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]])