User talk:Risker/Tango Blocks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would help if you said why the blocks were questionable, rather than just asserting that they are. --Tango (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tango. Perhaps this is a difference in perception; I think I've explained why I find the blocks questionable, and many relate to the fact that it appears only blocking for violation of 3RR was considered, not any alternative ways of addressing the conflict. Perhaps your perceptions on these are more editor-specific, while mine are more article-specific. Our objective as an encyclopedia is to have accurate, complete, well-sourced articles. One of the ways we meet that objective is to discuss inclusion/removal of information and come to consensus. Blocked editors cannot discuss the edits in question. In many of these cases, there were other editors involved in the edit war, they just hadn't reached 3RR. In one case, two editors were blocked for edit warring on an article they hadn't edited on the day they were blocked, and they were discussing on the talk page; if you can't see where the problem is in that block, I am not sure anything I write will help you to understand why I find that concerning. As our paths have never crossed (I had never seen your name before the MONGO block), I can assure you that I have no ulterior motives in analysing your block record, and did not start the review with any preconceived ideas of what would be found. Risker (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a difference in perception. I don't like to protect pages when there are people making constructive edits to them, I prefer to deal with the troublemakers without affecting everyone else. As for your "explanations" - your comments about the 22 Feb block don't even make sense. --Tango (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Should the Arbitration Committee decide to accept the case, I will further develop the evidence with diffs and greater detail. I won't do that for an RfC, which has no authority to act upon evidence. I described all of the blocks on regular users, whether or not I thought they were reasonable; I thought the 22 Feb 2007 block on Smeelgova (a longterm editor with a known tendency to push the 3RR) was reasonable. While Smeelgova added slightly different information each time (hence, not reverting to a previous version), the three edits were all in the same line and thus technically count under the 3RR policy. The blocking policy includes consideration of protecting a page as an alternative to blocking; in most of those cases, the only material that was being edited was that which led to blocking, which means the blocks may have stopped the behaviour but did not resolve the content dispute. Risker (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)