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

[Dan Drake]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:36:42 UTC, Charles Podles 
<travelingmirv at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I agree that this block was unjustified, especially
> since the edit was not vandalism (POV, perhaps, but
> not vandalism) and blocking sysop (user:Oberiko) made
> no attempt to explain the three-revert guideline
> before the block. I have undone the block. 
> 

Perhaps it's a little worse than not explaining.

Is there any more to be said about a sysop who is a _participant_ in a 
revert war, and who blocks an adversary (legalistically, a proper action 
under 3-reverts) with no more explanation than a rude, spiteful comment 
that _assumes_ the other knows all the rules?  (When the user in question 
is likely to be a newbie, from his not having a login name.)  (And is 
confirmed as a newbie by a glance at his contributions list.)

is this what we want in sysops?   Is assuming good faith just another 
fantasy of Uncle Ed's?

Hey, if we can drive out people like James, we won't have to deal with all
that whinging about driving away good contributors, because we won't have 
a chance to find out whether they're any good.