Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 2

message: Merits of the debate aside, I find it disturbing that CJK, who 
reported Stevertigo at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Stevertigo for 3RR and got him blocked, dared to do so in spite of CJK's own breaking the 3RR violation with a good margin (6 reverts in 4 hours) as clear from below.
* 22:02, August 5, 2005 by CJK (see talk)
* 22:19, August 5, 2005 by CJK (Devious? You still have not responded to all of my points.)
*  22:47, August 5, 2005 by CJK (making dubious rv)
* 23:05, August 5, 2005 by CJK (rving pending consensus in talk)
* 01:22, August 6, 2005 by CJK  (rv to TJive)
*  02:05, August 6, 2005 by CJK (rv)
No one (including Steve) went ahead with trying to have CJK blocked because sides felt the ongoing discussion might benefit the article, even with technical violation of the policy by more than a sinlge party. Than one of the violating parties chooses to report the other. I call on everyone to stop the win/loose games and accept some compromises. --Irpen 20:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Irpen, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th are different than the first three, so don't make this accusation. CJK 6 August 2005
:The policy says: Don't revert any single page more than three times within a period of 24 hours. It doesn't say that only reverts to one and the same version are counted. How does it imply so? --Irpen 21:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
::3RR is explicitly designed to stop edit wars, for instance the one taking place on this article. The fact that CJK was also guilty isn't relevant to Steve's position, but CJK apparently hasn't been reported; looks like his lucky day. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:36, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
:::I always assumed that the policy meant the same three reverts, but apparently I'm wrong. I guess the 3RR cops are just going to have to block me. Nevertheless, an admin. should have known better. CJK 6 August 2005
::::I suggest you just take it easy and not be so combative. We had a reasonable discussion at a different page. Just assume good faith. Oh, and nothing prevents you to self-impose a 3RR block (just kidding). --Irpen 21:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
:::::Its hard to "assume good faith" when somebody is making claims of "American Colonialism" in a major article. CJK 6 August 2005
::::::Just give it a try (to assume). Rereard the assume good faith guideline. And check the history of contrubutions of the editors before making judgements. Assuming good faith on everyone's side will actually help the article. --Irpen 22:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Stevertigo should not even be here.  He was blocked twice by separate users and unblocked himself both times.  Not only has he threatened to block users but he blocked an anonymous IP for weeks simply for reverting him, which he "unreverted" after page protection that he requested.  He's only digging himself a hole.  --TJive 00:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
CJK is blocked now. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule states: "In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally." Since Stevertigo got blocked, the only acceptable way to handle this is for CJK to be blocked as well, especially considering that CJK reported Stevertigo. --Michael Snow 03:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts and [[WP:3RR]] claims: and one party reports the other