[WikiEN-l] Violation of blocking policy by user "40277"

[Fred Bauder]

Your edit appears unobjectionable, and while it might be considered
controversial, even tenditious, is factual although it is to a certain
extent background as opposed to figure. After all, "the poor are always with
us." However, regardless of how right you are you cannot revert more than 3
times.

As to discussion of the phrase you added, I don't see any discussion by you
either on the talk page. The persistance of poverty during even the most
prosperous times in the United States belongs in Wikipedia somewhere,
perhaps in the article for every President, perhaps in the article Economy
of the United States.

Fred

> From: James Marshall <jsm at jmarshall.com>
> Reply-To: james at jmarshall.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Violation of blocking policy by user "40277"
> 
> My IP address is 24.4.202.208 .
> 
> Today I added a phrase to an article which clarified an important point.
> Two or three people who don't want the phrase there have been deleting it
> all day, without giving a reason, and marking their deletion as "minor"
> (it's against policy to mark a deletion as minor).  They have also lied,
> calling my edit "vandalism" when they know very well it's not (and anyone
> can see this for themselves).
> 
> I have restored the phrase each time.  Now, without warning, I've just
> been told that I've been blocked by 40277.  The reason given is the cutesy
> but meaningless phrase "Strike 3 bucko".  Strike 3 of what?  I'm not the
> one violating policy here.  Other people are.  (Are they blocked too?)  I
> haven't vandalized.  Rather, others have been deleting text with no
> reason, which, while not technically vandalism, is much closer to it than
> anything I've done.
> 
> If I was blocked but the other users weren't, then user 40277 is misusing
> her/his blocking authority and violating policy; maybe some things need to
> be explained to her/him.  In any case, s/he needs to do a better job of it
> than just giving the lame "Strike 3 bucko".
> 
> You don't need me to tell you that if the administrators use their power
> to promote their point of view, rather than to do their non-biased duties,
> then the whole Wikipedia becomes less relevant in the long run.
> 
> You can trace some of the dispute here:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ronald_Reagan&action=history
> 
> 
> If anyone is in doubt of the relevance of my addition, then I'm happy to
> explain it fully and give supporting evidence.  So far, none of the
> deleters have cared for that.
> 
> 
> James
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l