Thread:Nexxy/@comment-4620155-20130530085003

When one chooses a side, they typically state reasons why the opposed side's points are inferior to their preferred side. They would not completely disregard the opposing side's points that conflict with the supporting side's ones.

I hope you read the comments section before you cast your vote. I said:

"Yes, I admit I was in a rush at the time and made a swift and perhaps not the best decision. At the time of the warning post on Comrade's wall, I had to leave in 10 minutes and would not be back for another 3 hours. Judging the amount of non-reverted wrong additions to more than 70 articles in the space of half an hour, I made the decision that you see. If I had been around for longer, I would have waited some time longer."

After waiting for a reply from your friend ComradeJ, I checked the wiki activity and, to my dismay, saw three more articles being edited in less than 5 minutes. Here they are:



As categories can be added without the need to press the 'Edit' button, three article category edits can easily be accomplished with 5 minutes. I had no idea that she was editing with a mass amount of tabs. Deducing that my thread had already been seen before she made those edits, I made a light temporary ban to stop her from making any more poor edits.

As you can see, the 'patience' part of this issue was a mere misunderstanding.

As for the "harassment": After more than 50 thread posts and an entire day of continuous circling, ComradeJ was proven wrong on a point. Instead of calmly conceding, she stubbornly refused to apologise. Is calling someone 'petty' for not apologising really considered harassment? What would YOU do if you were in this situation? 