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

Wed Mar 16 17:50:46 UTC 2005

>>>JAY JG wrote:
>>>
>>>>I hadn't heard "Be bold" referred to as Wikipedia's "prime directive" 
>>>>before; I'm not sure everyone here would agree.  In any event, while I 
>>>>don't know the details of this particular case, it amazes me how often 
>>>>people attempting to make major, usually contentious, and often highly 
>>>>POV re-writes to articles cite "Be bold", yet fail to note that the 
>>>>majority of that policy is devoted to when you *should not* "Be bold".  
>>>>In particular, much of the policy clearly points out that on disputed 
>>>>issues and controversial subjects one should, instead, get consensus on 
>>>>Talk: pages first.
>>>
>>>
>>>Clairvoyance isn't my strongest skill.  I don't know who will complain 
>>>until I do what I have a right to do.  And I suspect I'm "only human" in 
>>>that regard, as is everyone else.
>>
>>
>>Little clairvoyance is needed to know that the very first time you are 
>>reverted, it means that your edits are contentious and disputed.  And it's 
>>a bad sign when people start taking about what they "have a right to do" 
>>on Wikipedia; as far as I know, editing Wikipedia is still not covered 
>>under the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or similar legislation.
>
>You ought to read them sometime.  They don't list all of your rights.
>
>>
>>>>I believe we are straying into "argument from silence" logical fallacy 
>>>>territory here.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's the basis for most of the Wikipedia.  What doesn't get munged is 
>>>accepted.  And if you see a problem, you fix it.  Has a lot to do with 
>>>the way life works, too.  Which is one of the attractive features of the 
>>>place.
>>
>>
>>As soon as you are reverted, the "argument from silence" is obviously no 
>>longer correct.
>
>And then we get into the "argument from self-imposed dictatorship".
>
>>
>>>>Cooperation is something that comes from both sides; it cannot be 
>>>>unilaterally imposed by "Bold" individuals.
>>>
>>>
>>>Tell that to the guy who reverted me, hollering "consensus!" from the 
>>>back of his mule, then having me jailed for arguing the point, then 
>>>including everything I added
>>
>>
>>Referring to one's opponents on Talk: pages as "juvenile delinquents" and 
>>oneself as the "teacher" is a particularly bad strategy for getting 
>>cooperation.
>
>I prefer to interpret the facts as showing nobody was trying to cooperate 
>with me.
>
>>
>>>(but retaining a bit of stuff that is soon to be gone anyway).
>>
>>
>>This statement is an ominous sign.
>
>Nope.  Just a statement that I know the truth and the truth always wins 
>when consensus is at stake.
>
>--Blair

Blair, I regret to inform you that I'm going to have to withdraw from the 
discussion at this point, because of self-imposed feeding restrictions.

Good luck,

Jay.