Re: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re: [WikiEN-l] Unreasonableblock of user Blair P. Houghton by adminCryptoDerk - WikiEN-l

Blair P. Houghton

16 Mar 16 Mar

8:17 a.m.

New subject: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re: [WikiEN-l] Unreasonableblock of user Blair P. Houghton by adminCryptoDerk

Garrrr! It not roid rage! It justifiable barbellcide! Garrr!!! I even spelled out in the talk page that I wasn't being vituperative. But did anyone read back more than two layers of comments? Hard to tell. What goes a long way is actually doing what is right, but clearly some people insist on manipulating the process to get their way while others are blocked from acting within their rights. The passive-aggressive nature of the conflicts I've observed on Wikipedia is flat-out dysfunctional. This one has been no different. I try to be direct so people will act appropriately. Instead they get offended by the truth and accuse me of antisocial behavior. And other people buy into it. Madness among epistemologists must lead to a loss of information. Bad mojo. ...wait a sec... The blocks are all gone. I can get edit pages now. Thanks, Jim. You are a musclehead and a gentleman. --Blair Jim Cecropia wrote:

...

Blair, I removed the autoblocks as well. You should be able to edit now. I strongly suggest you brush up Wittiquette. I know how frustrating it can be to see what you view (and may be) unfair or inaccurate material in an article. Yet the (sometims almost goofy) courtesies of Wikipedia, surprisingly, go a very long way. Argue on substance, not personalities or characterizations. Remmeber that cardinal Wikirule "No 'Roid Rage" ;-) --C

Thanks, Jim. I don't see my named account as blocked in the block list, but there are two numbered accounts autoblocked (probably because of the NAT serving the multiple computers on my IP) still listed there, which may be why I still can't edit a page yet. How long does an unblock take to work? --Blair Jim Cecropia wrote:

I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton so that he can defend himself in the appropriate forums on Wikipedia. The 3RR blocking is being extremely abused, IMO. We sometimes give actual anon vandals who trash articles more slack than some logged-in users that have an honest difference of opinion. I am an amateur body builder for 20 years. I am no expert but, like many who enjoy the sport, I've studied a good bit about it. Either the prior version or Houghton's version are accurate, and I believe Houghton's is a bit better written and more reflects the state-of-the-art. HOWEVER, I am not taking a position on which version should stand, just indicating that I know Houghton's version is, at least, not vandalism. The 3RR, as I've stated elsewhere, is a loose cannon which tends to favor the status-quo. If the there is a content dispute, the better solution is to protect the article for a limited time to get the combatants to hash out the issue in article talk. In the instant case, I notice that GeorgeStepanek, for example, numbered his reverts ("first, second, third") which telegraphs consciousness of the 3RR as a trap, then another editor who disagrees with Houghton picked up on the reverting. The 3RR page says that you will not necessarily be blocked for 3RR, it is admin's discretion. CryptoDerk used his discretion to block; I ordinarily will not get in the way of another admin's judgment, but in this case I've used my discretion to unblock. I caution Blair P. Houghton to take his arguments about the article to its talk page for now, and to argue about his being blocked in other forums. I also must state that, as Houghton infers, neither truth nor accuracy is determined by consensus, and that is NOT a comment specifically on the Weight Training article. -Cecropia

_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

Blair P. Houghton

6:46 p.m.

New subject: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re: [WikiEN-l] Unreasonableblock of user Blair P. Houghton by adminCryptoDerk

David Gerard wrote:

...

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

Garrrr! It not roid rage! It justifiable barbellcide! Garrr!!! I even spelled out in the talk page that I wasn't being vituperative. But did anyone read back more than two layers of comments? Hard to tell.

Take me through this one slowly: What's so hard about not reverting repeatedly?

I dunno. I didn't revert it. I edited it to make it right. Ask the guy who reverted it.

...

Why does it have to go into the article THAT SECOND?

Why does it have to be reverted to wrong information that second?

...

What bit of the 3RR is ambiguous?

Who said it was? Read my rebuttal. I didn't violate the 3RR.

...

I look forward to your answers.

I look forward to a little educated forethought on the part of every self-elected politician on wikipedia. --Blair "Still not being vituperative."

Reply

Blair P. Houghton

7:24 p.m.

New subject: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re: [WikiEN-l] Unreasonableblock of user Blair P. Houghton by adminCryptoDerk

John Lee wrote:

...

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

I look forward to your answers.

I look forward to a little educated forethought on the part of every self-elected politician on wikipedia.

Just so you know, David Gerard is an elected arbitrator. I don't think he's acting in an official capacity, just thought you should know, since that seems a bit unfair.

Well, I apologize then. It's not possible to know who is and who isn't elected unless they wear the right color of propellor beanie. I was referring however to those in the Weight Training page who seem to think they know better than I do what a consensus is, what Weight Training is, or what due process is. --Blair "Mine's a rich, plebeian brown."

Reply

David Gerard

17 Mar 17 Mar

2:51 a.m.

New subject: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton.

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

...

David Gerard wrote:

...

> What bit of the 3RR is ambiguous?

...

Who said it was? Read my rebuttal. I didn't violate the 3RR.

Reply

David Gerard

3:11 a.m.

New subject: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton.

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

...

No, I didn't violate the 3RR. I read it right before I made the second reversion. I knew what I was doing. After a couple of reversions, I acquiesced to changes others wanted in the edit. The following revert was to that revision of the edit. The 3RR kept me from refusing to move on the issue. That I was then accused of "evading" the 3RR is just another of GeorgeStepanek's prevarications. That you're buying into it is a shame.

Reverting to different previous versions is reverting. - d.

Reply

John Lee

12:27 p.m.

New subject: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton.

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

...

David Gerard wrote:

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

No, I didn't violate the 3RR. I read it right before I made the second reversion. I knew what I was doing. After a couple of reversions, I acquiesced to changes others wanted in the edit. The following revert was to that revision of the edit. The 3RR kept me from refusing to move on the issue. That I was then accused of "evading" the 3RR is just another of GeorgeStepanek's prevarications. That you're buying into it is a shame.

Reverting to different previous versions is reverting.

I'm not going to argue the point of the rule with you. If you wish to continue being a willing dupe of those who wish to railroad honest people, then just keep on sullying your robes. --Blair

I've been trying my best to avoid feeding, but I'm going to make an exception for this one. In case you haven't noticed, from the 3RR: *Don't revert <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert> any _page_ more than three times within a period of 24 hours.* /(This doesn't apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism>.)/ That means you have a maximum of three reverts per page for every 24 hours. It does not matter which revision you choose to revert to; a revert is a revert is a revert. What you must understand is that reverting is bad. It's a slap in the face. If you would stop blabbing about Taxman and George for a minute to understand this, we might get somewhere. Just because they are the aggressors does not give you the right or privilege to go ahead and participate in the fight. Instead, follow the steps of dispute resolution and/or ask an uninvolved party for help (if you were welcomed to Wikipedia by a certain user, asking him/her would probably be a good idea). The problem in a lot of disputes is that one side allows themselves to be dragged down to the other's level. Maintain the moral high ground, and you'll lose the battle but win the war. As for the 3RR, I strongly agree with Fuzheado. I do not believe it should be applied so drastically, though. Need anyone be reminded, the text of the wording voted upon stated that admins *may* block users who violate the 3RR. May, not must. If good will can be demonstrated, and all parties involved (or at least the one who violated the rule) appear to be working towards a solution peacefully, a block shouldn't be required. If the revert is part of a larger pattern of MPOV, article ownership or simply just being an asshole and using reverting as a tool for getting one's way, then, yes, I would support a block. Now, some personal advice for you, Blair: Wikipedians strongly believe in assuming good faith and wikiquette (or whatever it's called). The tone of your messages to this mailing list have certainly been very accusatory and defensive, and reflect more badly on you than George and Taxman. Often this damages your point, even if it is correct. I advise you to be more conciliatory in your manner, and you might get a better hearing from roughnecks like RickK as well as others like David Gerard. Accept you made mistakes. Don't try to pin the blame on others by accusing George and/or Taxman of inciting you into breaking the 3RR. Remember, assume good faith and win the moral high ground. Losing the battle but winning the war is a far better proposition than vice-versa. John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])

Reply

Blair P. Houghton

6:25 p.m.

New subject: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton.

I appreciate your explanation, John, as it reflects what I was starting to realize overnight. It's becoming clear to me that by reading the "Ko rule" into the 3RR I am being led to a different interpretation than many take from the rule. The Ko rule allows a repeat of a Ko when progress is made between repeats. That's what I focussed on and believed to be the letter and intent of the law. Perhaps having the Ko rule as an analogy in the rule is a mistake. I will however never hold the Evil Ones blameless for entrapping me. --Blair John Lee wrote:

...

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

David Gerard wrote:

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

No, I didn't violate the 3RR. I read it right before I made the second reversion. I knew what I was doing. After a couple of reversions, I acquiesced to changes others wanted in the edit. The following revert was to that revision of the edit. The 3RR kept me from refusing to move on the issue. That I was then accused of "evading" the 3RR is just another of GeorgeStepanek's prevarications. That you're buying into it is a shame.

Reverting to different previous versions is reverting.

I'm not going to argue the point of the rule with you. If you wish to continue being a willing dupe of those who wish to railroad honest people, then just keep on sullying your robes. --Blair

I've been trying my best to avoid feeding, but I'm going to make an exception for this one. In case you haven't noticed, from the 3RR: *Don't revert <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert> any _page_ more than three times within a period of 24 hours.* /(This doesn't apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism>.)/ That means you have a maximum of three reverts per page for every 24 hours. It does not matter which revision you choose to revert to; a revert is a revert is a revert. What you must understand is that reverting is bad. It's a slap in the face. If you would stop blabbing about Taxman and George for a minute to understand this, we might get somewhere. Just because they are the aggressors does not give you the right or privilege to go ahead and participate in the fight. Instead, follow the steps of dispute resolution and/or ask an uninvolved party for help (if you were welcomed to Wikipedia by a certain user, asking him/her would probably be a good idea). The problem in a lot of disputes is that one side allows themselves to be dragged down to the other's level. Maintain the moral high ground, and you'll lose the battle but win the war. As for the 3RR, I strongly agree with Fuzheado. I do not believe it should be applied so drastically, though. Need anyone be reminded, the text of the wording voted upon stated that admins *may* block users who violate the 3RR. May, not must. If good will can be demonstrated, and all parties involved (or at least the one who violated the rule) appear to be working towards a solution peacefully, a block shouldn't be required. If the revert is part of a larger pattern of MPOV, article ownership or simply just being an asshole and using reverting as a tool for getting one's way, then, yes, I would support a block. Now, some personal advice for you, Blair: Wikipedians strongly believe in assuming good faith and wikiquette (or whatever it's called). The tone of your messages to this mailing list have certainly been very accusatory and defensive, and reflect more badly on you than George and Taxman. Often this damages your point, even if it is correct. I advise you to be more conciliatory in your manner, and you might get a better hearing from roughnecks like RickK as well as others like David Gerard. Accept you made mistakes. Don't try to pin the blame on others by accusing George and/or Taxman of inciting you into breaking the 3RR. Remember, assume good faith and win the moral high ground. Losing the battle but winning the war is a far better proposition than vice-versa. John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]]) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

Tony Sidaway

18 Mar 18 Mar

1:09 a.m.

New subject: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton.

BJörn Lindqvist said:

...

to realize overnight. It's becoming clear to me that by reading the "Ko rule" into the 3RR I am being led to a different interpretation than many take from the rule. The Ko rule allows a repeat of a Ko when progress is made between repeats. That's what I focussed on and believed to be the letter and intent of the law. Perhaps having the Ko rule as an analogy in the rule is a mistake.

That analogy fooled me too. The rules for what constitutes three reverts or not is so unclear that you have to be extremely careful when editing contentious articles.

I removed the analogy. Anybody who thinks it's useful, please restore.

Reply