El C (el.ceeh@gmail.com) [050527 23:44]:
Now, Mel reblocked him, the right and just thing to do in the case of Jack's contempt for the rules everyone else is expected to adhere to, the rules I have always adhered to. I also note that David Gerard (who seems to mistakingly think I'm accusing him of something sinister -- I am not) is not objecting to the re-blocking, now that he had a closer looked at the evidence.
I didn't think you were accusing me of anything sinister :-) I chose not to re-unblock so as not to continue a cycle of blocking/unblocking. If someone agrees with me they'll unblock, if not they won't. There's lots of admins.
Even though *usually* if another admin removes a block the first one shouldn't reblock, just to avoid the appearance of a blocking war. But if Mel judges it's severe enough then I'm happy to wait until/if someone else thinks Sam should be unblocked.
Epiprologue: It all begins yesterday. I went and congratulated Chip Berlet on a fine article in the article's talk page, 4 days after Charles did (I only noticed it at that time). Mine was the 2nd comment in that talk page following Charles', and I intended to edit the intro (no content changes whatsoever, just make it less conversational: which I did) later that day, but when I got back home, I found Jack already start editing it. Ahhuhh. And so it begins, again. And all this is nothing, it dosen't even pretend to scratch the surface about Jack.
Sam can rub people up the wrong way, but I don't doubt his sincerity. "Assume good faith" can require gritted teeth when someone is really annoying you ...
- d.