> > Personally I favor being a Barbarian Admin, although Archaeologist
> > Admin is good for a change of pace, and Valkyrie Admin has its
> > equipment advantages at lower levels.
> > Stan
> How about Viking Admin? :-)
I really like the idea of having a Hiking Admin, and I thank you for
suggesting it. You could tell someone to "take a hike" when they got
"off the path", without giving "a fence". <hee hee>
Or you could sponsor outings where local Wikipedians got together for
hiking parties. I'm just not sure this should include hitchhiking. That
might drive some users away.
We should also consider having a Kipling Admin.
Here hoping I'm not being any sillier than the rest of you lot :-)
Ed Poor <-- somewhat dyshexic today
>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 22:58:29 -0700
>From: Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>It's very hard for someone like Enviroknot to gain any sympathy when
>they are obviously, blatantly lying. The odds that two unrelated
>people would get the same IP address and decide to edit the same
>Wikipedia articles one after the other are vanishingly slim. If
>Enviroknot is not the same person as KaintheScion/ElKabong - something
>I personally doubt - the two of them are very closely related. Yet
>Enviroknot denies even that.
>Someone who dives into Wikipedia and instantly goes to a contentious
>article is either a sockpuppet or someone who is responding to a call
>to arms by someone else. Someone who instantly knows all the rules
>and how to skirt them is not some innocent.
Morven makes some pretty good points. Enviroknot is apparently up to no
good. All the same, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be given the rights to
due process of law before banning him.
Thank you for unblocking me. It's good to know that at least one admin has a sense of fairness here. It is very frustrating as a newbie to be told to jump right in and to "be bold!" with editing, but then to be blocked for not having known the rules. I wasn't even aware beforehand that there was a "neutral point of view" rule.
When I get a chance I'll try to read through the rules in order to understand how I can be allowed to make changes to the parts which I don't think are at all "neutral" in the entry as it was (even before I tried editing it).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kat Walsh [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005, 4:41 PM
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocked after making several edits - accused of
> On 5/30/05, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:
> > advert stated for the record:
> > > I would like to be unblocked and be allowed to add a feminist perspective
> to the entry which I edited. I don't think the entry as it stands is
> > Your edits were not vandalism, but they were not acceptable. Stating as
> > a fact that "[p]ornography ... is the representation of the human body
> > or [[human sexual behaviour]] mainly from a male supremacist
> > perspective" is highly opinionated. That statement represents an
> > extreme point of view that most editors and readers will not agree with
> > and will quickly edit away.
> > Something along the lines of "many feminists feel that pornography
> > represents a male supremacist perspective" would be slightly better, but
> > would require a definition of "male supremacist perspective."
> > Also, we are not interested in your personal definitions of
> > "pornography" and "erotica." If those definitions were created
> > elsewhere, please provide references.
> > You may want to suggest changes on the article's talk page and ask for
> > help in wording them so as to conform to the (obligatory) neutral point
> > of view.
> Looking at the page history and the block log, I am going to unblock
> this user. I don't think s/he was adequately warned, and we can't
> expect all newbies to know about restrictions on edit warring without
> being informed. (However, advert, you've now been informed: discuss
> big changes to contentious articles on talk, always, and more than 3
> reverts in one day will merit a 24-hour block; further advice will be
> left on user talk page.)
> I'm all for blocking deliberate vandals, but this appears to be
> editing made in good faith, just without knowledge of policy.
> http://www.mindspillage.net *** IM: LucidWaking
> "There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily
> escaped the chronicler's mind." --Douglas Adams
> WikiEN-l mailing list