Allstarecho (talk | contribs) →Statement by Allstarecho: who this was actually directed to |
→Statement by Allstarecho: WP:BLP enforcement |
||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
:Yes, your opinion on the matter has been documented as shown above of how you reverted a personal attack on me by Sanchez and then basically told me to piss off. Very admin-like, that was. Thankfully another admin without a conservative agenda stepped in and reverted you. '''- A'''LLST'''✰'''R<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>[[User talk:Allstarecho|echo]]</sup>''' <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/Allstarecho|wuz here]] '''</sub> 02:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
:Yes, your opinion on the matter has been documented as shown above of how you reverted a personal attack on me by Sanchez and then basically told me to piss off. Very admin-like, that was. Thankfully another admin without a conservative agenda stepped in and reverted you. '''- A'''LLST'''✰'''R<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>[[User talk:Allstarecho|echo]]</sup>''' <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/Allstarecho|wuz here]] '''</sub> 02:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
:I'm sure you will. It's always nice to have "token" gay friends. </sarcasm> '''- A'''LLST'''✰'''R<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>[[User talk:Allstarecho|echo]]</sup>''' <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/Allstarecho|wuz here]] '''</sub> 03:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
:I'm sure you will. It's always nice to have "token" gay friends. </sarcasm> '''- A'''LLST'''✰'''R<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>[[User talk:Allstarecho|echo]]</sup>''' <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/Allstarecho|wuz here]] '''</sub> 03:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
;Comments to Seicer |
|||
:He performed in over 30 gay porn films, doing exactly what I called him. In other words, there's at least 30 reliable sources that back up my claim. As for "broadly misinterpreting what a community ban is", please explain. I see a ban that is pretty clear cut: Don't mention him or talk to him anywhere on Wikipedia. That means not even on official noticeboards. That means if he shows up on an article I'm editing, I'm supposed to sneak away like a beat-down puppy dog. How is that misinterpreting? '''- A'''LLST'''✰'''R<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>[[User talk:Allstarecho|echo]]</sup>''' <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/Allstarecho|wuz here]] '''</sub> 03:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by LessHeard vanU === |
=== Statement by LessHeard vanU === |
Revision as of 13:23, 6 August 2009
Requests for arbitration
Allstarecho
Initiated by - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here at 12:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Allstarecho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Spartaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), at his request
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Obviously I have been notified.
- Spartaz
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Not applicable
Statement by Allstarecho
Per this discussion, I have been community banned from the Matt Sanchez article as well as from the article subject's user talk page at User talk:Bluemarine. That's fine and I accept that as I don't edit the article much anyway and really have no desire to interact with him on his talk page. However, the ban also includes me even mentioning the user anywhere on Wikipedia and this is the part I am appealing. Saying I can't mention him at official Wikipedia venues such as here at ANI or at AN/3RR/SOCK/RFC/AfD/COPYVIO/etc. is really unacceptable. For example, if I see him socking again, edit warring again or calling another user a "gay terrorist" again, I should be able to report the issue to the appropriate official Wikipedia noticeboard without prejudice. No user who isn't banned entirely from Wikipedia, should be banned from any official Wikipedia noticeboard or banned from reporting any incident and using the offending user's name. To disallow me that, or any user for that matter, is a disservice to Wikipedia itself and to the reasons the official noticeboards exist in the first place. The community has spoken and has basically said a well known and well documented serial sockpuppet/vandalizer/personal-attack-slinger is free to go about his usual business and that I better not report it, better not say nothing or else I will be blocked. This is just simply unacceptable.
So to be clear here, I have no problem with the article ban and the user talk page ban. I do have a problem with a ban that says I can't mention or comment on a user anywhere on Wikipedia. I'm requesting the ban be modified from Allstarecho is banned from commenting on or to Bluemarine anywhere on Wikipedia. to Allstarecho is banned from commenting on or to Bluemarine anywhere on Wikipedia except official noticeboards/venues such as AN, ANI, 3RR, AfD, etc.
If that isn't acceptable (it should be), then perhaps allowing me to secure a mentor and that person be the one and only person I notify of concerns regarding Bluemarine that need to be reported or stated.
I request that those who may have participated in the discussion at ANI, not rehash that discussion here. Keep it on topic and address the issue itself.
- And here's a new interesting twist.. what if any user I am banned from "mentioning or talking to" suddenly starts editing an article or article talk page that I'm also editing? Am I supposed to tuck my tail, lower my head and leave? What if any user I am banned from "mentioning or talking to" is posting here on ANI and I need to post here as well? Am I supposed to tuck my tail, lower my head and leave? What if any user I am banned from "mentioning or talking to" posts a thread here on ANI accusing me of something? Am I supposed to tuck my tail, lower my head, not defend myself, and leave? Seriously, this wasn't thought out at all, just trigger happy voting by mostly people I've had run ins with before. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comments to Durova
- Once again, Durova leaves out part of the facts. The recent SPI case I filed was because a) the IP out of the blue left a message on my own talk page and b) made edits to the Matt Sanchez article and c) another user tagged the IP as a suspected sock of Bluemarine. So I opened an SPI case requesting checkuser so we could be sure as to whether or not it was him. This is common practice and procedure. The only reason I can think that Durova would have a problem with me filing an SPI case in this situation is that she is trying to, as his mentor, protect her mentee. There's really no other reason for bitching about filing an SPI for such an obvious reason when Bluemarine is documented right here at ArbCom to be a serial sock-master and is socking all over Wikimedia sites, quite recently in fact. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 21:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yet only until my reply, would you bring up an objection to "threaded discussion". As you can see from my statement at the top, I tried to follow the procedure. Then others started "threaded" discussing, including yourself. I'm not requesting a general mentor, only a contact person to report incidents and issues to that I am unavailble to report via this ridiculous part of my topic ban. That said, I have someone in mind and I think even you would be quite pleased. But I'm not going to ask for such a person unless this part of the topic ban is reworded either as I have requested to to where it makes it so I can at least mention the name that dare not be named, to my contact person mentor. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 21:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest you look at the histories again because once again you are wrong. IP was tagged as a sock by User:Benjiboi at 00:03, August 3, 2009. I filed the SPI case at 01:31, August 3, 2009, a full 1 hour and 28 minutes later. Additionally, I didn't ask for your help in finding me a mentor. I specifically said I would find one, had one in mind that even you would be quite pleased with. Please do your research before trying to cast my actions in a bad light. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 00:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Always got to complain about something, dontcha? Just can't accept the fact that you're wrong. And thanks for withdrawing your offer. Now if you'd just withdraw totally, we may can move forward without the clutter of false information or missing information. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 02:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Reply to Statement by LessHeard vanU
- First, thanks for the canvassing. I'm sure we'll be overwhelmed now by pretty much the same as the ANI thread. I wanted this to remain neutral but so much for that. Secondly, whether or not there are others who can/may/will report any issues regarding Bluemarine, that should not exclude me from doing so. If, after reporting an issue, people feel I have "defined improperly" the issue, then they will follow usual procedure and mark the thread accordingly (Nothing actionable,, etc.). I imagine there would be times when I see a user do things they shouldn't be doing and other users never even notice it. I shouldn't be silenced from noticeboards just because of a user's name. On whether or not "ArbCom's remit permits them to vary community derived sanctions and restrictions unless they violate policy", I don't know. I was told by the ANI discussion admin, Spartaz, that this was the procedure for appealing. Considering ArbCom varied Bluemarine's own community ban, I don't see why ArbCom couldn't accept this case either. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 02:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment to Juliancolton
- It's a perfect example of canvassing. That thread was closed but he, who !voted in that thread, ran off practically as soon as I created this ArbCom appeal, to be the town-cryer and notify those "fresh" users that "oh noz! he filed an arbcom case!". Yeah, perfect prime example of canvassing. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 21:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment to Sirfozzie
- Which you shouldn't have done. There is nothing wrong or against policy with me keeping an archive in my own userspace of my own topic ban. Quite honestly, I feel you are out of line for deleting it. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 21:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comments to DuncanHill
- Oh, that's a tame personal attack by him. You should have been around a while back when he was calling people "gay terrorists", "gay jihadists", "faggots" and everything else he could get his tongue to wrap around. But I'm just supposed to ignore it and hope someone notices it. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 21:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, only after I reported it to ANI. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 22:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comments to Pastor Theo
- Yes, your opinion on the matter has been documented as shown above of how you reverted a personal attack on me by Sanchez and then basically told me to piss off. Very admin-like, that was. Thankfully another admin without a conservative agenda stepped in and reverted you. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 02:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure you will. It's always nice to have "token" gay friends. </sarcasm> - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by LessHeard vanU
I suggest this request is denied. As commented at ANI, there are plenty of other people able to report Bluemarine should they act not in accordance with policy, guidelines or usual practices - Allstarecho has no extra ability to define when another editor is acting improperly - and removing the potential for further conflict between the two editors by disallowing them to interact is to the benefit of the project. Furthermore, I do not believe that ArbCom's remit permits them to vary community derived sanctions and restrictions unless they violate policy, which I suggest is not the case here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Spartaz
Just noting for the record that I was not involved in the discussion and although formally enacting the restriction I simply closed it according to the obvious consensus. Personally I feel that a clear consensus has been established and there are no apparent procedural anomalies to invalidate the consensus established. Should this be accepted I do not intend to participate or offer evidence.
- with regard to the remit of the Arbitration Committee, I was always under the impression that the committee could overturn and/or invalidate any community sanction by motion or by hearing a case. Whether it would be wise for them to do so in this particular situation is the 64,000$ question that we trust them to deal with.
Observation by Juliancolton
FWIW, this is hardly canvassing, as Allstarecho claimed. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Joshua
Speaking as someone who was reading the Allstarecho thread with interest but had not made up my mind by the end of the discussion, the result seems pretty clear. The community doesn't want Allstarecho to have anything to do with Bluemarine. It seems beyond the ArbCom's power (and frankly a really bad idea) to try to override the community on this sort of thing, whether or not the community's decision is ideal. The damage, if any, from preventing ASE from discussing Bluemarine is unlikely to have any major negative impacts.
I'd also like to note that the behavior that ASE calls canvassing was a note in the ANI discussion that the matter had been brought up on this page. I have trouble seeing that as canvassing. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Durova
Allstarecho states a wish to file SPI requests on Bluemarine. He has filed two SPI requests on Bluemarine within the last four months, neither of which found any Bluemarine sockpuppets. Allstarecho's filing of May 21 was an uncritical repetition of tags placed by StephenLaurie. Avi responded "Other than the IP address from which the account User:Bluemarine edited while logged in, I do not see any currently available technical or behavioral evidence of sockpuppetry on the other IPs." What Allstarecho failed to note was that StephenLaurie was an obvious sockpuppet of Eleemosynary. Eleemosynary was indefinitely blocked in May 2008 after getting topic banned at AE for disruption at the Matt Sanchez article. Allstarecho's August SPI filing claimed an IP was Matt, although the IP referred to Matt in the third person and misspelled Matt's name.[1] Anyone familiar with the dispute would recognize that the IP advocated the opposite POV from Matt's.[2]
Sanchez ceased socking in spring 2008, which was why his arbitration ban expired. Allstarecho's 2009 SPI filings occurred while the community was attempting to regularize Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine's editing status. In May the three days it took to resolve Allstarecho's SPI complaint prevented the community from forming a consensus about a proposed topic ban on Bluemarine. In August Allstarecho filed the second SPI request while a proposed topic ban for Bluemarine was also under discussion. Allstarecho is aware that Sanchez is a minor celebrity who is the subject of a long term spoofing campaign, yet he failed to note that fact either at ANI or at SPI. Allstarecho's track record in this regard could be characterized as poor judgment, close to if not crossing the line of active disruption.
Probably the best solution would be to screen future suspected socks informally through an experienced third party such as an SPI clerk. That could be arranged without ArbCom's intervention. Durova293 15:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- With regard to FayssalF's comment, no modification of the community sanction would be needed if an experienced is willing to serve as a point of contact. Allstarecho has indicated a willingness to accept a mentor. Durova294 20:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comments to FayssalF
- Perhaps it would be best to clarify the suggestion: A 48 hour unscreened delay wouldn't have prevented the problems that have already occurred. It wouldn't have stopped Allstarecho from filing SPI in May; nobody other than Allstarecho and the returning sock of an indeffed user construed that as Matt socking. If Allstarecho had someone he could touch bases with via email (preferably an administrator who's had experience with long term disputes) then that person could filter concerns. Since Allstarecho is voluntarily offering to undergo mentorship, the community doesn't actually need to modify its decision. All that's needed is somebody who's willing to separate wheat from chaff. Also with a screener he wouldn't have to wait two days and hope for action on something actually problematic, such as the insult Bluemarine made the other day. Durova294 20:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Here's a start. Durova294 21:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Allstarecho
- Threaded discussion normally isn't done at RFAR, but it's reasonable to assume that a journalist and Ivy League graduate wouldn't refer to himself in the third person and misspell his own name. Have completed the good faith restoration as promised and requested a mentor for Allstarecho from the relevant wikiproject. Was thinking of contacting a couple of experienced people as potential mentor/screeners, but haven't done so because of the worry that Allstarecho might refuse referrals. This is probably as much help as can be provided on this end without diminishing returns. Durova294 21:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is an example of how the situation keeps getting tangled: Allstarecho misrepresents the sequence of events in order to falsely accuse me of omission. He claims he filed an SPI report because another user tagged an IP as a suspected sock of Bluemarine. Actually Allstarecho filed the report at 06:31, 3 August 2009 and the other user tagged it 16 hours later at 22:12, 3 August 2009. Allstarecho, if you post again to this thread I will cease helping find you a mentor. Durova294 22:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, tagged by someone else who until recently was topic banned. Hadn't checked the talk history. Offer to assist finding mentorship is withdrawn. Durova294 00:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Seicer
This is not canvassing. Stating that Allstarecho has attempted to restart the discussion to overturn the ban elsewhere, and thereby escalating it, is not canvassing in any form. That said, Allstarecho has created User:Allstarecho/IdiotBan. seicer | talk | contribs 18:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment to Allstarecho
- That in no way dismisses your candor and rather forgettable attitudes you've held over various individuals, that you are required to at least hold a basic sense of decency and civility when interacting with other individuals. Labeling your so-called opponents as "dick suckers [...]" isn't the best route to achieve harmony in interactions, and I find it puzzling that you are up in arms when others profess the same or lessor display of maltreatment to other individuals. Your continued abuse of process, and your questionable userpages that you've had in the past, only further discredit any reliable or factual statements that you may present. Tagging along with what others have noted, you should disengage from this situation and perhaps take a brief break; continuing along, pressing the non-issue and broadly misinterpreting what a community ban is, is not doing you any favors. seicer | talk | contribs 03:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by SirFozzie
Just making a statement that I've deleted the page that Seicer mentions above, as all it was was a copy of the ANI Discussion, with a editnotice screed on top, continuing to attack User:Bluemarine. I have left a notice on Allstarecho's page, asking him not to recreate it. Hopefully, that part needs to go no further. I do agree with the topic ban, as ASE is in way too deep and needs to realize this. SirFozzie (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comments to Allstarecho
-
- You are under a community topic ban regarding that user. Your posts appealing that topic ban here are not so much of an issue, as in general, arbitration related activities are given the free pass. But you basically continued to attack that other user with your editnotice screed.
- Look, Allstarecho, I'm not contesting that User:Bluemarine has said some things I strongly consider hurtful and I think should not be tolerated. However, let's look at this rationally. Out of the 24 or so folks who commented on the ANI thread, 21 of them agreed that further interactions of yours towards Bluemarine would not be helpful or useful to the project.
- The ArbCom has not stated any willingness to see your view, in fact, if anything, the ArbCom want to take over the responsibility of placing you under an official ArbCom topic ban, not just a community topic ban. At some point, it hopefully will get through to you that no matter how strongly you feel here, this is not helpful to your cause, and it is not helpful to you, personally. As I suggested on your talk page, it's honestly better for you if you stayed away from Bluemarine.. that way if something does happen and it gets reported, then we don't have to sort out the personal issues and can focus on the conduct. All you are doing right now is proving the need for the restriction the community placed you under. SirFozzie (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by DuncanHill
To prevent anyone reporting comments like [3] is disgusting and would never be countenanced by anyone with any sense of fairplay. I am ashamed to be an editor of a project that would impose such a ban. DuncanHill (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comments to FayssalF
-
- With all due respect to you Fayssal, if you can find me defending a comment worse than calling someone a pervert then I shall retire immediately. I do not believe that I have ever done so. That said, you have not answered my point that it is downright wrong to prohibit someone from complaining about such an attack. DuncanHill (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- (To Fayssal, after edit conflict) Telling someone to fuck off is in no way comparable to calling someone a pervert - particularly if the person being called a pervert is a self-identified gay man. The first is an expression of incoherent anger or exasperation, and largely meaningless (though still rude), the latter is an attack on a person's character, morality, and selfhood, and given the long history of violence against gay men (often "justified" by the use of language such as "pervert") is particularly hateful. I think I have made a clear distinction - I am not arguing that "fuck off" is acceptable, but rather that a sense of proportion needs to be developed, and a recognition that we actually devalue attempts to deal with unacceptable behaviour by bundling "blowing one's top" with directed personal attacks. DuncanHill (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- You claimed I had defended comments worse than Bluemarine's - I was trying to demonstrate that you were wrong. If you still say that describing "fuck off" as rude but not a personal attack is worse than calling someone a "pervert" then I don't know how to talk to you. DuncanHill (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the apology and strike. DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- So, what do you think of an admin re-inserting a personal attack [4] and subsequently calling for the subject of the attack to be prevented from reporting further attacks [5] ? 'Cos I think that stinks. DuncanHill (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Pastor Theo
For the record, let us recall that AllStarEcho once displayed the following message on his User Page: "I'm so over dick suckers who suddenly find jesus in a pool of cum." Anyone who can make such a statement -- which some may consider to be a perverted comment -- is in no position to be caterwauling over being called names of a non-scatological nature. ASE’s mania for Mr. Sanchez is veering out of control, and I am glad that responsible members of the Wikipedia community are not allowing this to metastasize any further. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment to Allstarecho
- I will remember my "conservative agenda" tomorrow evening, when I am officiating the marriage of two male friends of mine in Provincetown, Massachusetts. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Request by Lar
Could the clerks refactor the discussion here? Or move it to the talk page or something? Seems a bit of a mess, and I thought normally this wasn't the place for threaded confusion, er I mean discussion... ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Privatemusings
I'd say that's a good idea [Lar]. Privatemusings (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/2/0)
- Recuse, however I would like to point out that you do not appear to be requesting a case, unless you want a case against the "community" because of the wording that they have settled upon.
We might be able to "take over" responsibility for this topic ban from the community, and replace it with our own wording (by motion?). John Vandenberg (chat) 14:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC) - Decline and comments This community decision is less than 24 hours old as I write, and the decision was unusually clear. I see no reason to override it at this time. Bluemarine is also under some fairly stringent editing restrictions, and I believe that there is ample supervision of his work at this time, and that responses to his actions have been appropriate to date; if more stringent restrictions are required, the community has shown itself capable of taking the initiative. I will also note that Durova has expressed a desire to step down in her role as mentor to Bluemarine, and I hope that a capable member of the community will self-identify for that role, and work with Durova and Bluemarine to continue the work they have done in progressively re-integrating Bluemarine into the Wikipedia community. Risker (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Decline per Risker. I see no need to look into the community's decision. Wizardman 16:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- The community has all the power to restrict any user from any page in the project if it has the firm belief that the restriction will help the project. The community also has the full power to restrict communication between a user and another if it has the firm belief that the restriction will be helpful for the project. However, any restriction should be clear enough and predict all possible scenarios that may occur in the future in order to avoid any further complications (i.e. allowing AllStarEcho to use a reporting noticeboard if no administrator or user has noticed a violation after 48 hours of its occurrence). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- (Comments to Durova)I'll better respond here for convenience. Well, while I understand that refusing mentorship is not a good idea in most cases, I believe that such a scenario of having a violation without anyone noticing it is possible —probably never. However if that happens it would less relevant if someone has refused mentorship; the important is to have a fix for it for the best of the project. I personally don't care about the technicalities but the community needs to find a solution to such a possible scenario. Now is better than later in the future. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Then the community has to work on something like that. As I said, it doesn't matter how but the important thing is to work now to find a way. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Great. Now, probably the best thing for the community to do is to wait until those details are further clarified before enacting the community restriction. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- (Comments to DuncanHill)With all due respect DuncanHill. I've seen you
defending comments worse than thatarguing that f*** o** is not a personal attack. I am all against any personal attack or any comment which is uncivil and strongly support immediate blocks but I ask the community to please be consistent. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC) - Here, you argue that f*** o** is not a personal attack. However, I totally agree with the rest of the comment you provided in that diff where you ask admins to apply the same standards when it comes to PA and incivility.
- I am answering Durova above and working on it indeed. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see that he was blocked rightly within 10 minutes. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, then this is why I asked for something to be done in this direction as I said in my view below and discussing it above with Durova. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, entering in comparison debates is not going to move us further. The important thing is that both comments are blockable offenses. What we can debate is the length of the blocks and there we may probably agree. Anything that you won't let your kid read or listen to is not appropriate. Incidentally, yesterday while editing Wikipedia, someone was swearing to another man (go f*** yourself) just two floors below my apartment. My nephew (12 Y.O) was playing around while my sister was on another room. I then went down and approached the guy and told him that it is not appropriate because we have family members at home. He didn't argue further and said "I am very sorry". I then thanked him. Do people over here say "I am sorry!". No? And surely, there are hundreds if not thousands of users who don't want to hear stuff like that on-wiki. Why don't users who use offensive language respect the rest? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I did the necessary above
. I hope that clears it up and I apologize. Now, I do not care if f*** o** => p*****. My main point is that both are blockable offenses. This is a collaborative project and if people keep accepting them and treating them as 'ohh, he got mad' although offenders tend to repeat them periodically then I am the one who should retire from this souk. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC) - You're welcome DuncanHill. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- An obvious block after warning if repeated. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)