Message: 4 Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:43:14 +0800 From: ultrablue@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: a4a707705053100431977d076@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 5/31/05, A Nony Mouse tempforcomments@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.
Okay, thanks for clarifying what a "reversion" is.
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.
Okay, but you should've explained your reasons beforehand; those reasons could've saved us much agita!
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
Agreed. Here is someone who has clear, thought-out, and well-displayed (now, anyway) reasons for blocking Enviroknot. Anyone who wants to counter those reasons should go ahead and do so this is what debate is all about, folks.
I should clarify that I am not the user who blocked Enviroknot. I was merely responding to Anonymouse's allegations of the mailing list failing to address the main issue, namely the blocking of Enviroknot.
~Mark Ryan
On 6/1/05, Richard Rabinowitz rickyrab@eden.rutgers.edu wrote:
Message: 4 Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:43:14 +0800 From: ultrablue@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: a4a707705053100431977d076@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 5/31/05, A Nony Mouse tempforcomments@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.
Okay, thanks for clarifying what a "reversion" is.
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.
Okay, but you should've explained your reasons beforehand; those reasons could've saved us much agita!
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
Agreed. Here is someone who has clear, thought-out, and well-displayed (now, anyway) reasons for blocking Enviroknot. Anyone who wants to counter those reasons should go ahead and do so this is what debate is all about, folks.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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.
I totally agree with this. If environknot had been less hostile, his chances of being unblocked would've been much larger.
--Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm stated for the record:
I totally agree with this. If environknot had been less hostile, his chances of being unblocked would've been much larger.
And if trolls were contributors, we wouldn't need the ArbComm.
On 6/1/05 4:26 PM, "Sean Barrett" sean@epoptic.org wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm stated for the record:
I totally agree with this. If environknot had been less hostile, his chances of being unblocked would've been much larger.
And if trolls were contributors, we wouldn't need the ArbComm.
I'd just like to say that I despise the Newspeak technique of abbreviating the name of the arbitration committee. As Orwell wrote in 1984: "It was perceived that in thus abbreviating a name one narrowed and subtly altered its meaning, by cutting out most of the associations that would otherwise cling to it."
See [[Newspeak]].
The Cunctator stated for the record:
On 6/1/05 4:26 PM, "Sean Barrett" sean@epoptic.org wrote:
And if trolls were contributors, we wouldn't need the ArbComm.
I'd just like to say that I despise the Newspeak technique of abbreviating the name of the arbitration committee. As Orwell wrote in 1984: "It was perceived that in thus abbreviating a name one narrowed and subtly altered its meaning, by cutting out most of the associations that would otherwise cling to it."
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Wikipedia.