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

Mon Oct 17 00:24:41 UTC 2005

actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
> Look again bratsche, you just reverted the page, putting the edits of an uninvolved user, over the signatures of 4 people.
> 
> It doesn't matter what excuse redwolf24 used, he is an
> involved admin, he'd already reached the conclusions below
> yesterday per his "outside" view on the page.  Note that he
> gave no edits or specifics in support of his "view" either.
> 
> You might want to note also, that 172 went to his talk page
> about this issue, right after voting for him for bureaucrat.
>                          -- Silverback

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).

Chris