[WikiEN-l] I've been blocked by an involved admin

Mon Oct 17 00:53:19 UTC 2005

------------- Original message --------------  
> Silverback, 
> 
> If you want someone on this mailing list to do something about it, 
> you'll have to explain why the block is not warranted - in other words, 
> why the block reason that whoever blocked you is given is incorrect in 
> each point mentioned. 
> 
> The reason you have to explain why you have not done the things you are 
> supposedly blocked for is that admins tend to trust each other's 
> judgments and are reluctant to get involved in cases where they are 
> unfamiliar with the circumstances. 
> 
> If you can provide me with reasoning, supported by links to diffs on 
> Wikipedia which I can validate your reasoning against, and if the people 
> who are 'opposed' to you in this dispute do not respond adequately, in 
> my opinion, to your comments, I will unblock you (and talk to the other 
> people involved in the dispute about it). 

Fair enough,  here are the reasons given for the block:

 >(reverts incessantly, removing information from
> his RfC , has been attacking 172 a lot lately, hasn't 
> been too civil, hopefully  this block will turn him around.)

Firt of the alleged incivility and attacks are what the RfC
is supposed about, and those are in the past.  There was
not any of that today.  So Redwolf24 is preempting
the process and the community.   The merits of those
RfC allegations are themselves in doubt, because they
aren't the usual "namecalling", but are actually alleged
abuses and POV warrioring type of allegations that
are perfectly permissable on an RfC.  I happen to
confront people with them outside an RfC, so I think
there is some question whether the community will
consider them "personal attacks", in addition 172
takes some things personally that weren't even
referring to him at all.

The reverts and the removing info from the RfC
are related to 172s changing allegations in the
certified section that I had already responded to.
In fact he was responding to my responses, but
making them look like they were his initial allegations.
I discussed this thoroughly on the talk page, and in
edit summaries, and on the 3RR page and on the
vandalism in progress page and I think there is a good case
that this is vandalism,  or at least something so
unfair that the community will decide it should
not be part of the process.   Vandalism that changes
the meaning of things in ways that might decieve people
is considered "severe"

I was being bold,
yes, but at the same time being reasonable, because
I allowed in Lulu's elaboration of a point I hadn't
responded to yet, and I informed 172 that I had
no problem with him put his responses to my
edits into the RfC, just not undermining my
responses, or deleting what his initial charges
were.  Note that I am being called the "subject"
of this RfC.

I think that addresses Redwolf24s stated reasons.
Note that he has actually authored one of the
sections of the RfC.  Note also these four edits
in a row from 172s contributions:

16:55, October 16, 2005 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Redwolf24 (¨Silverback RfC) 
16:55, October 16, 2005 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Redwolf24 
16:54, October 16, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Redwolf24 (¨An Award Regarding Your RfB) 
15:52, October 16, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Redwolf24 (¨Redwolf24) 
15:48, October 16, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Redwolf24 (¨Redwolf24 - support) 
He goes straight from voting for Redwolf24,  for
bureaucrat to request assistance on Redwolf24's 
talk page.  Redwolf 24 is involved in ways that he
shouldn't be if he is going to be the admin taking
action on this.
    -- Silverback