[WikiEN-l] Good reasons for blocking Enviro

Tue May 31 21:12:51 UTC 2005

>Message: 4
>Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:43:14 +0800
>From: <ultrablue at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <a4a707705053100431977d076 at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

>On 5/31/05, A Nony Mouse <tempforcomments at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> By the time I got to the discussion, it was a good series of emails
long,
>> and despite the number of list members who had posted, none save
SlimVirgin
>> had bothered to address Enviroknot's concerns on the block in any way.
>> SlimVirgin herself made a bad judgement call. An edit made in good
faith
>> should never be considered a reversion, even if it contains some
content
>> that is included in a later reversion.

>The 3RR provides an electric-fence against continuing revert wars.
>Most of the administrators who enforce the 3RR (and even the
>[[WP:AN/3RR]] page) request that as little circumstantial information
>be provided. Good faith or bad faith does not come into whether a user
>has violated the rule. Your interpretation of the meaning of
>"reversion" is not the one accepted in the Wikipedia community. There
>are simple reverts and complex reverts (where something is
>surreptitiously sneaked back into an article). Every reversion is a
>"good faith" reversion to someone in an article content dispute.

Okay, thanks for clarifying what a "reversion" is.

>Do not assume from the silence of users on the concerns of Enviroknot.
>Before I first replied to the list about this situation, I examined
>all the relevant diffs, and concluded in my own mind that there is a
>clear-cut violation of the 3RR here.

Okay, but you should've explained your reasons beforehand; those reasons
could've saved us much agita!

>The 3RR does allow administrators some discretion, such as the ability
>to unblock people where they have shown remorse for breaking the rule.
>Enviroknot has not expressed any such remorse, and has not addressed
>the allegations of sockpuppetry. Instead, he or she has spammed the
>mailing list and attacked Wikipedia Administrators as a whole. Had
>Enviroknot come up with a good explanation for sharing IPs with other
>users, expressed some sort of remorse for breaking a very basic rule
>and agreed to work collaboratively on the relevant article's talk page
>to reach consensus, I have little doubt the ban would have been
>happily lifted by a number of administrators.

>~Mark Ryan

Agreed. Here is someone who has clear, thought-out, and well-displayed
(now, anyway) reasons for blocking Enviroknot. Anyone who wants to counter
those reasons should go ahead and do so this is what debate is all about,
folks.