Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-28 Jeeny
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] Request details
Closed (action taken at WP:ANI). Tiptoety 06:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Who are the involved parties?
User:Swatjester, User:Jeeny
[edit] What's going on?
Jeeny has disagreed with his/her block and so have other users, Swatjester is the reviewing admin and does not think that Picaroon (the blocking admin) block was wrong. Jeeny has made attacks toward Swatjester. Jeeny has sense left wikipedia, (or so the users says).
[edit] What would you like to change about that?
[edit] Mediator notes
[edit] Administrative notes
[edit] Discussion
Resolved. Tiptoety 06:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Far from accurate. Picaroon was the blocking admin, for Jeeny's 3RR vio (which I reviewed and found to be accurate.) Jeeny then protested innocense. I provided evidence of the 3RR vio and was cursed at and personally attacked. I extended the block for a week. Note, I'm declining my end of mediation on this, there is nothing to mediate here and this is the wrong process to use to solve this problem. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender
- I believe that you are wrong, this may not be the best process, but the others may end up getting a user blocked or in trouble and that is not what i wanted from this. I think that it is your duty as an admin the resolve disputes and this is a dispute (as many other users have disagreed with you). Jeeny has sense left wikipedia, which disappoints me. I think this is a good area to talk about this issue openly. Tiptoety 05:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to comment on this. There are 2 problems here. First of all, Jeeny was blocked for "edit warring" on Race of ancient Egyptians, which caused an explainable (and unnecessarily provoked) incivility by the user. If Jeeny handn't been blocked for "edit warring" there would be no problem with anything else.
I dont understand how it can be considered edit warring when a user makes proper, good faith (and much needed) edits to a page, such as the contributions that she made. Today, Jeeny made the following edits to Race of ancient Egyptians:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
Yes, there are a bunch of edits in a short period of time. Yes, some of those edits were reversions of edits made by User:Egyegy. However, look at those diff's. Jeeny made some good, productive, and much needed edits to the page. These edits were corrections of spelling, grammar, punctuation, and other cosmetic changes which did not alter the encyclopedic value whatsoever. It is my opinion that the only reason her edits were reverted by User:Egyegy, is the fact that they have had some minor disputes in the past. Why would a user be blocked for this? It is this block which caused Jeeny to become upset, and have a brief moment of incivility on her talk page. I completely understand why Jeeny became upset about it. If that block hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here right now, and we shouldn't be. - Rjd0060 05:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
All of those edits you cite are substantial content changes. Reverting over them is edit warring. Jeeny should not have done so. She's been blocked several times in the past, and she should know better. This is ridiculous, and it's its completely unacceptable for her to personally attack other users under any circumstances. I will not participate in a mediation, when the predication is on the proper usage of admin tools. There are other forums for that, and besides, Picaroon and I's blocks fit definitively within policy. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Substantial content changes? That is certainly a matter of opinion. How are spelling and grammar corrections (which is what most of those are) substantial content changes? I agree some were not, but some were. This should probably not go any further as User:Jeeny has stated her departure from Wikipedia. - Rjd0060 05:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
