On 6/21/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l