| Revision as of 20:31, 21 March 2010 view sourceNihonjoe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Template editors124,624 edits →March 2010: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:48, 21 March 2010 view source Jéské Couriano (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers40,292 edits →March 2010: UnblockedNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' to prevent further ] caused by your engagement in an ] at ]. During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. 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. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)</div>{{z9}}<!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' to prevent further ] caused by your engagement in an ] at ]. During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. 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. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)</div>{{z9}}<!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | ||
| {| width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;" | |||
| |- | |||
| | valign="top" style="padding: 0.5em" | ] | |||
| | style="padding: 0.1em" | | |||
| '''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s): | |||
| {{unblock|1=Nevermind that he has done this twice now and it was clearly noted that he was doing it purely to be pointy and harrasing, I get blocked? Sandstein (who incorrectly called me male....) even notes in his closing of the report that Karunyan that is was stalking, but I get blocked??? Where does policy say that victims of WikiHounding also get punished for doing what anyone else would do. I responded appropriately to a second instance of the exact same action! I reverted, yes, and I also reported it to the same admin who had dealt with the last report (who unfortunately was offline). When I realized he was offline, I filed the appropriate edit war report, including noting I was ceasing reverting on that article while waiting for some awake admin to visit the issue. Instead, the hounder reverted yet again, then jumped to another article and began the same stuff all over again, and which he was alloewd to do again before he was finally blocked as well. BTW, for the curious, Karunyan's response to his block translates to "Did!!!!!" so I guess he is celebrating his winning at least, since his last attempt to get me blocked like this failed.}} | |||
| <br><br>I'm reducing the block to time served, per below. I'll hunt down and remove the AB. | |||
| ''Request handled by:'' —<font color="228B22">'']''</font> <font color="00008B"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> | |||
| <small> '''Unblocking administrator''': Please check for <span class="plainlinks"> on this user after accepting the unblock request.</small> | |||
| <!-- Request accepted (after-block request) --> | |||
| |} | |||
| See, generally, ]. Yes, Karunyan's conduct was disruptive, and I have blocked him for this for a longer time than you, but you have also edit-warred, even breaking 3RR. Each editor is responsible for their own actions; misconduct by others does not excuse misconduct by you. Sorry for the pronoun mistake, though. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | See, generally, ]. Yes, Karunyan's conduct was disruptive, and I have blocked him for this for a longer time than you, but you have also edit-warred, even breaking 3RR. Each editor is responsible for their own actions; misconduct by others does not excuse misconduct by you. Sorry for the pronoun mistake, though. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:48, 21 March 2010
Speaking of that "same in - duh - vidual:"
I was alerted to this ding-dong's latest rash of idiocy. Since it's easier to ask forgiveness instead of permission, I've extended the block of each of his five ranges. I'm pretty sure he was playing a numbers game; he just kept trying to log on until his dynamic IP hit an address which was outside the original range of the block. I am just about to take a very long vacation from this project over this issue; the Foundation doesn't seem to care that this evil little brat has caused so much damage. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- PS: I just e-mailed Jimbo. It's his site and I hope he'll act on this. We've chatted via e-mail before and he's familiar with me and my work. I just hope he can find the time to place a stop to this once and for all. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hopefully something will get done. I think it sucks that its driving away good editors, for the sake of some bored kid who could probably use some serious parental attention. I can't say as I blame you, though. I'm about ready to just give up dealing with him unless he hits something I'm actually working on. If no one cares enough to really deal with him, can't help but wonder if anyone cares how much damage he causes besides a small handful left to battle him on our own. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
March 2010
|
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Request handled by: —Jeremy Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request. |
See, generally, WP:NOTTHEM. Yes, Karunyan's conduct was disruptive, and I have blocked him for this for a longer time than you, but you have also edit-warred, even breaking 3RR. Each editor is responsible for their own actions; misconduct by others does not excuse misconduct by you. Sorry for the pronoun mistake, though. Sandstein 09:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't see how dealing with this guy's second round of stalking is "edit warring" in any spirit of the rule. He was reverting to continue his previous disruptive behavior. It isn't technically vandalism, but it sure isn't productive editing either, and I would think common sense and IAR would apply in such a case. I also ceased reverting on Clique after I made my report so that administrators could deal with him. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 10:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is silly and petty. If the other editor is clearly being disruptive, stalking and making a nuisance of him/herself, then it's not really an edit war at all, but a case of common sense to deal with the disruptive user. This sort of thing is tedious and wastes a lot of time. Wikipeterproject (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree; Col should be immediately unblocked and the troll indef'ed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Col was clearly edit warring here, however, it's also pretty clear from the remarks before and after the block that she was being hounded by a bad faith editor who was tryin to get both of them blocked. Col was trying to get help with this, but couldn't get it in time. I would suggest that Col be unblocked for time served, and the other editor be indef blocked for obvious trolling. At the very least, he should be banned from harassing Col again when he returns. We've let a bad faith editor get a good editor blocked, here. Dayewalker (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- It's not edit waring when dealing with a troll, it's IAR. This troll was fed. Jack Merridew 20:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Collectonian is a good editor who got sucked into a trap. I think time served is good enough. As for Karunyan, I think he should be given one last sudden-death chance: if he begins the same thing when the current block ends, the block should become indefinite. We don't need disruptive editors here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Col was clearly edit warring here, however, it's also pretty clear from the remarks before and after the block that she was being hounded by a bad faith editor who was tryin to get both of them blocked. Col was trying to get help with this, but couldn't get it in time. I would suggest that Col be unblocked for time served, and the other editor be indef blocked for obvious trolling. At the very least, he should be banned from harassing Col again when he returns. We've let a bad faith editor get a good editor blocked, here. Dayewalker (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree; Col should be immediately unblocked and the troll indef'ed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Post Block Notes
- For Father Goose: interesting "log" of User:100110100's possibly IPs, seeming to back to at least January 2008, when his IP was fixed at 68.148.164.166 and apparently engaging in a very long term pestering of User:Steewi, who has declined to answer him for over two years now...
- Undo vandalism of List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes
- Respond to Beckett's rep at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Beckett Media. "As you appear to be a newer editor, I'd recommend reading Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD, as your current argument appears to primarily consist of your liking the company. Might I also recommend you actually make yourself knowledgeable about the events around this article's deletion before making such (hopefully unintentionally) insulting statements? I am not some "blogger", I'm the one who created and wrote the Beckett Media article originally, and I am the one who prodded it. It has nothing to do with "having fun" with Beckett, nor is a company's "image" at all relevant to a Misplaced Pages notability discussion. The number of magazines it publishes also does not make it notable, nor does its years in business. Misplaced Pages requires verifiability and notability for its articles on companies. Basically, there MUST be significant coverage of this company reliable, third-party sources, not just its own press releases, backing up any claims of notability. Beckett being a private company is irrelevant. Many private companies are notable and have coverage in third-party sources. As for some random blog posting about its being deleted, considering the incorrect statements made in the post( and that it is someone's personal blog, I fail to see how it is relevant. (I also note you failed to mention the post that was its source, which called the Beckett article spammy...even if he incorrectly stated that the article was Beckett spam). As the article creator, I'm the one who originally prodded it after two years of trying to establish real notability for the company, not just repeating its press releases. It was deleted per Misplaced Pages guidelines as no one objected. That you came after it was deleted and then objected, meant it was restored and now must go through AfD where, obviously I hope it will be deleted again. Also, considering where your IP resolves to, I'd ask that you please honestly disclose any connection you yourself have to Beckett." and undo IP's removal/changing of sourced content in favor of his unsourced content.