--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The third listed revert is not a direct revert. You could claim it is a complex revert but it doesn't meet my standards (which normaly involve past history of gameing the rule). If a block is disputed it is standard practice that the user remains unblocked.
You REALLY believe Jack Lynch doesn't have a history of gaming the entire Wikipedia? Do you have any idea what you're saying?
RickK
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Arn't I supposed to be unblocked by now?
# 13:38, 27 May 2005 Mel Etitis blocked "User:Sam Spade" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation, replaced until reason for unblocking is given) # 13:21, 27 May 2005 David Gerard unblocked User:Sam Spade (unblocked after discussion on wikien-l) # 13:21, 27 May 2005 David Gerard unblocked User:#23606 (unblocked after discussion on wikien-l) # 12:42, 27 May 2005 Mel Etitis blocked "User:Sam Spade" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation)
Jack (User:Sam Spade)
They're doing the same thing to you they did to me, and presumably other users as well.
They've already made false accusations against me for entering into subjects where I agree with you.
Power corrupts. And as it turns out, Wikipedia Admins are absolutely corrupt, Absolute Power wasn't even required.
-Enviroknot
From: Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com Reply-To: Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Controversial block Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 17:09:54 +0200
Arn't I supposed to be unblocked by now?
# 13:38, 27 May 2005 Mel Etitis blocked "User:Sam Spade" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation, replaced until reason for unblocking is given) # 13:21, 27 May 2005 David Gerard unblocked User:Sam Spade (unblocked after discussion on wikien-l) # 13:21, 27 May 2005 David Gerard unblocked User:#23606 (unblocked after discussion on wikien-l) # 12:42, 27 May 2005 Mel Etitis blocked "User:Sam Spade" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation)
Jack (User:Sam Spade) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
On 5/28/05, Cranston Snord enviroknot@hotmail.com wrote:
Power corrupts. And as it turns out, Wikipedia Admins are absolutely corrupt, Absolute Power wasn't even required.
Now that's going too far.
No issue is just black and white, and yes, unfortunately there are politics ... and they are not trivial themselves. There are some admins who use the admin functions too hastily, or at times, inappropriately, but they are a minority. The majority of administrators don't abuse their adminship, but the same group often usually avoids the debates and politics... this also means that they are not quick undo another administrators actions.
By making allegations like this you do nothing for your case... who would want to help you after claims like this? Already you've been accused of being a sock by someone with a sufficient degree of access to actually tell if you are a sock (well, tell if you edit from the same IP as the user you're accused of being a sock of), and who doesn't have any incentive to make up stories against you. Running around and calling people liars will not get you any friends here, if you are really being wronged perhaps you and the person you are accused of socking could ask wikipedia to disclose the addresses you edit from to the world? Most Wikipedians respond well to rationality, and almost all people respond better to politeness. I understand why you do not feel you owe such kindness to those who have given you trouble, but here you are addressing a much larger community which is filled with people who have done you no wrong.
Ultimately, when you come to edit at Wikipedia you are improving our communities encyclopedia for the world. If a new users shows up and gets treated rudely by the community (for whatever reason), the expected behavior is for the new person to say "Fine, go without my help... you're not paying me to be here!". This sequence of events is unfortunate, which is why we try hard encourage presuming good faith and such... but this sequence is natural. So, when we see a brand new users fighting with vigor for the ability to stay in a community that has treated them poorly please forgive us for having strong doubts about the motivation and identity of that editor.