[WikiEN-l] Good reasons for blocking Enviro

[ultrablue at gmail.com]

I should clarify that I am not the user who blocked Enviroknot. I was
merely responding to Anonymouse's allegations of the mailing list
failing to address the main issue, namely the blocking of Enviroknot.

~Mark Ryan

On 6/1/05, Richard Rabinowitz <rickyrab at eden.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> 
> >Message: 4
> >Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:43:14 +0800
> >From: <ultrablue at gmail.com>
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on
> >To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> >Message-ID: <a4a707705053100431977d076 at mail.gmail.com>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> >On 5/31/05, A Nony Mouse <tempforcomments at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> By the time I got to the discussion, it was a good series of emails
> long,
> >> and despite the number of list members who had posted, none save
> SlimVirgin
> >> had bothered to address Enviroknot's concerns on the block in any way.
> >> SlimVirgin herself made a bad judgement call. An edit made in good
> faith
> >> should never be considered a reversion, even if it contains some
> content
> >> that is included in a later reversion.
> 
> >The 3RR provides an electric-fence against continuing revert wars.
> >Most of the administrators who enforce the 3RR (and even the
> >[[WP:AN/3RR]] page) request that as little circumstantial information
> >be provided. Good faith or bad faith does not come into whether a user
> >has violated the rule. Your interpretation of the meaning of
> >"reversion" is not the one accepted in the Wikipedia community. There
> >are simple reverts and complex reverts (where something is
> >surreptitiously sneaked back into an article). Every reversion is a
> >"good faith" reversion to someone in an article content dispute.
> 
> Okay, thanks for clarifying what a "reversion" is.
> 
> >Do not assume from the silence of users on the concerns of Enviroknot.
> >Before I first replied to the list about this situation, I examined
> >all the relevant diffs, and concluded in my own mind that there is a
> >clear-cut violation of the 3RR here.
> 
> Okay, but you should've explained your reasons beforehand; those reasons
> could've saved us much agita!
> 
> >The 3RR does allow administrators some discretion, such as the ability
> >to unblock people where they have shown remorse for breaking the rule.
> >Enviroknot has not expressed any such remorse, and has not addressed
> >the allegations of sockpuppetry. Instead, he or she has spammed the
> >mailing list and attacked Wikipedia Administrators as a whole. Had
> >Enviroknot come up with a good explanation for sharing IPs with other
> >users, expressed some sort of remorse for breaking a very basic rule
> >and agreed to work collaboratively on the relevant article's talk page
> >to reach consensus, I have little doubt the ban would have been
> >happily lifted by a number of administrators.
> 
> >~Mark Ryan
> 
> Agreed. Here is someone who has clear, thought-out, and well-displayed
> (now, anyway) reasons for blocking Enviroknot. Anyone who wants to counter
> those reasons should go ahead and do so this is what debate is all about,
> folks.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>