From: "A Nony Mouse" tempforcomments@hotmail.com In the case of Jack, there was a question of a block war. Administrators were fighting over what to do with him. This is not a good thing for Wikipedia editors no matter who they are. It indicates that the user is less of a concern than something between the two Administrators.
It was hardly a block war; you're making a mountain out of a molehill.
As for his complaints about being blocked, the dismissiveness on this board hurt me. No matter who it is making a complaint, we have a duty to investigate it. We are listed as the last resort for users who have been wronged. I took the time to investigate SlimVirgin's blocking of Enviroknot, and I believe that it is not valid.
I took the time to investigate, and as far as I can tell it obviously is valid.
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.
In your opinion.
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.
Nonsense; who are you to judge "good faith"? I'm sure every editor who reverts thinks he or she has a good reason for doing so.
Instead of acknowledging this fact, the list members were universally dismissive of Enviroknot from the first email.
They were universally dismissive because the "fact" you cite is not fact at all.
We have a problem with administrators exceeding their authority on Wikipedia.
There is no evidence for this.
We have a problem with administrators not applying policy correctly.
There is no evidence for this.
And we have a problem with arrogance on these lists, with administrators believing that they are somehow better than others.
On the contrary, the problem on this list is people being incredibly accomodating to obviously disruptive e-mails and posters.
There are a number of administrators who are failing in that responsibility, and they are present on this list.
Name them. Take them to ArbCom.
Jay.