You are right. I apologize to George if I seem to characterizing his intentions. I am
assuming good faith on all sides here, even if they get annoyed.
I hope you generally support the idea that if an article gets too contentious,
"locking is better than blocking." I believe honest editors, even if they get a
bit hot under the collar, should be engaged, not blocked. Save blocking for actual
vandals.
-- C
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:09:30 -0400, Jim Cecropia <jcecropia(a)mail.com> wrote:
I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton so that he can
defend himself
in the appropriate forums on Wikipedia.
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.
It's dangerous to ascribe intent. Simply numbering one's edits does
not mean it's a "trap." In fact, *not* numbering them, and losing
count, could be construed as a trap as well.
But I agree that an outside admin would have served the community
better by simply locking the page, and not banning anyone. Somehow
this needs to be emphasized on the 3RR page - not all 3R violations
need to be followed up by a ban.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at