Administrators should not be selected merely on how long they've been around Wikipedia. They should be summarily appointed Administrators based on their edit history and general practice towards Wikipedia Guidelines. That doesn't seem to be the case, so from all the email i've received it seems that Wikipedia operates more on a nobility system. Which if true, will overtime prove Wikipedia to be a poor source of information. I'm not sure this is true anymore. I'm banned based on the 3RR rule except the fact is that an Administrator disregarded other rules in order to do so. It's easy for me though, I simply no longer need to participate on Wikipedia and will make sure others know of my experience by pointing them to the relevant links. This, obviously not to take away from Wikipedia but in the long run instead of things working themselves out. They will become worst. -c

On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 13:08 +0100, geni wrote: Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lou_Dobbs Please be sure to read the timestamps on the signatures as well. Some of the comments made by editors such as "Wizardy Dragon" have been succinctly placed in the discussion. As it stands, i'm going to have to agree with others and from the emails I've received at least the behavior exhibited agrees with their positions that Wikipedia is a no longer a place people like me should participate. Eventually i'll compile a list of links of why I no longer will participate or recommend Wikipedia to others in the future. I've been thanking all the persons who have helped thus far and thanks to them here in public fashion, again. -c

On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 15:15 +0100, geni wrote: The discussion in relation to Lou Dobbs and the removal of the links www.dobbswatch.com and to the opinion journal. I removed them, they replaced them, I removed them, and put up a NPOV Dispute tag, waited for some civility, they replaced them. They reverted my changes, again, another admin stepped in a reverted then undid his revert after realizing this wasn't vandalism and asked that the admin in question watch his tone see (Re:Blocking 216.254.126.222 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Postdlf) and get someone else to do the blocking regarding the situation. Admin in question reverted again, then I reverted and am blocked by said Administrator. The short, there was no vandalism. There was no general concensus, no Wikipedia guidelines were followed and it's a general mess. Sadly Wikipedia's own guidelines state the following. "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing." If you also take a look at the Articles history you will begin to see a trend of bias from its inception. Including "editors with bias" forming together to graft more Bias. That's what you're meant to be seeing. -c

On 4/23/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: And reverting banned users. Jay.