I've been blocked by an Administrator who is clearly abusing his administrative rules in regards to 3RR. He's reverted a change I've made in regards to the Lou Dobbs article located here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Dobbs please also see the following discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lou_Dobbs#Removed_Dobbswatch.com_.26_Opini....
He claims there is concensus; there is none. The article section in question has been tagged with the NPOV Dispute tag and submitted for a request for arbitration here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFAR
I've followed the guidelines of Wikipedia and have been banned subsequently for doing so. Through out this process I have been threatened numerous times for following the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia policy.
This hasn't gone without notice as others have said the same thing (see discussion) as well as having my reverts, reverted by parties who took the time to read the discussion (see diffs).
I'm posting here as i've been blocked and protocol has allowed me this option. I will exhaust every avenue within Wikipedia guidelines until they are no more to exhaust.
Administrators should not abuse their power and that is exactly what is taking place here. This is my public notice of such activity.
Thank you, Christopher Warner
I think the external links critical of Lou Dobbs which you repeatedly removed are quite appropriate. They are a bit dated, but are sharp criticisms of Lou Dobbs from substantial sources. You were relying too much on detailed parsing of a Wikipedia guideline and edit warring over it. I love Lou Dobbs and agree with him about illegal immigration and many other things, but he is very much an outrageously point of view reporter; our article needs a few links which sharply criticize him.
Fred
On Apr 22, 2006, at 12:32 PM, cwarner wrote:
I've been blocked by an Administrator who is clearly abusing his administrative rules in regards to 3RR. He's reverted a change I've made in regards to the Lou Dobbs article located here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Dobbs please also see the following discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lou_Dobbs#Removed_Dobbswatch.com_. 26_Opinion_Journal.
He claims there is concensus; there is none. The article section in question has been tagged with the NPOV Dispute tag and submitted for a request for arbitration here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFAR
I've followed the guidelines of Wikipedia and have been banned subsequently for doing so. Through out this process I have been threatened numerous times for following the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia policy.
This hasn't gone without notice as others have said the same thing (see discussion) as well as having my reverts, reverted by parties who took the time to read the discussion (see diffs).
I'm posting here as i've been blocked and protocol has allowed me this option. I will exhaust every avenue within Wikipedia guidelines until they are no more to exhaust.
Administrators should not abuse their power and that is exactly what is taking place here. This is my public notice of such activity.
Thank you, Christopher Warner
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The links in question don't criticize Lou Dobbs, they don't hold any views at all. If you believe they do, please point them out.
The link by Peter Hart I agree with and never removed, the two links in dispute are Dobbswatch.com which is a redirect to a personal section of blog.nam.org which is not allowed under Wikipedia guidelines and the Opinion Journal.
-c
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 15:50 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
I think the external links critical of Lou Dobbs which you repeatedly removed are quite appropriate. They are a bit dated, but are sharp criticisms of Lou Dobbs from substantial sources. You were relying too much on detailed parsing of a Wikipedia guideline and edit warring over it. I love Lou Dobbs and agree with him about illegal immigration and many other things, but he is very much an outrageously point of view reporter; our article needs a few links which sharply criticize him.
Fred
On Apr 22, 2006, at 12:32 PM, cwarner wrote:
I've been blocked by an Administrator who is clearly abusing his administrative rules in regards to 3RR. He's reverted a change I've made in regards to the Lou Dobbs article located here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Dobbs please also see the following discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lou_Dobbs#Removed_Dobbswatch.com_. 26_Opinion_Journal.
He claims there is concensus; there is none. The article section in question has been tagged with the NPOV Dispute tag and submitted for a request for arbitration here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFAR
I've followed the guidelines of Wikipedia and have been banned subsequently for doing so. Through out this process I have been threatened numerous times for following the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia policy.
This hasn't gone without notice as others have said the same thing (see discussion) as well as having my reverts, reverted by parties who took the time to read the discussion (see diffs).
I'm posting here as i've been blocked and protocol has allowed me this option. I will exhaust every avenue within Wikipedia guidelines until they are no more to exhaust.
Administrators should not abuse their power and that is exactly what is taking place here. This is my public notice of such activity.
Thank you, Christopher Warner
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l