Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:20, 8 October 2005

Revision as of 01:21, 8 October 2005

Line 72:

[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Stevertigo/Proposed_decision#Application_of_the_Three_Revert_Rule|WP:RFAR/SV#FoF>3RR]] is incorrect when it states that 3RR was "correctly applied." The block of CJK by Michael Snow was 24 hours after Geni's block on me. -[[User:Stevertigo|St]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|eve]] 19:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

:"In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally." - he was blocked for 24 hours, and so were you. Even if what you say is true, I fail to see how your treatment was anything but equitable. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 19:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

::They were not applied at the same time. That is not equitable, and blocking admins gave no concern nor impression of knowledge for a proper application of the block. After blocking me, Geni could have easily pressed the 'back' button and blocked party 2. HeThough he should have, he did not. Now, putting aside my case for a moment, what duties does the Arbcom have in changing policy to correct the above oversight? With appreciation for your responsiveness. -[[User:Stevertigo|St]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|eve]] 01:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, putting aside my case for a moment, what duties does the Arbcom have in changing policy to correct the above oversight? With appreciation for your responsiveness. -[[User:Stevertigo|St]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|eve]] 01:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)