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

Fri Mar 18 03:28:59 UTC 2005

From: <jfdwolff at doctors.org.uk>
>This is getting ridiculous.
>This issue has now generated close to 60 messages. I urge Blair, his 
>detractors and everyone else to stop this discussion.

I apologise for adding to an already overlong debate, but my name has
been mentioned many times, motivations have been attributed to me, and I
would just like an opportunity to respond to the allegations, and to
clear my name. Apart from this one email, I will not post further to
this mailing list. Even if Blair responds--and I have no doubt he
will--I will not be responding.

Before I begin, may I first thank Blair for his recent attempts to
discuss the issues at hand on the Weight Training talk page. I hope that
a compromise can be achieved that will be satisfactory to all parties
concerned.

The fact is that the first revert was made by Blair, not myself. I'm
sorry if this sounds like a kindergarten justification ("he started it",
"no he did"), but this fact sheds light on what follows, so please bear
with me. Here are Blair's original changes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=11090304&
oldid=11088511

I left the bulk of the changes as they were, and only undid changes to
the lead section that I felt removed information, or put in information
that had already been disputed by three other editors (Sfahey, Taxman
and myself):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=11158163&
oldid=11090304

The information that was removed was:
* that whether weight training is effective at building strength depends
upon how it is done
* that weight training provides functional benefits (etc.) only via
increases to strength and muscle size
* that the progressive overload principle is essential to building
strength via weight training
The disputed fact was Blair's assertion that weight training is aerobic
if done at a sufficiently low intensity. I explained my reasoning on the
talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Weight_training#Article_summary

This was at least an opportunity for Blair to discuss the proposed
changes, and seek consensus before putting in place an agreed text, but
instead he simply reverted my last edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=11159169&
oldid=11158163

Why did I revert his revert? Because I didn't want to see one stubborn
individual override the consensus that had been achieved by the other
interested parties.

Why did I count my reverts (first, second, third) in the edit summaries?
Because I didn't want to break the 3RR myself, or give Blair any
opportunity to accuse me of doing so. And because I knew that the revert
war was futile, since we were both limited by the 3RR, and I wanted to
make this fact totally obvious. After my third revert, Blair made the
following changes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=11177874&
oldid=11171514

While not exactly the same as his previous edits, this edit implemented
all four of the changes that I had discussed on the talk page. I felt
that this was an attempt to subvert the 3RR. I therefore flagged it as a
possible 3RR violation, while mentioning the fact that the 4 edits were
not exactly alike. I left the matter to the discretion of the admins
monitoring the 3RR page.

I mentioned the potential 3RR violation to Taxman while asking his
advice whether to open an RfC. He suggest not to do so yet, and to "try
as hard as you can to see what part of what he has to say is helpful and
incorporate those changes." Being an admin Taxman could have blocked
Blair at that point, but he chose instead to merely revert once more,
and leave it to another admin to block Blair. Taxman's behaviour has
been beyond reproach at all times.

After Taxman's last revert, I attempted to create a compromise version
that included as many of Blair's grammatical and phrasing changes as
possible, but including all of the information that Blair had removed,
and without the disputed assertion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weight_training&diff=11226439&
oldid=11185482

From: Blair P. Houghton <blair at houghton.net>
>It was a trap.  GeorgeStepanek accepted almost all of my edits, but
only after
>I was blocked.
>Clearly he wasn't disagreeing with everything I was saying, he was just
reverting 
>the page to goad me into re-reverting it.

This is simply not true. I did not, and still do not agree with the four
changes described above, and that I have discussed at some length on the
talk page. I utterly reject the insinuations that I somehow "tricked"
Blair into breaking the 3RR. Indeed, by counting the reverts, I was
making it as obvious as possible just how many reverts we were each
doing.

From: John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com>
>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.

I hope that the above evidence is sufficient to show that I was not "the
aggressor" in this "fight". I do not wish to have such aspersions
against my name left on the record.

I am aware that this issue has become a political football between those
who support the 3RR, and those who oppose it. I do not wish to enter
this debate, except to mention some aspects that no-one has yet
mentioned:

1. Yes, Cecropia had every right to unblock Blair. But think about it:
isn't this just reverting CryptoDerk's actions? What efforts did
Cecropia make to discuss the issue with CryptoDerk, and achieve
consensus? As the admin community grows, are we going to see more and
more "admin revert wars" pitting one admin against another? Isn't this
just going to motivate troublemakers to try to exploit differences of
opinion between admins?

2. Yes, a 24-hour block is ineffective in itself at resolving ongoing
disputes between long-time users. But a 3RR sanction is not ipso facto
meaningless in such cases. To compare it to a real-world example, why do
we have $50 parking fines if most people can easily spare $50? A
sanction like this is effective because it unequivocally conveys the
message that you have broken the rules. It also serves as evidence of
poor conduct for any future investigation of the dispute.

3. The 3RR prevents edit wars with hundreds of reverts on each side.
Does anyone seriously want to go back to that? It's an arbitrary rule,
to be sure, but rules help people to work together by clearly indicating
where boundaries of acceptable conduct lie.

4. No-one can build the Wikipedia alone. Indeed, given how hard it is to
write to a strict NPOV, I would argue that no-one can even create a
single article alone. Jimbo's primary goal--creating an encyclopedia--is
impossible without a community that can work together effectively. We
should find ways to identify, sanction and eliminate any and all forms
of disruptive behaviour, simply because they just stop us from achieving
our primary goal.

From: JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com>
>>Am I the only one who feels that the 3RR is making life harder for
admins?
>
>I'm sure you're not the only one, but I feel quite the opposite.  More 
>importantly, I think it's made it less likely for regular (i.e. non 
>edit-warrior) editors to be scared away from Wikipedia.

May I note two of Blair's assertions that no-one has yet challenged. He
says that I am one of the "Evil Ones", and that I "raped" him. Is this
kind of language and conduct acceptable in Wikipedia?

My impression from the events so far is that it is. I have found this
dispute to be extremely unpleasant and stressful, and I really do not
wish to find myself in this kind of situation again. I am therefore
going to withdraw from the Wikipedia community. I will still read
articles, and fix typos when I find them, but I will no longer be
working seriously on any more Wikipedia articles.

Thank you for reading my comments.

George Stepanek