Reverting copyrighted material should not count as 3RR violation. Now
I agree that RickK should have refrained from blocking other users in
the dispute and waited for a different admin. I for one am sad to see
contrarian editors/admins go. There seem to be several editors at the
[[GAP Project]] that have done things that were inappropriate -
improperly undeleting a page, etc. If you ask me what is good for the
goose is good for the gander. If RickK's deserves some type of 24 hour
block in the name of treating admin's equally, those that misused the
admin tools should also be blocked a minimum of 24 hours.
Jim
On 6/20/05, Dan Grey <dangrey(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Also agree with Ed.
Rick knows the rules - and no-one is above them. So I have no idea why
he acted in a manner that would get himself blocked - only he knows.
Then he gets upset over it after deliberately brining it on himself -
huh?!
And I've never been impressed by these desperately attention-seeking
public exits. People join and leave Internet communities all the time.
Most don't feel the need to be a prima donna though. Those that do
tend to return quite quickly.
Dan
On 20/06/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Ed is spot on, and couldn't be more right about such whinging. Admins
> shouldn't be above the law, and precious few of us are here to
> experience an online soap opera of hysterical emotionalism. Its just
> an encyclopedia, get over it already...
>
> Jack (Sam Spade)
>
> >
> > On 6/20/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've
been
> > > worth.
> > >
> > > Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed to
> > > soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
> > >
> > > But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more
rejoicing",
> > > etc. for the lost sheep.
> > >
> > > Ed Poor