I'm sorry, I am not assuming from the silence of other users.
I am assuming from their completely disrespectful, dismissive, and insulting
attitude towards Enviroknot.
This is a user who has been wronged repeatedly. Even if a sockpuppet, his
account has committed no crimes against Wikipedia. His user page has been
repeatedly vandalized and he has been repeatedly accused of being a
sockpuppet based on where he edits. From the very first email he sent to
this list I saw nothing but list members being dismissive and rude.
I saw Enviroknot explain the IP question, and I saw a number of list members
talk about how he "had to" be lying. Good Faith was NEVER assumed concerning
this user. The entire list broke its own rules and refused to deal
straightforwardly with a user who was being harassed and abused.
Yes he spammed the list, but only after seeing emails from you that I would
have been tempted to send abusive emails back to as well. Emails that were
clearly designed not to solve the problem and get back to what is important,
but to make degrade and insult him.
We should be above this sort of behavior. The point of Wikipedia policy is
to rehabilitate editors if at all possible, not harass newcomers into
leaving.
From: <ultrablue(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: ultrablue(a)gmail.com,English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:43:14 +0800
On 5/31/05, A Nony Mouse <tempforcomments(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
By the time I got to the discussion, it was a
good series of emails
long,
and despite the number of list members who had
posted, none save
SlimVirgin
had bothered to address Enviroknot's concerns
on the block in any way.
SlimVirgin herself made a bad judgement call. An edit made in good faith
should never be considered a reversion, even if it contains some content
that is included in a later reversion.
The 3RR provides an electric-fence against continuing revert wars.
Most of the administrators who enforce the 3RR (and even the
[[WP:AN/3RR]] page) request that as little circumstantial information
be provided. Good faith or bad faith does not come into whether a user
has violated the rule. Your interpretation of the meaning of
"reversion" is not the one accepted in the Wikipedia community. There
are simple reverts and complex reverts (where something is
surreptitiously sneaked back into an article). Every reversion is a
"good faith" reversion to someone in an article content dispute.
Do not assume from the silence of users on the concerns of Enviroknot.
Before I first replied to the list about this situation, I examined
all the relevant diffs, and concluded in my own mind that there is a
clear-cut violation of the 3RR here.
The 3RR does allow administrators some discretion, such as the ability
to unblock people where they have shown remorse for breaking the rule.
Enviroknot has not expressed any such remorse, and has not addressed
the allegations of sockpuppetry. Instead, he or she has spammed the
mailing list and attacked Wikipedia Administrators as a whole. Had
Enviroknot come up with a good explanation for sharing IPs with other
users, expressed some sort of remorse for breaking a very basic rule
and agreed to work collaboratively on the relevant article's talk page
to reach consensus, I have little doubt the ban would have been
happily lifted by a number of administrators.
~Mark Ryan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________
Create a cute, funny or sexy Meego - click for more info!
http://meegos.msn.ie