User:Ta bu shi da yu/RFC on Quadell

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 06:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Please note : This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:


 * protecting and unprotecting pages
 * deleting and undeleting pages
 * blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Requests for comment/Example user.


 * (Quadell | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

Description
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it.

Quadell blocked HistoryBuffEr (and any IP used by HistoryBuffEr) without any justification. He cited "3RR violation" as the reason.

However, HistoryBuffEr did not violate the Three revert rule.

Quadell was informed of his error in blocking by two editors and was asked to unblock HistoryBuffEr, but Quadell has not responded.

Quadell was involved in editing/personal disputes with HistoryBuffEr, so Quadell is apparently abusing his sysop privileges to settle private scores (see ), in violation of rules.

Powers misused

 * Blocking (log):
 * {list user or users blocked}


 * 02:26, 2004 Nov 30, Quadell blocked #12130 (expires 02:26, 2004 Dec 1) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "HistoryBuffEr". The reason given for HistoryBuffEr's block is: "violation of 3RR".)
 * 1) (Note to anyone not used to the way blocks work. The above is the autoblocker not quadell. The autoblocker automatically blocks IPs for 24 hours if they known to be used by already blocked users Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 13:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC))
 * 23:48, 2004 Nov 29, Quadell blocked HistoryBuffEr (expires 23:48, 2004 Nov 30) (contribs) (violation of 3RR)

Applicable policies
Blocking policy lists specific reasons for which it may be used, and states that "Blocking should not be used in any other circumstances." . Quadell's blocking for alleged "violation of 3RR" violates the policy because there was no "violation of 3RR" by the blocked user.
 * Blocking policy

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Error pointed out to Quadell, asked for the reason, Quadell has not responded.
 * Error pointed out to Quadell, asked to unblock, Quadell has not responded.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * HistoryBuffEr 06:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement
(sign with ~ )
 * Gzornenplatz 20:40, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Good morning. I blocked HistoryBuffEr once, for twenty-four hours, for violation of the 3 revert rule. Upon review, it appears I was wrong. HistoryBuffEr had actually reverted Rachel Corrie four times in 26 hours, not 24 hours. I apologize.

HistoryBuffEr has subsequently reverted Rachel Corrie four times in a different 26 hour period. HistoryBuffEr could have avoided this problem by abiding by the spirit, and not just the letter, of the 3RR, which he does not seem to want to do.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1)    – Quadell (talk) (help)   14:42, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Response from HistoryBuffEr:
 * I have not "subsequently reverted the page four times in a second 26 hour period". I updated this page twice and reverted it a total of 5 times in 3 days. Even if you counted every edit as a revert that would still contradict your statement.
 * You should have reviewed the edit history before employing the drastic measure of blocking. And, you could have and should have asked or issued a notice before blocking and then carelessly leaving.
 * In view of your rash blocking and now trying to shift the blame, your action appears to be anything but an "innocent mistake". My advice to you is to obey the letter of the rules, then we'll talk about the spirit of your using sysop privs to settle personal scores. HistoryBuffEr 18:30, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
 * Wrong. You reverted numerous times without discussion. This user was actually justified in blocking you, even if you didn't revert 3 times in a 24 hour period. I have noticed that you have reverted other users a total of 9 times on this page over a period of about a month, and it took until November 18 for some real dialogue to occur. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Beg your pardon? The rules do not say "numerous", but more than three in a 24 hour period. HistoryBuffEr
 * Beg your pardon indeed. Why did you think you had the right to do so many reverts?! Pretty close to vandalism. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My response to this is at talk.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   01:56, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Proteus (Talk) 15:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Birds of feather. HistoryBuffEr 18:30, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
 * 1) [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 17:13, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) HistoryBuffEr rides the line and is so active in daily reverting several articles to his personal version that it's easy to see how a mistake could be made. MPerel 19:39, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Unlike MPerel, who just occasionally reverts vandalism, right? See also . HistoryBuffEr 23:38, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
 * 1) Quadell's actions seem an innocent and entirely understandable mistake.  Assume good faith. Jayjg 19:41, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 20:32, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Another "neutral" meber of Jayjg's POV pushing troops. HistoryBuffEr 23:38, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
 * 1) MathKnight 21:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) I also suggest to check this.
 * And find MathKnight there under Jayjg's POV pushing troops. HistoryBuffEr 23:38, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
 * 1) Ta bu shi da yu 21:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) I checked the recent history of that page. Totally justified. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * So, violating the rules is totally justified, is that what you're saying? HistoryBuffEr 23:38, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
 * Nope. I'm saying that he was justified in blocking you due to the way you constantly reverted changes in that article. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Viriditas 22:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) HistoryBuffEr hasn't directly violated the 3RR since November 13th, prior to which he brazenly violated it without any regard to policy. That date may seem notable, because the vote on 3RR enforcement did not begin until November 14th.  Since that time, HistoryBuffEr has been reverting numerous articles to his personal version of the page without consensus, at least three times a day.  Quadell acted in good faith when he blocked HistoryBuffEr, since it did at first appear that HistoryBuffEr had made more than 3 reverts in 24 hours (turned out to be 26).  Quadell has since apologized to HistoryBuffEr for mistakenly blocking him.  I don't understand why this is listed on RFC, since Quadell resolved this dispute with HistoryBuffEr on his talk page.
 * Yet another one of the Jayjg's POV pushing troops. HistoryBuffEr 23:38, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

More time
I see that the note got added to Quadell's page on the 30th. Can we please give him a longer period of time to respond? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Ta bu shi da yu 06:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 06:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As Ta bu shi da yu sees it
Let me see if I get this right: HistoryBuffEr and others have done numerous reverts on that page. The history appears to me to be as follows:

. . time goes by... .
 * 14:06, 2 Nov 2004
 * Updates information, edit history is "Updated NPOV version".
 * 14:18, 2 Nov 2004
 * Objected to by Jayjg, who reverts.
 * 14:21, 2 Nov 2004
 * Reverts Jayjg.
 * 14:25, 2 Nov 2004
 * Reverted by Jayjg.
 * 14:31, 2 Nov 2004
 * Reverts Jayjg.
 * 14:39, 2 Nov 2004
 * Reverted by Jayjg.
 * 14:41, 2 Nov 2004
 * Protection notice added
 * 13:15, 26 Nov 2004
 * Protection notice removed.
 * 05:51, 28 Nov 2004 
 * Again makes the same change!!!!
 * 06:06, 28 Nov 2004
 * Reverted by MathKnight.
 * 06:17, 28 Nov 2004
 * HistoryBuffEr reverts Mathknight's revert.
 * 06:24, 28 Nov 2004
 * revert by MathKnight.
 * 14:47, 28 Nov 2004
 * reverted by HBE
 * 15:46, 28 Nov 2004
 * reverted by Jayjg
 * 07:42, 29 Nov 2004
 * reverts again
 * 08:37, 29 Nov 2004
 * jayjg reverts
 * 18:19, 29 Nov 2004
 * HBE reverts again
 * 20:21, 29 Nov 2004
 * Viriditas reverts - OK, you know that there's a problem when this user reverts. Though I've disagreed with him/her, I respect their neutral POV.
 * 04:56, 30 Nov 2004
 * HBE reverts again
 * 05:00, 30 Nov 2004
 * Another user, MPerel, reverts HBE.
 * 09:10, 30 Nov 2004
 * HBE reverts again.
 * 09:17, 30 Nov 2004
 * Jayjg does final revert in history.

Now I checked the talk page. The first comment from HistoryBuffEr was a threat of desysoping of Jayjg for reverting! good grief. Then I looked down the list and I see a section where Michael Snow pleaded for discussion to take place, with a flat refusal by HistoryBuffEr to talk about the changes with Jayjg "as he seems to be on some kind of a "godly mission", I've given up on talks with him." Then there are two sections where he's asked to respond on the talk page. The first time he responds is to Quadell on 04:30, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC). I note that the first change was done on 2 November!

I think that Quadell was more than justified in blocking this user for a period of time.

Ta bu shi da yu 22:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Ta bu shi da yu 22:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What an egregiously biased view of article history. So, Jayjg' reverting is cool, and a warning to him is a "threat", while HistoryBuffEr's reverts are a crime against humanity, right? That Jayjg proposed no changes and answered no questions is apparently also fine. Have a nice day, and see Arbitration case against Jayjg HistoryBuffEr 23:26, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I didn't realise this RFC was about Jayjg. I thought it was about the way you have been reverting the article, and the fact you got blocked for doing so. If an RFC got put on Jayjg for the same reason, I would most likely state the same thing. So don't bring him into it, you got yourself into hot water, and you've been around this website for long enough to know there are other ways of resolving disputes. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Vote and endorsement comments
Quadell moved my comments to Talk, but my comments are challenging votes and endorsements and thus belong on this page. HistoryBuffEr 19:38, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
 * Why are your comments in the endorsement section, it reads, "This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries." Your comments are in the wrong place. MPerel 19:50, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * It is customary to place challenge comments right below the vote/endorsement challenged. Longer challenge comments belong right here, in this Comment section, not in Talk. HistoryBuffEr 20:13, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Quadell has asked me to comment on the placement of comments by HistoryBuffEr. My view is that it really doesn't matter where comments are placed as long as the page remains readable. Here, the talk page -what does it really matter? The point of a rfc is to try and resolve a dispute. It is more important IMO that disputants listen to what each other are saying and take the points on board than to worry about essentially trivial matters of placement of comments. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My problem had been with the fact that HistoryBuffEr seems to be launching personal attacks or maligning the motives of those who endorsed the response. This could be seen as trying to intimidate users from endorsing, not wanting to get involved because they don't want to be insulted. I think this sort of comment doesn't belong in the Response section.

Another problem is that some of what HistoryBuffEr says – in his response to those who endorsed the Response – is incorrect. My reply is currently on talk, since I don't want the Response section to get too sidetracked. – Quadell (talk) (help)  01:55, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm well I can see how you dont want the response to get sidetracked into an argument - but it's neither hear no there because of what i am about to say below.

Views of Theresa Knott
This RFC looks like it's invalid to me.I dont see evidence that two users tried and failed to resolve the dispute. Mirv's question on Quadell's talk page is dated 3.03 30th nov This rfc was started 06:36, 30 Nov 2004 which by my reckoning is 3 hours and 33mins later. In those 3h33min Quadell made no edits to wikipedia. See his contributions. It is not unreasonable to assume that he didn't get the chance to read any of his talk page messages in order to respond to them. Certainly we can't say the attemps have failed after such a short period of time, so this RFC is invalid. Having said that I agree that admins should be particulaly careful about blocking 3RR violations so as to prevent this kind of mistake in the future. If quadell hasn't already apologised to HB he should do so. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 14:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi, Theresa. This RfC is not invalid (yet). RfCs become invalid after 48 hours if not certified. I was expecting a sincere apology to withdraw this RfC, but as lame excuses and beating up on the victim resulted, I'll just let it expire. HistoryBuffEr 00:11, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
 * I apologized to you on this page and on your talk page. As for my sincerity, please assume good faith.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   12:19, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Victim schmictum. You knew what you were doing. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)