanctions on anyone. If you are reporting problematic behaviour from several editors, some of whom aren't admins, and want something to happen about it, you're looking for the incidents noticeboard, not XRV, which is why you're getting reverted. I'm not commenting on your chances at ANI, because I haven't looked at the diffs, but keep in mind that a boomerang hits harder the further the further up the escalation chain you go.---- Licks-rocks ( talk) 14:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi The Doom Patrol. In my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, I'm giving you a formal warning regarding personal attacks, edit warring, and battleground editing in the topic area which includes edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. This is an arbitration enforcement (of the case WP:ARBIPA), and it will be logged accordingly. You may appeal this warning using the procedure described here.
It is my sincere hope that this warning dissuades you from further misconduct. To answer a possible question in advance: I'm sanctioning you and not some other editors involved in recent disputes because compelling evidence of your misconduct has been presented. If you have such evidence to present about others, you are still able to bring it up for review at an appropriate venue. I'd caution you that your own behavior—in the past, and in whatever filing you present at that venue—will also be reviewed. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- TDP, I've just reverted your unarchiving of an old thread at ANI. You're headed for a block.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- You being involved user reverted that? Reason? Don't give me that "personal attack" victim play. You clearly have no explanation for what I asked and shows no accountability. And you are going to block me now, an involved admin? --
The Doom Patrol (
talk) 16:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Blocking you doesn't make an administrator "involved." We're not concerned with whether you liked or agree with the block, your actions and treatment of other editors, and how they affect the encyclopedia project are what's at issue. Please stop wasting volunteer time with demands for retribution.All you're doing is affirming the judgment of the administrators who've dealt with your conduct.
Acroterion
(talk) 16:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Stop making
strawman argument. The block itself being the subject and the grievance is against Bbb23, Bbb23 is definitely involved and is currently part of the discussion. You file a case against a police officer who unfairly arrested you, then the same officer acts as the adjudicator and arrests you again and dismisses your case. Does that sound like justice to you? That's one of a kind logic. Bbb23 is clearly INVOLVED and cannot revert reports against them and block me (but then you are admin, you can do anything). BTW, why don't you just answer the question I asked you above?--
The Doom Patrol (
talk) 17:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't a court of law or a democracy, its an encyclopedia, and we're not obligated to satisfy you. See
WP:SATISFY. We're obligated to satisfy the community that our actions are appropriate and accountable. You appear to be bent on arguing with anybody who interacts with you. That's plainly disruptive, and a waste of volunteer time. Making accusations against other editors and administrators doesn't immunize you from consequences.
Acroterion
(talk) 17:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's an example. LOL. Logic doesn't change when venue changes. Bbb23 is still an involved editor, and you appears to have no refutation against it. All you are implying is that you have "immunity" and no accountability just because you are "admins". If someone argues with me, then I argues back, like YOU. It's YOUR decision to argue with me, hence the blame for "wasting time" lies on yourself. You seems like someone waiting to find an excuse to block me. If you are so impatient, then go ahead. Be predictable.--
The Doom Patrol (
talk) 17:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- The issue here is that you have been edit warring against multiple other users to protect our preferred version of the page. The vandalism exception for 3RR only applies to edits that any user who is not involved in the edit war would agree is vandalism, which is obviously not the case here. Also, asking others to open a discussion on the talk page does not count as discussing it on the talk page, and you should have started a discussion there instead of continuing to revert.
QuicoleJR (
talk) 18:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- who is not involved in the edit war would agree is vandalism - that's why I said Bbb23 is biased. What I have done, they have done as well. Explain this:
I wonder why those two—Ratnahastin and Rzvas, were not blocked based on the same logic, as they were engaged in the same process as I and personal attacked me (dumping garbled verbatim, unconstructive editor, disruptive editing, WP:CIR) with hostile battleground attitude. This sets a bad precedent, as it now seems easy to engage in edit wars when there are two of you against one. No questions asked. Now they can revert back to their POV versions, which they did. How convenient!
. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 19:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)- I am not saying that those two are blameless, and I am not saying that they should not be blocked. I haven't looked into their contributions enough to determine that. As someone with no prior experience with this dispute, it looks like a content dispute. 3RRNO is meant to be interpreted very narrowly. If there is any doubt, like there is in this case, 3RR applies. QuicoleJR ( talk) 19:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- who is not involved in the edit war would agree is vandalism - that's why I said Bbb23 is biased. What I have done, they have done as well. Explain this:
- The issue here is that you have been edit warring against multiple other users to protect our preferred version of the page. The vandalism exception for 3RR only applies to edits that any user who is not involved in the edit war would agree is vandalism, which is obviously not the case here. Also, asking others to open a discussion on the talk page does not count as discussing it on the talk page, and you should have started a discussion there instead of continuing to revert.
QuicoleJR (
talk) 18:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's an example. LOL. Logic doesn't change when venue changes. Bbb23 is still an involved editor, and you appears to have no refutation against it. All you are implying is that you have "immunity" and no accountability just because you are "admins". If someone argues with me, then I argues back, like YOU. It's YOUR decision to argue with me, hence the blame for "wasting time" lies on yourself. You seems like someone waiting to find an excuse to block me. If you are so impatient, then go ahead. Be predictable.--
The Doom Patrol (
talk) 17:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't a court of law or a democracy, its an encyclopedia, and we're not obligated to satisfy you. See
WP:SATISFY. We're obligated to satisfy the community that our actions are appropriate and accountable. You appear to be bent on arguing with anybody who interacts with you. That's plainly disruptive, and a waste of volunteer time. Making accusations against other editors and administrators doesn't immunize you from consequences.
Acroterion
(talk) 17:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Stop making
strawman argument. The block itself being the subject and the grievance is against Bbb23, Bbb23 is definitely involved and is currently part of the discussion. You file a case against a police officer who unfairly arrested you, then the same officer acts as the adjudicator and arrests you again and dismisses your case. Does that sound like justice to you? That's one of a kind logic. Bbb23 is clearly INVOLVED and cannot revert reports against them and block me (but then you are admin, you can do anything). BTW, why don't you just answer the question I asked you above?--
The Doom Patrol (
talk) 17:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Blocking you doesn't make an administrator "involved." We're not concerned with whether you liked or agree with the block, your actions and treatment of other editors, and how they affect the encyclopedia project are what's at issue. Please stop wasting volunteer time with demands for retribution.All you're doing is affirming the judgment of the administrators who've dealt with your conduct.
Acroterion
(talk) 16:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Please revise " Superintendent of Police (India)" as it contains numerous unnecessary paragraphs and lacks language refinement. Please edit it similar to the District Magistrate article that you previously edited. Thank you. 2409:4073:F:6EDC:0:0:2298:28AD ( talk) 14:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Certainly, I'll add that to my to-do list. Will address it during my spare time.-- The Doom Patrol ( talk) 15:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Done--
The Doom Patrol (
talk) 18:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Please consider the following articles for revision:
2409:4073:307:6341:0:0:1132:B0 ( talk) 11:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- I will consider. But don't expect anytime soon.-- The Doom Patrol ( talk) 19:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- I checked Civil Police Officer. There is a problem. The article is actually a content fork, as CPO and constable are the same. Hence, it is likely to be deleted in future. So, I have decided to nominate it myself to see if it gets deleted (most likely). Otherwise, it would be a waste of effort and time to improve an article which would be deleted in future.-- The Doom Patrol ( talk) 12:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ The Doom Patrol,
While I appreciate the effort you put into reverting my talk page, I am a bit at loss as to the reason for that... I do not see how that comment could have constituted vandalism or "off topic" editing. Could you please explain?
Cheers,
AriTheHorse talk to me! 01:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- If it's okay with you, then fine.-- The Doom Patrol ( talk) 16:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Kannappa film poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Acroterion
(talk) 14:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, that's not what the noticeboard is for, you appear to be pursuing a vendetta rather than a sober examination of an administrator's actions. You may not use the noticeboard as a venue for making unsubstantiated (and frankly ludicrous) accusations of sockpuppetry. You don't get a pass because you're casting aspersions against an administrator rather than a regular editor, and you're also making aspersions against an editor too without any actual proof than what appears to be a grudge you're pursuing against both editors.
Acroterion
(talk) 14:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you realize what you just said above is personal attack and accusations? You said no arguments, just accusations. Why don't you give answer to this part —
I wonder why those two—Ratnahastin and Rzvas, were not blocked based on the same logic, as they were engaged in the same process as I and personal attacked me (dumping garbled verbatim, unconstructive editor, disruptive editing, WP:CIR) with hostile battleground attitude. This sets a bad precedent, as it now seems easy to engage in edit wars when there are two of you against one. No questions asked. Now they can revert back to their POV versions, which they did. How convenient!
. Not "accusations", I am expecting an "argument" that refutes my question. One rebuttal and I will be on my way.-- The Doom Patrol ( talk) 15:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)- Nobody is obligated to answer you.
Bbb23, me, and now Acroterion is the third uninvolved admin to advise you that continuing this feud with Ratnahastin and Rzvas is not in your interest. So either we're all wrong and ganging up on you for no reason, or it's time to
drop the stick. Which do you think is more likely? –
Joe (
talk) 15:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Bbb23 clearly owes an explanation for their actions. I don't go by "count", which cannot supersede merit. Admins have accountability and being an admin doesn't gives them "pass". And stop labelling an issue as "feud". FYI, I am not asking to "block" anybody, I am seeking an answer for the question I posted above. All you give are undemocratic response.--
The Doom Patrol (
talk) 15:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1 then.
Good luck with that. –
Joe (
talk) 15:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Add this one too: It appears that there are authoritarian and undemocratic behaviors being exhibited by certain administrators, who seem to be protecting one of their own and justifying their actions by suppressing reporting and showering accusations and aligning their actions in a way that does not compromise Bbb23's decision, rather than acting in the interest of democracy and equal justice. I am not expecting anything other than an indef block, convenient thing to do.-- The Doom Patrol ( talk) 16:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1 then.
Good luck with that. –
Joe (
talk) 15:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Bbb23 clearly owes an explanation for their actions. I don't go by "count", which cannot supersede merit. Admins have accountability and being an admin doesn't gives them "pass". And stop labelling an issue as "feud". FYI, I am not asking to "block" anybody, I am seeking an answer for the question I posted above. All you give are undemocratic response.--
The Doom Patrol (
talk) 15:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody is obligated to answer you.
Bbb23, me, and now Acroterion is the third uninvolved admin to advise you that continuing this feud with Ratnahastin and Rzvas is not in your interest. So either we're all wrong and ganging up on you for no reason, or it's time to
drop the stick. Which do you think is more likely? –
Joe (
talk) 15:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you realize what you just said above is personal attack and accusations? You said no arguments, just accusations. Why don't you give answer to this part —
Hi! for the record, you're looking for WP:ANI. XRV is specifically for testing individual administrative actions an admin has performed against community consensus without imposing sanctions on anyone. If you are reporting problematic behaviour from several editors, some of whom aren't admins, and want something to happen about it, you're looking for the incidents noticeboard, not XRV, which is why you're getting reverted. I'm not commenting on your chances at ANI, because I haven't looked at the diffs, but keep in mind that a boomerang hits harder the further the further up the escalation chain you go.---- Licks-rocks ( talk) 14:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi The Doom Patrol. In my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, I'm giving you a formal warning regarding personal attacks, edit warring, and battleground editing in the topic area which includes edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. This is an arbitration enforcement (of the case WP:ARBIPA), and it will be logged accordingly. You may appeal this warning using the procedure described here.
It is my sincere hope that this warning dissuades you from further misconduct. To answer a possible question in advance: I'm sanctioning you and not some other editors involved in recent disputes because compelling evidence of your misconduct has been presented. If you have such evidence to present about others, you are still able to bring it up for review at an appropriate venue. I'd caution you that your own behavior—in the past, and in whatever filing you present at that venue—will also be reviewed. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- TDP, I've just reverted your unarchiving of an old thread at ANI. You're headed for a block.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- You being involved user reverted that? Reason? Don't give me that "personal attack" victim play. You clearly have no explanation for what I asked and shows no accountability. And you are going to block me now, an involved admin? --
The Doom Patrol (
talk) 16:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Blocking you doesn't make an administrator "involved." We're not concerned with whether you liked or agree with the block, your actions and treatment of other editors, and how they affect the encyclopedia project are what's at issue. Please stop wasting volunteer time with demands for retribution.All you're doing is affirming the judgment of the administrators who've dealt with your conduct.
Acroterion
(talk) 16:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Stop making
strawman argument. The block itself being the subject and the grievance is against Bbb23, Bbb23 is definitely involved and is currently part of the discussion. You file a case against a police officer who unfairly arrested you, then the same officer acts as the adjudicator and arrests you again and dismisses your case. Does that sound like justice to you? That's one of a kind logic. Bbb23 is clearly INVOLVED and cannot revert reports against them and block me (but then you are admin, you can do anything). BTW, why don't you just answer the question I asked you above?--
The Doom Patrol (
talk) 17:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't a court of law or a democracy, its an encyclopedia, and we're not obligated to satisfy you. See
WP:SATISFY. We're obligated to satisfy the community that our actions are appropriate and accountable. You appear to be bent on arguing with anybody who interacts with you. That's plainly disruptive, and a waste of volunteer time. Making accusations against other editors and administrators doesn't immunize you from consequences.
Acroterion
(talk) 17:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's an example. LOL. Logic doesn't change when venue changes. Bbb23 is still an involved editor, and you appears to have no refutation against it. All you are implying is that you have "immunity" and no accountability just because you are "admins". If someone argues with me, then I argues back, like YOU. It's YOUR decision to argue with me, hence the blame for "wasting time" lies on yourself. You seems like someone waiting to find an excuse to block me. If you are so impatient, then go ahead. Be predictable.--
The Doom Patrol (
talk) 17:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- The issue here is that you have been edit warring against multiple other users to protect our preferred version of the page. The vandalism exception for 3RR only applies to edits that any user who is not involved in the edit war would agree is vandalism, which is obviously not the case here. Also, asking others to open a discussion on the talk page does not count as discussing it on the talk page, and you should have started a discussion there instead of continuing to revert.
QuicoleJR (
talk) 18:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- who is not involved in the edit war would agree is vandalism - that's why I said Bbb23 is biased. What I have done, they have done as well. Explain this:
I wonder why those two—Ratnahastin and Rzvas, were not blocked based on the same logic, as they were engaged in the same process as I and personal attacked me (dumping garbled verbatim, unconstructive editor, disruptive editing, WP:CIR) with hostile battleground attitude. This sets a bad precedent, as it now seems easy to engage in edit wars when there are two of you against one. No questions asked. Now they can revert back to their POV versions, which they did. How convenient!
. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 19:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)- I am not saying that those two are blameless, and I am not saying that they should not be blocked. I haven't looked into their contributions enough to determine that. As someone with no prior experience with this dispute, it looks like a content dispute. 3RRNO is meant to be interpreted very narrowly. If there is any doubt, like there is in this case, 3RR applies. QuicoleJR ( talk) 19:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- who is not involved in the edit war would agree is vandalism - that's why I said Bbb23 is biased. What I have done, they have done as well. Explain this:
- The issue here is that you have been edit warring against multiple other users to protect our preferred version of the page. The vandalism exception for 3RR only applies to edits that any user who is not involved in the edit war would agree is vandalism, which is obviously not the case here. Also, asking others to open a discussion on the talk page does not count as discussing it on the talk page, and you should have started a discussion there instead of continuing to revert.
QuicoleJR (
talk) 18:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's an example. LOL. Logic doesn't change when venue changes. Bbb23 is still an involved editor, and you appears to have no refutation against it. All you are implying is that you have "immunity" and no accountability just because you are "admins". If someone argues with me, then I argues back, like YOU. It's YOUR decision to argue with me, hence the blame for "wasting time" lies on yourself. You seems like someone waiting to find an excuse to block me. If you are so impatient, then go ahead. Be predictable.--
The Doom Patrol (
talk) 17:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't a court of law or a democracy, its an encyclopedia, and we're not obligated to satisfy you. See
WP:SATISFY. We're obligated to satisfy the community that our actions are appropriate and accountable. You appear to be bent on arguing with anybody who interacts with you. That's plainly disruptive, and a waste of volunteer time. Making accusations against other editors and administrators doesn't immunize you from consequences.
Acroterion
(talk) 17:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Stop making
strawman argument. The block itself being the subject and the grievance is against Bbb23, Bbb23 is definitely involved and is currently part of the discussion. You file a case against a police officer who unfairly arrested you, then the same officer acts as the adjudicator and arrests you again and dismisses your case. Does that sound like justice to you? That's one of a kind logic. Bbb23 is clearly INVOLVED and cannot revert reports against them and block me (but then you are admin, you can do anything). BTW, why don't you just answer the question I asked you above?--
The Doom Patrol (
talk) 17:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Blocking you doesn't make an administrator "involved." We're not concerned with whether you liked or agree with the block, your actions and treatment of other editors, and how they affect the encyclopedia project are what's at issue. Please stop wasting volunteer time with demands for retribution.All you're doing is affirming the judgment of the administrators who've dealt with your conduct.
Acroterion
(talk) 16:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)