SPUI wrote: I forgot to mention that I talked with karmafist on IRC and he maintains that the "vote" was a revert. What the fuck?

G'day SPUI, You disruptively attempted to close an AfD on an article that falls into your area of ... what's that word that isn't "obsession" but means the same thing? You did so four times. You then voted "speedy keep", with your first sentence being the same as your edit summary. Now, correct me if I'm wrong --- feel free to add extra interpretations, anyone who reads this --- but I think this could be interpreted in one of four ways: a) You closed an AfD you *knew* you shouldn't close, and were reverted. You *knew* you would get into trouble if you kept going, but nonetheless attempted to disrupt the subpage a further three times. This is blatant disruption, and warrants blocking. b) You deliberately continued to rv User:Aranda56's edits right up until you knew you'd hit the 3RR limit, then suddenly decided that maybe a note would be more appropriate than wholesale reversion. This is blatantly gaming the 3RR by engaging in an edit war within the "legal" limit, and warrants blocking. c) Your vote could be interpreted as a third rv, given that you'd already "expressed" your opinion so very disruptively so very many times and had it rvted. This is an explicit violation of 3RR, and warrants blocking. d) You were being a dick. This doesn't warrant blocking (necessarily), but is bloody annoying just the same. Looking at the pages in question, I can see 'a', 'b', and 'd'. I admit that I don't agree with 'c' anymore than you do. But it doesn't really matter --- either way, you're blocked, deservedly so. Of course, I'm not an admin. Wiser heads may disagree. -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005