User:Jooler/block

User:Jooler reported by SlimVirgin (Result: 72 hours)
3RR violation on by


 * Version reverted to 22:26 March 7
 * 1st revert 23:24 March 7
 * 2nd revert 23:28 March 7
 * 3rd revert 23:41 March 7
 * 4th revert 23:51 March 7
 * 5th revert 00:09 March 8

Jooler supported Pigsonthewing in the BLP violations (see report above) and also violated 3RR. They are more or less simple reverts, though he may have tweaked the wording a little. The sentence "This search result (concerned) is not removed from google.com" can be used as a point of reference to check the violation, as it appears in each revert, except that the last time he tweaked it to "The search result concerned only affects Google.co.uk and not Google.com." SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * 24 hours for persistently targetting Gillian McKeith for BLP violations, 24 hours for playing dumb about it on the Talk: page, and 24 hours for 3RR violation. Jayjg (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm missing something, but I find it hard to believe that an admin should block somebody for 24 hours for "playing dumb on talk," relating to a content dispute that the admin was directly involved in. Is that really what happened here? Mackan79 16:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC) That's fine; I guess I'd just think it would be better if you'd done that, then, which would allow Jooler to deal directly with an uninvolved admin, among other things, if he had some gripe.Mackan79 20:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Well, you had been involved on the talk page, telling Jooler to remove "original research" and accusing him of playing dumb to his protestations (continuing on his talk page) that it was not original research. That would seem to me to qualify as being involved. I suppose this is a genuine disagreement, but I also think it's a problem more care isn't taken to show people that the rules really are being interpreted fairly, even if they are. Mackan79 20:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm an uninvolved admin, and I was going to block for 4 days until I saw that Jayjg had already blocked. Heimstern Läufer 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * BLP violations are not "content disputes". I know nothing about Gillian McKeith, and have never edited the article. Jayjg (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I came to the talk page to warn him of his BLP violations, and would have blocked him for that alone. BLP is quite serious, and warning someone about it is not a content dispute, but an administrative action. Jayjg (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been involved with that article and I was the one who originally drew admin attention to the violations of BLP that were taking place there. I complained both here and at the BLP talk page. As far as I know (it's only a guess) SlimVirgin began to edit the article as a result of coming to look at it after I complained. I noticed Jayjg on the talk page once or twice, just warning people of the policy, but not expressing an opinion about the subject matter, and I can confirm that he never edited the article, or showed any interest in it, other than warning editors about BLP. WP:BLP says "Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves." So I can't see that Jayjg's "involvement" is a problem. Additionally, he did ask Jooler to remove the problematic material before he blocked, and I notice that he offered this morning to lift the block early, if Jooler agreed to ensure that future edits to the article would conform to WP:BLP and WP:NOR. I can't see that warning someone of a BLP violation rather than blocking without warning somehow makes the admin "involved". ElinorD (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)