[WikiEN-l] Re: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton.

Thu Mar 17 16:25:21 UTC 2005

I appreciate your explanation, John, as it reflects what I was starting 
to realize overnight.  It's becoming clear to me that by reading the "Ko 
rule" into the 3RR I am being led to a different interpretation than 
many take from the rule.  The Ko rule allows a repeat of a Ko when 
progress is made between repeats.  That's what I focussed on and 
believed to be the letter and intent of the law.  Perhaps having the Ko 
rule as an analogy in the rule is a mistake.

I will however never hold the Evil Ones blameless for entrapping me.

--Blair

John Lee wrote:

> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>
>> David Gerard wrote:
>>
>>> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, I didn't violate the 3RR.  I read it right before I made the 
>>>> second reversion.  I knew what I was doing.  After a couple of 
>>>> reversions, I acquiesced to changes others wanted in the edit.  The 
>>>> following revert was to that revision of the edit.  The 3RR kept me 
>>>> from refusing to move on the issue.  That I was then accused of 
>>>> "evading" the 3RR is just another of GeorgeStepanek's 
>>>> prevarications.  That you're buying into it is a shame.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Reverting to different previous versions is reverting.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not going to argue the point of the rule with you.  If you wish
>> to continue being a willing dupe of those who wish to railroad honest
>> people, then just keep on sullying your robes.
>>
>> --Blair
>
>
> I've been trying my best to avoid feeding, but I'm going to make an 
> exception for this one. In case you haven't noticed, from the 3RR:
>
> *Don't revert <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert> any 
> _page_ more than three times within a period of 24 hours.*
> /(This doesn't apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism>.)/
>
> That means you have a maximum of three reverts per page for every 24 
> hours. It does not matter which revision you choose to revert to; a 
> revert is a revert is a revert.
>
> What you must understand is that reverting is bad. It's a slap in the 
> face. If you would stop blabbing about Taxman and George for a minute 
> to understand this, we might get somewhere. Just because they are the 
> aggressors does not give you the right or privilege to go ahead and 
> participate in the fight. Instead, follow the steps of dispute 
> resolution and/or ask an uninvolved party for help (if you were 
> welcomed to Wikipedia by a certain user, asking him/her would probably 
> be a good idea).
>
> The problem in a lot of disputes is that one side allows themselves to 
> be dragged down to the other's level. Maintain the moral high ground, 
> and you'll lose the battle but win the war.
>
> As for the 3RR, I strongly agree with Fuzheado. I do not believe it 
> should be applied so drastically, though. Need anyone be reminded, the 
> text of the wording voted upon stated that admins *may* block users 
> who violate the 3RR. May, not must. If good will can be demonstrated, 
> and all parties involved (or at least the one who violated the rule) 
> appear to be working towards a solution peacefully, a block shouldn't 
> be required. If the revert is part of a larger pattern of MPOV, 
> article ownership or simply just being an asshole and using reverting 
> as a tool for getting one's way, then, yes, I would support a block.
>
> Now, some personal advice for you, Blair:
>
> Wikipedians strongly believe in assuming good faith and wikiquette (or 
> whatever it's called). The tone of your messages to this mailing list 
> have certainly been very accusatory and defensive, and reflect more 
> badly on you than George and Taxman. Often this damages your point, 
> even if it is correct. I advise you to be more conciliatory in your 
> manner, and you might get a better hearing from roughnecks like RickK 
> as well as others like David Gerard. Accept you made mistakes. Don't 
> try to pin the blame on others by accusing George and/or Taxman of 
> inciting you into breaking the 3RR. Remember, assume good faith and 
> win the moral high ground. Losing the battle but winning the war is a 
> far better proposition than vice-versa.
>
> John Lee
> ([[User:Johnleemk]])
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>