| Revision as of 14:34, 9 September 2008 editIan13 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,881 editsm →September 2008: expand block reason← Previous edit |
Revision as of 14:39, 9 September 2008 edit undoIan13 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,881 editsm Courtesy blankingNext edit → |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{| class="messagebox" |
|
<onlyinclude> |
|
|
|
| This page has been ]. The previous revision can be seen . |
|
I am reading AN, and yes, Black Kite's original proposal (two months and final chance) is okay, and I'd be willing to settle for three months. Anything longer is frankly insulting, and would result in me never editing again (although the chance is very low right now). Once this matter is finished, I would like an admin to move this page to ], revert to , and delete the redirect made. Don't feed the ] ] any more than you have to. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
:Endorsing both the two month and three month blocks (either or), but I recommend in the strongest terms that sceptre keeps this talk page available.--] (]) 18:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::After this is done, I'm not going to edit for at least two months - that includes replying on my talk. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Re Carcharoth: ArbCom have evidence of Kurt's off-wiki harassment which they've chosen to ignore. Hence my post to my userpage about Misplaced Pages having no standards: I get blocked for harassment for something that isn't, but a proven harasser has done so, and continues to do so, but people won't act on it because blocking him would be "censorship". ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Re Risker: The accounts I've set up are in my creation log and those checkusered. I can't recall any others. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I don't see why I'm even bothering - I'm getting totally demonised in the AN discussion. You have my word I will not edit until at least November 7, probably until December 7 (dependent on whether the block is two or three months long). And Wknight, if you can get that from my naivety, imagine what ED could do. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Sure, but cut people a bit of slack as well. By evading your block by using socks, you have abused people's trust. For them to accept your word now is difficult. The best way to re-earn that trust is to accept a three month block and stick to it. It is easily possible to spend the time reading and gathering sources and writing content offline. You might feel you shouldn't have to do that, but that is one option. You could also take a complete break - it really does help sometimes. ] (]) 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::That's true. Still, I can't "double-promise" something. That's all you can have; my word. If you want to enforce it, hardblock my IP for three months. That way, you know I won't edit. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 21:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::As I'm sure you're aware, blocking an IP address doesn't block someone from editing Misplaced Pages. There's no need for anyone to rely on trust here. It'd be more straightforward for you to ask in December for your block to be lifted based on proof that you hadn't evaded it. ]] ] 22:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::There is an implication that he is being asked to rely on the community to allow him to edit again if he requests it in three months. Why not just reset him for that period? Then he knows where he is and everybody moves on. There is no concensus for an indefifinite irrevocable block. ] ] 09:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::No block is irrevocable. Sceptre may ask for his to be lifted at any time. I suggest December but he could ask sooner or later. However he is asking us to trust him to not sock puppet in the interval, while I'm saying that trust isn't necessary if he simply exhibits good behavior. Do you think think he can't go until December without using socks? ]] ] 09:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::No idea. But AGF is more likely to result in good behaviour IMHO. It is an aspect of courtesy and respect to which everyone is entitled. ] ] 09:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::I have inferred (note: this means he did '''not''' say this, but that I picked it up) from talking to Sceptre that he has only used sockpuppets while blocked; this ], ]. — ] 00:17 ], ] (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::(comment from the sidelines...) |
|
|
:::::::::::::I don't think that looks at the issue that generated the ire. The nub is that, by what has been presented, the socks were used to ''avoid the block''. ''If'' (''big'' if here) the inference is sound, all it does is reinforce the thought that the socks were explicitly for use when he "got caught and sanctioned" to ''avoid'' the sanction. That smacks of "The rules don't apply to me". It also does not engender faith and undermines what faith was there to begin with. - ] (]) 01:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
</onlyinclude> |
|
|
== A friendy suggestion == |
|
|
|
|
|
We don't know each other very well, so feel free to ignore this, but: have you considered contributing to a different project for a while? Your block here does not extend to any other projects, such as commons, wikisource, simple.en, etc. It would be perfectly reasonable to contribute to one of those for a while instead of enwiki, if you're looking for a WMF project to help with. There's no need to respond here; feel free to simply remove this if you want. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 21:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Blah == |
|
|
|
|
|
I still support an unblock of Scepre ''right now''. FT2 made it clear that his infef block was only a temp measure so the community could sort out what blocks, if any, should be had. We still have not had that first blocking discussion, so no one should be treating that first indef block, or the two month block reduction, as something that had support. -- ] 03:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*Seconded. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">''''']:]'''''</span> 08:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*Thirded. <font color="#FFA000">╟─]§]►]─╢</font> 09:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*This is getting silly. ] (]) 10:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*Agreed. ]] 10:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*Sounds fair to me. ] ] 11:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== September 2008 == |
|
|
<div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:3 months|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''3 months'''|You have been temporarily ''']''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for '''abusive use of sockpuppets to evade block for harassment and vandalism'''. Please stop. You are welcome to ] after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:true|]] 13:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block2 --> |
|
|
:I have reduced the block from indefinite to 3 months per discussion at ]. '''''Please''''' find something else to do in this time, and then come back afterwards. You have made some wonderful contributions, and it would be a shame for you to stop editing. ]] 13:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
__NOINDEX__ |
|
__NOINDEX__ |