User talk:Mel Etitis/Correspondence with SS

E-mail correspondence between  SS   and me, on 27 May 2005.

I shouldn't have placed this here, but as  SS   placed my private e-mails in the public domain, I though that I'd provide my own copy. At the very least, it demonstrates that his explanation: "Statement made to me via email after I had contacted him officially as a legal representitive of the Wikipedia, and my blocking admin" is at best misleading.

[SS to me]
 * From jack.i.lynch@gmail.com:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=14269478&oldid=14265550 - Revision as of 16:55, 26 May 2005, revert #1


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=14283708&oldid=14282740 - Revision as of 23:35, 26 May 2005 (compromise edit, inserting corporatist, which is complimented by El_C)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=14283990&oldid=14283866 - Revision as of 00:00, 27 May 2005 Revert #2


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=14307784&oldid=14307708 - Revision as of 12:12, 27 May 2005 Revert #3


 * I suggest you unblock.

[my reply]
 * All three edits involve removing "right-wing"; that one also involves something else is irrelevant.


 * M.E.

[SS]
 * I feel the edit in question was an attempt at compromise, rathr than a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert

[my reply]
 * I'm afraid that I can't see that the 3RR makes a distinction between a revert whose intention was compromise and a revert whose intention wan't. I did go back and look at the four edits, and I checked to see if the first one was genuinely a revert - I refuse to block in cases where the first so-called revert was a new edit - but it still seems to me that the case is clear.  You are, of course, free to seek a second opinion.


 * M.E.

[SS]
 * I've been unblocked

[SS, responding to my message on Administrators' noticeboard/3RR]
 * You consider the above "crowing"? I suggest you reveal the extent of

my attempt to rub [your] nose in [my] Houdini-skills. Thats not something I had any intent in doing, as should be very clear to you from my email, and my single, one word edit after being unblocked.


 * Jack

[my reply]
 * If your attempts to insinuate are successful, you have to accept that people will correctly interpret them. If you don't want people correctly to interpret them, why make them?


 * Put another way, what was the point of your e-mail to me, and what was the point of your one-word edit? I'd be fascinated to hear your innocent explanations.


 * M.E.

[SS]
 * Well, my email to you was to let you know that the matter had been

resolved. The one word edit was a test, to make sure I could edit again, and also a way of letting others know I had been unblocked. reading between my lines is a bad habit, people have a tendancy to fall between the cracks.


 * Jack

[my reply]
 * "and also a way of letting others know I had been unblocked". You mean that you want "others" to read between the lines, but not me?  yes, I see.


 * M.E.

[SS]
 * I want them to know I am not blocked. Alot of people interact with me,

and them thinking I am blocked isn't exactly handy. Obviously I feel it was a wrongful block, and that David's unblocking was warranted. The fact I chose not to rant about it could have said something to you, if you were looking for such things. You want mr to look bad, and so I do. The truth is I behaved as graciously and cautiously as I was able to do, particularly given the short amount of time I was unblocked. It would appear in hindsight that alerting you to my unblocking was more than you could handle. I had no idea you would revert war with an arbiter about it, but hey, we all live and learn.


 * Jack

[my reply]
 * Hmmm... so one revert of a block is a revert war, but four of your reverts are justified. Here's one standard, and -- hang on a minute -- yes, here's another.


 * M.E.

[SS]
 * Its all the same standard. Reverts are bad, I was wrong to revert so

many times. As I told David, I intended to dramatically reduce my actions of that variety. At this point however I am rethinking alot of things. I think I can do more for the project by getting you and a few others de-sysopped than by clarifying minor matters of NPOV.


 * Jack

[my reply]
 * Actually, you could do a lot more for Wikipedia by going and doing something else (there must be lots of marches and rallies to attend and Jewish cemeteries to defile), but that's just a personal opinion.


 * M.E.

[SS]
 * I doin't go to marches or rallies, and I don't defile cemetaries. That

you think my over 20,000 edits as a volunteer have been detrimental, and that you would choose to denigrate me personally with such graphic suggestions, these are reasons why you should not be an admin, and especially why you should not have been the blocking admin in this case.


 * Jack

[my reply
 * For someone who's so fond of being aggressive to others, you're amazingly easy to wind up. Splutter, splutter, whine, whine.  If my view of you were reason for me not to be an admin (gosh, you do think that Wikipedia revolves around you, don't you?), there's be precious few people not de-sysopped, and fewer qualified to take their places.  If you could only see my mail-box today.


 * M.E.

[SS]
 * Complaining about your abusing sysop powers to pursue a grudge is far from whiney. The failing on my part, as I see it, is having thought highly enough of you to attempt dialogue regarding it. I see now that such dialogue must be pursued elsewhere if it is to be of any fruit.


 * Jack