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

Wed Mar 16 17:23:40 UTC 2005

Andrew Lih wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:09:30 -0400, Jim Cecropia <jcecropia at 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.
>
I agree.  In a Wikilove environment people would need to stop seeking 
the maximum penalty for minimum violation.  Many editors who get 
involved in edit wars in one subject can be perfectly well behaved when 
they are working elsewhere.  Whatever happened to "assume good faith"?

Ec