On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 15:15 +0100, geni wrote:
On 4/23/06, cwarner <cwarner(a)kernelcode.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 13:08 +0100, geni wrote:
On 4/23/06, cwarner
<cwarner(a)kernelcode.com> wrote:
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.
The only exection to the 3RR is correcting vandalism.
Please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lou_Dobbs
What am I meant to be seeing? are you claiming there was vandalism per
[[Wikipedia:Vandalism]]?
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