On 21/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
These complaints are classic straw man rhetoric: take a small portion of the actual situation, pretend that's the sole cause of a result, and bemoan in various fora that the some action was unjustified. I see through the game. There are times to put one's foot down and that time was today. Wikipedia has been entirely too lenient about this type of disruption, with the result that when one brief and overdue block occurs a cluster of people are shocked by it.
In that case, the problem was not your block, but your block reason. If you are blocking because of an ongoing problem, say so, don't just cite the most recent problem. You said you were blocking for one act, and that act was insufficient to warrant a block. If there were previous acts which, when considered together, are sufficient to block, then you need to say so.
It's difficult to summarise for a block summary. "One POINTiness too many" would be the most concise form. This is a nice summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Precis: Cla68 has been a dick about this for quite some time, knew *precisely* how much of a dick he was being, and thoroughly deserved the block, and probably a longer one. He's not here to write an encyclopedia.
- d.