Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

Unless anyone else wants to comment, I am, in light of Aevar's statement below, considering this matter closed. VV 00:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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: 23:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC).

---

• (Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason | 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

"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" is a recent (ok, not so recent) sysop who disregards the rules. Blocking an active editor is a serious matter, and his disregard for policy and unilateral action could set a bad precedent for admins, once they're made admins, to feel they can just block anyone they want. Even if it only lasts an hour or so they will have successfully thrown their weight around.

Admins are supposed to aver they have read the policies before being promoted, or at least they have been doing so recently. Ignorance can scarcely be accepted as an excuse. Certainly before activating a block an admin should read the blocking policy.

Recommend temporary de-adminship pending a dialogue in which it is clarified that Aevar understands the rules. (+ Otherwise we establish a precedent that admins may perform such actions with impunity.)

Powers misused

• Blocking (log):

1. 21:43, 1 Sep 2004 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason blocked "VeryVerily" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Breaking of the 3 revert rule)

Applicable policies

• Blocking policy

1. Blocked without policy justification

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. VV 23:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
2. Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:57, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

1. — Kate | Talk 23:41, 2004 Sep 1 (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.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

---

I did the block as a request of Node ue who was looking for an admin to block VeryVerily for breaking the three revert rule. He did not seem to find any so i carried out the block.

Since i don't spend a lot of time here having mainly fled to the blessed utopia on is where we never have to block anyone my knowledge of the blocking rules here was a bit rusty, i seemed to recall that it was indeed okey to block for breaking the three revert rule (seems kind of logical it being called a rule and all, sort of doesn't make sense to not have implications for breaking it) so i carried out the block on 21:43.

I then went and edited the Icelandic article on chopstick article for 15 minutes (which is one fine article if i may say so myself) and then came back to find that people were making a large fuss about it, and rightly so. I had only been right to block VV. in my mind where i recall rules incorrectly;=).

Finding that out i unblocked him at 22:03. Tried to unblock him, however as Michael Snow explains below i was unsuccsessful in this. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:07, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

(Michael Snow then unblocked him also on 22:39 VV. might thus quite possibly be the most unblocked user on wikipedia and might need double blocking if a future block against him is to be effective;) I would like to apologize to VV. for having unrightly blocked him and hope that i haven't raised anyones blood pressure too much.

Cheers;) -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 00:10, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

• I was not unblocked at 22:03. VV 00:14, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Ævar did perform an unblock at 22:03. He unblocked the IP autoblock created when VeryVerily attempted to edit while blocked. This would have been the top listing in Special:Ipblocklist at the time he performed the unblock. Given Ævar's lack of practice with blocking/unblocking, it's not surprising if he didn't realize this doesn't actually unblock the username of VeryVerily. See below for all relevant sections of the block log. --Michael Snow 04:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

21:43, 1 Sep 2004 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason blocked "VeryVerily" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Breaking of the 3 revert rule)

22:03, 1 Sep 2004 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason unblocked "#8118" (Unblocking)

22:39, 1 Sep 2004 Michael Snow unblocked "VeryVerily" (failure to cite a justification for blocking that is recognized in Wikipedia:Blocking policy)

22:40, 1 Sep 2004 Michael Snow unblocked "#8120" (failure to cite a justification for blocking that is recognized in Wikipedia:Blocking policy)

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.

Recent sysop? He's been a sysop since late May [1].

Anyhow, VeryVerily, on a regular basis, engages in edit warfare and POV editing. He seems to have NO regard for Wikipedia policies, especially WP:3RR, and violates them often.

VV, problem users are also a serious problem. Whilst perhaps Ævar wasn't 100% correct in making the block, I do think you need time away from Wikipedia. Perhaps to cool down, think about your behaviour... or perhaps to READ SOME POLICIES.

Anyhow, I don't think that this situation at all merits de-adminship. blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
2. Gzornenplatz 23:48, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
3. Node 23:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
4. RickK 23:55, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC) VV is a constant edit-warrior who needs a time out.
5. GeneralPatton 00:05, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I question the relevance of this in the "Outside view" section. This is a personal attack on me of no relevance to the issue at question, by a user with an axe to grind with me. - VV 23:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) Follow up: Gzornenplatz and Node were the others involved in this edit war. VV 23:59, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• This is not at all a personal attack. It is simply my summary of how I percieve the situation. I actually don't even know what there is in my statement which you could misconstrue as a personal attack. And I really have no axe at all to grind... Unless you consider a desire to see a user follow basic Wikipedia policy axe-grinding. blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I think your remark about "problem users" could be (mis)construed as being a personal attack... — Kate | Talk 23:52, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
    • If you'll read the summary carefully, Blankfaze never actually says directly that VV is a problem user... Node 00:02, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Word games. It's implicit. VV 00:04, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • You're just trying to twist the words of someone trying to defend a nice kind man trying to do the right thing to make him look bad. Blankfaze never said in that post that you are a problem user, nor was it directly implied. Quit trying to find things that aren't there. Node 00:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying he did: only offering a suggestion of where the misunderstanding may have come from. — Kate | Talk 00:04, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
        • Ahh, OK.Node 00:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

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