On 6/21/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
Ed is spot on, and couldn't be more right about such whinging. Admins shouldn't be above the law, and precious few of us are here to experience an online soap opera of hysterical emotionalism. Its just an encyclopedia, get over it already...
Referring to the 3RR blocking as "law" or "near automatic" is flawed, which is why the treatment of RickK is a disappointment, and the potential loss of a very valuable individual. If you read the text of the WP:3RR page, it would not qualify as anything like "law" as we understand it:
"If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours."
Emphasis on the "may" part.
For a good system of law you need pre-knowledge of the rules, fair application and an independent judiciary. The arbitration committee approaches these ideals, but enforcement of 3RR? Nowhere close, and it's causing lots of problems.
-User:Fuzheado
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 6/20/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Ed, that is the most pathetic and selfish thing I have ever read a Wikipedian write. I thought better of you.
Sam
On 6/20/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've been worth.
Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed to soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more rejoicing", etc. for the lost sheep.
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l