On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:36:42 UTC, Charles Podles travelingmirv@yahoo.com wrote:
I agree that this block was unjustified, especially since the edit was not vandalism (POV, perhaps, but not vandalism) and blocking sysop (user:Oberiko) made no attempt to explain the three-revert guideline before the block. I have undone the block.
Perhaps it's a little worse than not explaining.
Is there any more to be said about a sysop who is a _participant_ in a revert war, and who blocks an adversary (legalistically, a proper action under 3-reverts) with no more explanation than a rude, spiteful comment that _assumes_ the other knows all the rules? (When the user in question is likely to be a newbie, from his not having a login name.) (And is confirmed as a newbie by a glance at his contributions list.)
is this what we want in sysops? Is assuming good faith just another fantasy of Uncle Ed's?
Hey, if we can drive out people like James, we won't have to deal with all that whinging about driving away good contributors, because we won't have a chance to find out whether they're any good.