It was a trap. GeorgeStepanek accepted almost all of
my edits, but only after I was blocked.
Clearly he wasn't disagreeing with everything I was saying, he was just reverting the
page to goad me into re-reverting it. I did, three times. Then I changed the edit to
include others' suggestions. Then Taxman continued reverting in GeorgeStepanek's
stead. Then they created the false allegations of 3RR violation.
And once the unblock actually allows me into the server, I'll repeat all of this on
the talk page so everyone concerned can see the mess these guys made.
--Blair
Andrew Lih wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:09:30 -0400, Jim Cecropia
<jcecropia(a)mail.com> wrote:
I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton so that he can
defend himself
in the appropriate forums on Wikipedia.
The 3RR, as I've stated elsewhere, is a loose cannon which tends to
favor the status-quo. If the there is a content dispute, the better solution
is to protect the article for a limited time to get the combatants to hash
out the issue in article talk. In the instant case, I notice that
GeorgeStepanek, for example, numbered his reverts ("first, second, third")
which telegraphs consciousness of the 3RR as a trap, then another editor
who disagrees with Houghton picked up on the reverting.
It's dangerous to ascribe intent. Simply numbering one's edits does
not mean it's a "trap." In fact, *not* numbering them, and losing
count, could be construed as a trap as well.
But I agree that an outside admin would have served the community
better by simply locking the page, and not banning anyone. Somehow
this needs to be emphasized on the 3RR page - not all 3R violations
need to be followed up by a ban.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l