I have received no response to my inquiry, so I am repeating it here.
I have been wrongly accused of using sockpuppets to circumvent the 3rr. I have been suspended, as have two others who share my views. Furthermore, the sysop has blocked edits to the page in violation of the adminship rules - for CONTENT REASONS, and she admits it at the bottom of talk:feces.
I demand due process. I want an investigation. Do an IP check. Give me a call, 918-313-7160. Call the others who are blocked. This is an abuse of adminship.
Me: Eyeon. Purported sockpuppets: Niglet and Fecologist. Admin: SlimVirgin.
_________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
On 14/06/05, Jane Halliwell hundredpurses@hotmail.com wrote:
I have received no response to my inquiry, so I am repeating it here.
You sent a post to a mailing list without subscribing to that list; replies *were* sent, but to the list, without explicitly sending a copy to your address, as I am now doing. This is normal on a list of this kind, since it is assumed that everyone is subscribed, and it thus acts as a kind of "forum" collecting and redistributing everyone's messages.
To see the replies you missed, see the mailing list's archive at http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/thread.html#24644
Please check the talk:feces page before deciding if SlimVirgin has behaved properly. She has misrepresented the situation.
At Talk:Feces, we have THOROUGHLY discussed the issue, and public opinion is in FAVOR of including the image. 16 to 10.
Furthermore, if you read her 'pre-screening' message, it is not intended to let consensus emerge. It is intended to exclude me from contributing. Read her words at talk:feces.
The 24 hours is not the end of the world for me. But SlimVirgin has PERMANENTLY blocked two newbies. As far as Wiki editing goes, it IS the end of the world for them.
Well whatever the case, 24 hours of not editing a page on feces isn't going to be the end of the world, is it? "Pre-screening" -- also known as coming to some sort of agreement before getting into or continuing a revert war -- is often an essential way of keeping articles from getting, um, crapped up in the process of disagreement. If a user can't be bothered to discuss changes beforehand with other editors before insisting on re-inserting and reverting contentious information, I think that's a good sign of a problem.
FF
On 6/13/05, Jane Halliwell <hundredpurses at hotmail.com> wrote:
I am user:Eyeon. Sysop:SlimVirgin has wrongly suspended me, accusing me of using sockpuppets (user:niglet and user:fecologist) to get around 3rr.> Furthermore, she has blocked editing of Feces article for content reasons, and admits it on the talk:feces page - quote: "If any regular editor
wants
to edit, drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll unprotect." I'm pretty sure that the role of a sysop is NOT to pre-screen edits.>
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Hardly. No ban by an admin is truely permanent. Any other admin can revert the ban at any time.
UtherSRG
On 6/14/05, Jane Halliwell hundredpurses@hotmail.com wrote:
Please check the talk:feces page before deciding if SlimVirgin has behaved properly. She has misrepresented the situation.
At Talk:Feces, we have THOROUGHLY discussed the issue, and public opinion is in FAVOR of including the image. 16 to 10.
Furthermore, if you read her 'pre-screening' message, it is not intended to let consensus emerge. It is intended to exclude me from contributing. Read her words at talk:feces.
The 24 hours is not the end of the world for me. But SlimVirgin has PERMANENTLY blocked two newbies. As far as Wiki editing goes, it IS the end of the world for them.
Well whatever the case, 24 hours of not editing a page on feces isn't going to be the end of the world, is it? "Pre-screening" -- also known as coming to some sort of agreement before getting into or continuing a revert war -- is often an essential way of keeping articles from getting, um, crapped up in the process of disagreement. If a user can't be bothered to discuss changes beforehand with other editors before insisting on re-inserting and reverting contentious information, I think that's a good sign of a problem.
FF
On 6/13/05, Jane Halliwell <hundredpurses at hotmail.comhttp://hotmail.com> wrote:
I am user:Eyeon. Sysop:SlimVirgin has wrongly suspended me, accusing me
of
using sockpuppets (user:niglet and user:fecologist) to get around 3rr.> Furthermore, she has blocked editing of Feces article for content
reasons,
and admits it on the talk:feces page - quote: "If any regular editor
wants
to edit, drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll unprotect." I'm
pretty
sure that the role of a sysop is NOT to pre-screen edits.>
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l