User:Bishonen/sandbox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
{{vww}}
Please don't accuse editors of vandalism unless you're absolutely sure they have committed it. Review the vandalism policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "What vandalism is not". Note that content disputes are not vandalism, and that good-faith edits of any kind, even if you think them misguided, are not to be considered vandalism. Vandalism accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult. See WP:VAND: "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." See also Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal".
Contents |
[edit] Principles
[edit] Lengthening a block
25) Avoid lengthening a block for rudeness towards the blocking admin. Don't block for rudeness towards yourself.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. This principle is relevant to both InShaneee's behaviour in the LinkTothePast case and to User:HighInBC, who lengthened Worldtraveller's block for "personal attacks while asking to be unblocked".[1]. Far from it being standard to treat blocked users with extra harshness, it's standard to put up with defiance from a user reacting to the shock of a block. It's the wrong moment to block them some more for "Personal attacks". It's the moment for considering the extreme power discrepancy between an admin and a blocked user — confined to his/her talkpage, remember — and for looking away from displays of anger. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Findings of fact
[edit] Blocks by HighInBC
25) User:HighInBC lengthened Worldtraveller's block for "personal attacks while asking to be unblocked"[2] and argued on ANI that increasing the block is "standard when people are abusive while asking to be unblocked."[3]. A little later, he also blocked Dbuckner, an editor of four years' standing with a previously spotless block log, for arguing against the Worldtraveller blocks in a supposedly incivil way.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Although the affair was being actively discussed on ANI, and HighInBC is a newish admin (3-4 months), he sought no community input before placing the blocks, and showed no interest in the spontaneous protests from experienced admins (note especially Musical Linguist here). Compare my evidence.[4] Bishonen | talk 21:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Remedies
[edit] HighInBC is urged to seek community input for his blocks
13)HighInBC should have sought input, discussed, and been open to advice from more experienced admins on his supposed (quite novel) "standard" that blocked users need to be blocked some more when they are "abusive while asking to be unblocked".
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. It's not standard to treat blocked users with extra harshness, it's standard to put up with defiance from a user reacting to the shock of a block. It's the wrong moment to block them some more for either real or supposed "Personal attacks". It's the moment for considering the extreme power discrepancy between an admin and a blocked user — confined to his/her talkpage, remember — and for looking away. Think and discuss before blocking. Listen to other people, please. The direct, immediate consequences of HighInBC's lengthening of WT's block, and his following block of DBuckner, were that WT munged his password, and that Dbuckner's previously unsullied block log of four years now has a smear on it. I note that WT is all grown up, and is himself responsible for the loss of his password. Yet a block for an angry insert in the unblock template surely falls under the heading of "kicking them while they're down". To my sense it's pretty predictable that such a power demonstration against the already goaded and already (with reason) angry, will lead to some dramatic gesture. Was it worth it? Bishonen | talk 21:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Peterklutz
- I found some of Peter's IPs in this declined CheckUser request (I've no doubt they're his all right).
This one is obviously him, too. Edited MMY on sv.wiki in February 2006.
[edit] Amorrow again
Hi, I wonder if we could get a few more pairs of eyes on this situation. Banned user Amorrow - about whom Jimbo said (second post in thread) "block on sight, revert on sight" - has been active again in the last couple of days. The pages he's hitting are Talk:Brian Peppers, Gregor MacGregor, Brian MacKinnon and especially Talk:Tom Leykis. He's been editing from IPs such as:
- 71.139.160.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 71.141.21.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 71.141.29.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 71.141.21.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 71.139.197.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 71.139.172.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 71.139.200.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 71.141.10.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 71.139.180.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
...and I probably missed at least one or two. Any help keeping up with reverting and blocking these IPs would be very much appreciated. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Akso Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal - Nunh-huh 06:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Aktuella:
Remember to input Infinity's stuff on Saturday or Sunday.
Others:
- Encephalon: [33]
 |
Bishzilla for Arbcom! Zilla protect all little edit warriors! Flash teeth in friendly smile!
Spread Christmas spirit!
|
