jayjg wrote:
I'm not pointing out "how terrible a
person" you are, I'm pointing out that
you decided to adjust the 3RR policy after you kept getting blocked for it,
and admitted as much on the Talk: page of the policy in question: [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AThree-revert_rul…
]
Perhaps, you really don't realize how your words look like from this
side. It appears you really do not intend to try to understand this
situation. Your words look like you accuse me.
I just wrote a long reply and erased it. Why? Because it wasn't about
how well I could defend myself against you, which I tried. The point is
that I should not even have to be in this position to defend myself. I
didn't come to Wikipedia to get randomly stung by a block out of nowhere
and then ridiculed from there on. Do you understand this? Perhaps you
just really don't know what its like for someone that is newer to
Wikipedia then you are. I been around for a year on Wikipedia, so I
don't claim to be that new. However, a fresh look a these documents
should mean a lot, but with the impression you gave me you don't seem to
care.
The fact that I did get block makes me a perfect person to understand
the situation of events of the block. Someone that has never been
blocked before does not actually know when they will get blocked. Who is
to really say if an edit is an improvement or a 3RR type revert? My
experience shows that an admin that blocks does it more by blind
judgment. Given the best possible assumption of good-faith -- blind
judgment -- there is always room to consider the blocks as misapplied. I
was aggravated by the blocks, but I did not go file a RfC or other case
to destroy the admin that blocked me.
Did you personally intervene in these situations? Do you personally
intervene in any 3RR report? Those are all excellent candidates where
people actually need someone else to step in and help the editors work
together. Do you want the image of Wikipedia to be -- "WE DON'T HELP --
WE JUST BLOCK YOU FOR TRYING -- AND, WE MOCK YOU AFTER YOUR FIRST BLOCK"????
Any 3RR report should have an admin intervene before there is a block.
If there is clearly no vandalism and the editors persistently edit
war... protect the page. Look at the history of the 3RR, that is how it
started. Now, the block is taken as the first step. It was the wrong
step -- go back to a preference of intervention over the trigger-happy
block. People want to leave Wikipedia because of attitudes like yours
that accuse them of things. Oh my god, they are just trying to edit.
It's open content. And, they get blindsided. Harsh. These few admins
demonstrate good adminship for the rest when they don't even try to
intervene -- they just block. People want to leave Wikipedia because
these blocks say -- "we don't have time to help you -- go away."
Anyways, what did I admit to? That WMC blocked me. That another admin
gave me advice, which I inserted verbatim into the 3RR page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AThree-revert_rule&…
And, later you reverted it with absolutely no attempt to try to improve
it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule&d…
Given that you were blocked more than once violating
3RR on the same
article,
I was blocked from the same article by the same person who reported me
twice. Given that it was not on different articles by different
individudals -- that says something. Also, I've edited articles often up
until the first block, which was about more than 3/4 of a year without
problems of a block. There were controversies, but these controversies
got solved on our own. Somehow, the one article I did get blocked on
carries a different attitude for what a revert is about. Perhaps, on the
other articles, we sincerely tried to improve each others edits and we
made lots of active edits throughout the day. Of course, we did not
always agree, but little by little we found where we did agree. The one
article I did get blocked on provided no room for agreement -- it was
only one way or the highway.
continued to insist that your reverts were not
reverts,
Here is where you tried to "clarify" that reverts were not about being
"identical":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARevert&diff=40616…
That was after the events of where I was blocked. It may have helped if
that was in there before. It's pretty slimy to say "it's perfectly
clear" after the fact. Obviously, what everybody thinks what constitutes
a "revert" is not the same across the board. It is not about me saying
that my reverts are not those kind of reverts, but it is about me saying
that my reverts or edits should not have counted as 3RR-type reverts.
Further, if they did, it is about me saying "where is the admin
intervention to help us understand that we are in a edit-war and help us
work together."
Two active or aggressive editors could look like they are in a
revert-war, but that could be entirely not the case at all. The 3RR page
doesn't care what intentions two editors have or of their style to edit
the pages. That is a problem with the 3RR page -- not the editors.
then tried
to change the policy to stop yourself from getting blocked in the future,
If I really wanted to be that stupid, I could submit a viral patch to
Mediawiki to enable a backdoor to any block. Even yet, I still know
other technological ways to get around a block right now with no patch.
I'm not that stupid about the technology in use. I just don't take
advantage of such bugs -- or features.
I've showed a professor at a college how I installed a simple program
that totally took over Windows with all it's security features up. I
don't go around and exploit that fact. These are things developers keep
sacred, and you just have to trust us.
You have badly mistaken my intentions. I only wanted to help the
situation by my experience -- sort of "debug" the situation. You believe
it needs no help. You forget that it is open content, which implores for
help.
and even now continue to insist that it was someone
else who "caused the
edit war", it's quite obvious that the blocks were needed to stop further
3RR violations,
You did not even try to intervene. If there was no active vandalism,
there is no need to block. I run my own mediawiki and know that I never
had to block spam to stop it. I just had to get clever on how to detect
it and prevent it. Some of it was by a technological change, and some of
it was by methods that you also have access to change. I know for a fact
that blocks are not needed.
As for who caused the edit-war, go look at the quality of edits. Go see
who tried to incorporate the other editors' versions. Then, tell me who
made identical reverts each and every time with absolutely no attempt to
improve the other's edits. Then, tell me who got reported and blocked.
And, you think this is right that I got blocked even though I did make
regular edits like everybody else to try to improve the article? And,
you think it is right that every edit of mine was "undone," but I got
blamed that I "undid" the other editors contribution even though I
incorporated changes? Hello!
Obviously, the description of what to do when such a situation happens
was not clear.
and were in no way "punitive".
However, you posted a reply here like you tracked me down and pointed
out my history of being blocked. What you have done is certainly not a
"preventative" action. What you and a few others have done to me is to
mistreat me. You treated me like I am stupid and a public threat to
damage Wikipedia, and such actions to notify others about me by your
opinion is punitive if not libel.
I don't look for pity because I know it is honorable not to insinuate. I
simply want to be treated with dignity. If I am wrong, let it be
humility. Unfortunately, there has been a lack dignity and humility.
Jonathan