On 3/5/06, Jonathan <dzonatas(a)dzonux.net> wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Not only would Jonathan's idea not have helped
in this case, but the fact
that Jonathan was blocked several times for 3RR violations, then tried to
re-write 3RR so he wouldn't be blocked in the future, and now is trying
to
get Wikipedia adjusted somehow so that future 3RR
violations will be
extremely difficult to track, is not "poisoining the discussion", but
rather
entirely relevant.
Jay.
Jayjg, all you have done since I met you is to accuse me also. Please,
do me the diginity of an actual argument with facts. If you want to
point out how terrible of a person that I am, take the honorable time to
do a proper anecdotal presentation.
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…
]
I was blocked. I believe I was blocked unfairly. However, I read the 3RR
page and other pages that asured me that the blocks
are not punitive. As
you see by this Jayjg reply, such replies do not purely reflect a "not
punitive" attitude.
Blocks are a preventative measure only. They shouldn't be used to
discredit someone. It's to easy for any admin to block a user. The ease
should not be taken advantage of to reflect on the personality.
Especially, when blocks are given out blindly just to stop an edit war.
It by no means has any justification as to actually who caused the edit
war.
Given that you were blocked more than once violating 3RR on the same
article, continued to insist that your reverts were not reverts, then tried
to change the policy to stop yourself from getting blocked in the future,
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, and were in no way "punitive".
Jay.