Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 12

Applying a block too late...?

Re here, I'm wondering if the indefinite block on this account was applied too late. Of the two accounts mentioned in the thread, the user only wishes to retain the one that is currently blocked indefinitely. Any thoughts...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Categorization

{{editprotected}}

I think Category:Wikipedians who required user interventions should be replaced or supplemented with Category:Wikipedia blocking – Gurch 10:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done John Reaves (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Undoing another admins block

It currently says "If the blocking admin is unavailable for comment a discussion on WP:AN/I is recommended."

I suggest we change it to "If the blocking admin is unavailable for comment, or you cannot come to an agreement with the blocking admin, a discussion on WP:AN/I is recommended." which seems more in line with our actual practice.

Other wise Admin A can do a block, Admin B can say "I think your wrong", Admin A can respond says "But I am not wrong, and here are my reasons..." then Admin B can unblock with the knowledge that he discussed it with the blocking admin. Admin A is now at a loss due to fear of wheel warring. Thoughts? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oh. Well, yeah. In general if the two can't reach agreement, it requires broader discussion. In some rare cases B may simply overturn A's block even if A doesn't agree, but at the very least A should be notified (who can then take it to broader discussion anyway). >Radiant< 13:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that a difference of opinion alone did not justify reverting another admin, and that some sort of consensus was need with the blocking admin or the larger community. Am I wrong in that? Do I really just have to tell the admin, then undo the action? I would rather get consensus first, and I would rather others do the same. Not sure which way it really is/should be though. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, in general it does not. There are a few exceptions, where it may be better to leave the user in question unblocked until there is consensus to block him, the most obvious one being an admin blocking a user he was in conflict with. Then again, this is tricky business; I can think of at least three users who have a long-standing pattern to ask around until they convince some outside admin to unblock them (generally by wikilawyering or by calling the blocking admin biased) which had the result of them being effectively unblockable and encouraged further disruption on their part. >Radiant< 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• That is one of the problems I am hoping to address(the whole "ask the other parent" trick). But also I hope this could avoid the type of editing between admins that we don't like to see in regular editors(the type where disagreements are settled by reverting, not reaching consensus). If an involved admin gave the block, and does not agree to the unblock, then it really should got to ANI anyways. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with the last sentence there: admins should be strongly discouraged from unblocking if the blocking admin doesn't agree. They should also be encouraged to post their own blocks to ANI if they are likely to be disputed. I notice lately that some people (mostly nonadmins) are starting to think that posting to ANI is in itself some sort of disciplinary action, which it isn't. CMummert · talk 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This change is a good idea. Another sysop recently reversed one of my blocks without attempting to communicate with me even though I had already submitted my actions for community review at one of the administrative noticeboards. When I discovered what had happened and sent a polite follow up query via e-mail I received a stunningly rude answer. When I replied with a courteous presentation of evidence the other sysop failed to respond at all. Shortly afterward the same sysop insulted another editor in good standing who had taken an interest in the case. I'd prefer not to disclose more specifics at this time since I hope that was an isolated lapse of judgement. Whether or not my block was correct, that isn't the way to resolve a difference of opinion. Durova^Charge! 22:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't bad, although in practice I've tended to find WP:AN to be more use for block review. --Tony Sidaway 22:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been bold and changed it to "If the blocking admin is unavailable for comment, or you cannot come to an agreement with the blocking admin, a discussion on WP:AN/I or WP:AN is recommended." Please discuss if you disagree. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Series of copy edits

I've just completed a series of copy edits intended to remove jargon and clarify references to shortcuts. Even if (unfortunately) our discussions are sometimes peppered with jargon, it's best if our written policies are written for clarity. --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of templates, and communication with users

Undoubtedly templates are useful for large-scale block warnings such as those for dealing with vandalism. However I think the current wording, even though it deprecates use of warning templates, isn't strong enough. Failure of communication prior to (as well as after) blocking is a frequent cause of administrator error leading to sanctions from the Arbitration Committee, so this is pretty important.

The current wording says:

A variety of templates exist to warn users of undesirable behavior that may lead to a block. Their purpose is in part to notify novice users they may be breaking a policy they are unfamiliar with. These templates exist solely as a convenience to editors who repeatedly make similar warnings. The templates do not form a mandatory part of blocking process, and to long-term users, custom-written warnings are more appropriate than the premade warnings.

I suggest a stronger wording such as:

A variety of templates exist to warn users of undesirable behavior that may lead to a block. Their primary purpose is to aid busy administrators who may have to deal with several simultaneous instances of blockable behavior. However they should not be used where normal human communication is practicable. Except where the action is seriously disruptive, communicating with a user in the first instance should normally aim to dissuade rather than threaten or warn, and administrators should use their own words in preference to a warning template. This is important both in communication with apparently genuine new users (Do not bite the newcomers) and with established, highly valued editors. Avoid use of jargon in all communications as an administrator.

This would be a fairly important change, but I think it's necessary. Giving a warning template or saying something like "You will be blocked for 3RR if you continue" is unfriendly and masks important communication in unnecessary, hostile jargon. --Tony Sidaway 14:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've just rewritten this page. The rewrite hopefully achieves a number of things:

1. reduces the wordiness of the prior version (including much repetition)
2. consolidates related parts together (eg, everything about unblocking is now in an "unblocking" section)
3. separates the policy stuff from the "how-to" stuff (which is now at m:Help:Block and unblock; local copy)
4. expresses some of the ideas around blocking that maybe haven't been included in the policy before, or maybe have been lost in recent versions (eg, the "education and warnings" section, or the "reasons and notification" section)

Discuss. --bainer (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That looks good; I made a few other tweaks. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:59:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You also removed the section on blocks for advertising completely, and while there was still debate on the form of this, I think there was consensus on some form of it being in the policy. I think this was a very large edit to a policy page to be done without discussion in advance. DES ^(talk) 13:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Significant changes made in the rewite

The following changes were made in teh course of the massive rewrite, which i think are undesaireable, adn should be discussed or simply undone.

1. The following very important paragraph under the headign Disruption disappeared. I think it should be reinserted.

   Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures. Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia.

2. The following cautionary paragaph disappeared. While i would edit it to say The community rather than The Arbitration Committee (to reflect the actual source of policy) I think some version of this should be retained, until there is a wide consensus on this issue, which there currently is not.

   The Arbitration Committee has not reached a conclusive and binding decision pertaining to the addition of links to or material derived from sites that engage in attacks and harassment against Wikipedia users, as documented by two different cases here and here.

3. The following cautionary paragraph disapared, and i feel that its contetn is valuable and shpuld be retained:

   Users who aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies may be blocked if there is a consensus among uninvolved users that it is necessary. Such persons should be dealt with kindly and patiently, but should be prevented from wreaking havoc over the period of weeks or months it would take to process an obvious Arbitration request. Remember to note the case on WP:ANI. Be kind.

4. The following paragraph on advertising disappeared compeltely. While discusion on the presise wordign ans scope of this provision was still ongoing, I fell that some form of it should clearly have been retained.

   Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, or service, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest, shall be warned that such edits are against Wikipedia policy. If after the warning such edits persist, and the account continues to be used primarily or solely for the purpose of promotion, any uninvolved admin may block the account for up to one week. If such edits persist after the block, the account may be blocked indefinitely. A legitimate content dispute shall not be considered as a reason for such blocks.

• I feel that these, and posisbly other changes made in the rewrite, should be discussed and the content cited above should be restored to the policy page, unless the consensus is to remove it. DES ^(talk) 14:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This often happens during a rewrite. I suggest you just be bold and reinsert them, they already have community acceptance, and there is no indication their removal was anything but a mistake. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I was attempting to ac\void accusations of edit warring on a policy page, considerign the recent fuss of WP:ATTACK and related issues. But since you sugest it, i will do so. If any one thinks my edits are improper, the matter can be discussed here. DES ^(talk) 14:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I was not aware of any of those confounding issues. Regardless, be bold. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed what I was trying to do with the rewrite. One of the big things I was doing was separating the technical "how-to" stuff into a help page (m:Help:Block and unblock) and the policy "how-to" stuff into its own section ("Implementing blocks"), leaving the accepted reasons for blocking succinctly mentioned on their own. You've reintroduced one paragraph which mixes all of this stuff up together and is in the wrong place conceptually anyway. To address each of the things you identify separately:

1. This is verbose and not particularly necessary. It's much better dealt with by positively defining what disruption is and then listing the most obvious types of disruption.
2. I don't think anything should be said about "attack sites" at all. The policy already deals with personal attacks, placing users in danger, disclosing personal information and so on.
3. This paragraph is extremely poorly worded. Which policies does it refer to, for starters. And what is an "aggressive" violation of policy? Presumably this is attempting to address people who can't stick to content policy, but there must be a better way of expressing that than this.
4. The removal of this paragraph was intentional, because it was added recently without consensus. Spamming is already in the list of well-accepted examples of disruptive behaviour. But it is in no way prohibited to edit when you have a conflict of interest, though editing disruptively is and that is already covered.

--bainer (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that paragraph was added after extensive discussion in several locations. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If people want to discuss specific rewording or repalcement of the content above, or even if there is a consensus to remove any of it, fine, so be it. i don't think the goals of your rewrite justified the incidential losses. Ohers may disagree. Taht is why i think with an extensive rewrite it eould have ben beter to create a /draft sub-page, put the rewrite there, and move it when consensus was achieved. But since that wasn't your prefered course, here we are. Specifically:

1. I disagree. People have so often requested, an indeed imnposed, blocks over contet and policy disputes, we need to keep in a strong statment that such blocks are not appropriate. partixularly since the list of blocking reasons says that it is not comnprehensive. If you want the specific wording changed for greater bervity, that could probably be done.
2. Since a number of users have been claiming that all such links should be removed, and the removal enforced by block, and since that position is hotly disputed at present, I think it is vital that some text warnign that such blocks are contrntious remain. Again the exaxct wording could be debated and i am not wedded to the wording above.
3. This one I am least atached to. I think the substance should be included, but it could well be improved by significant editing
4. I think that ther is consensus for some form of this, it was recently added, but after a prolongued discussion, and at the time it was addded, IMO had apparent consensus on the talk page. Discussion about the format and content should continue. It might well be advisable to separate the how from the why, in line with your other changes, but in reinserting text i wanted to stick closely to versions that had significant support in the past.

• Can we discuss the specific marits of these and perhaps other changes, and find a way to achieve consensus going forward? DES ^(talk) 16:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there are serious problems with the passage which implies that it could be controversial to block people who deliberately link to a site that identifies anonymous editors.[1] We want, or we should want, to do everything in our power to discourage the practice of "outing" people, and to write a loophole into the blocking policy is a very bad idea, in my view. Also, the first arbcom case referred to made a particular ruling. The second one did not cancel it out; it merely declined to restate it. Only a ruling that these sites may be linked to could cancel out the MONGO ruling. ElinorD (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. Privacy is, or should be, a significant concern. Part of the promise of Wikipedia is to be able to work anonymously. People have various reasons for wishing to protect their privacy but its not my intent to defend every rationale. Regardless, it seems clear to me that the community and ArbCom have forbidden the practice. Vassyana 22:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

See the detaild discussion and warm dispute now in progress at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. It is a fact that a number of editors and admins stronmgly oppose the blanket removal of links to "outing sites", while there is general consensus for the removal of links directly to pages containing personal information. Blocks based on the wider concept are in fact controversial, and more than one admin has indicated a willigness to overturn such blocks in at least some hypothetical cases. I think this should be made clear. Failing that, what aboput a link to WP:NPA and its talk page, where this has been discussed at length. See also the rejected policy proposal on attack sites, which again makes it clear that consensus on this is quite narrow. DES ^(talk) 22:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We already have (and have had for some time) items in the policy like "disclosing personal information" and "performing actions that place users in danger" expressly there which are more than sufficient to cover all malicious linking; saying something about non-malicious linking can wait until there is a real consensus about it. --bainer (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

DES, you mention that the substance of the "aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies..." paragraph is important. Would you support a wording that was focused more tightly on users who persistently violate content policy (because that is what it is seemingly addressed at)? --bainer (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That would seem reasoanble. I am by no means insistant on the precise language. DES ^(talk) 12:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

When is a block without warning appropriate?

The section title sums up what I'm curious about. I realize there are probably times when it's necessary but I'm wondering what determines an immediate block? Anynobody 06:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To help focus the issue, a current example: I've got an un-warned block posted for review on WP:ANI right now. (Though it'll probably have rolled off tomorrow—that's ANI.) Bishonen | talk 06:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

It should be noted that the situation by Bishonen | talk does indeed address part of my question, but is not the only reason I have posted this question. I'm certain that there are situations where an unwarned block is necessary/unnecessary beyond just WP:NPA concerns.

To summarize I'm interested in knowing all known situations where such a block is warranted. (WP:NLT for example). Anynobody 06:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See the paragraph about education and warnings that I introduced in my rewrite a while back, it's consolidated from other statements and seems to represent current practice pretty well. The purpose of warnings is to educate users about policies, and generally speaking any time someone is aware of a policy already, education is not necessary, and so warnings are not necessary. --bainer (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, once a person has been warned and then blocked if they do the same thing again there generally shouldn't be a second warning for the same issue (keeping in mind that there's always exceptions of course). Is it fair to say an editor knows the nature of policies he/she quotes to others, example an editor who cautions someone not to break WP:NLT and then turns around and makes a legal threat doesn't need a warning. Anynobody 08:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I generally don't give warnings if it is reasonable to think that the person was already aware what they were doing is wrong. I don't see the need for warnings such as "Don't replace pages with hate speech" or "Don't redirect peoples userpages to Penis". ^(H) 12:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That also makes sense, but I am curious about a variation of the situations you mentioned. Lets assume the editor who redirected another editor's userpage to something else was retaliating to a similar action made by the other editor. (Assume they both reasonably should have known better.) Would a block on both be appropriate? I'm not saying retaliating is right, but it's "understandable" after being provoked and I think only blocking the editor who "returns fire" is sending a bad message to those who would initiate attacks. Anynobody 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Why would one not block both? Is there a specific instance you've got in mind? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not one specific incident, I've just seen it happen a few times. I want to be clear that I'm not here trying to get admin action against anyone for recent actions. These questions don't appear to be addressed by the text very well, and though I think it's just common sense as you do jpgordon^∇∆∇∆, that doesn't mean the policy actually does work that way. (I've learned that the hard way elsewhere.) Anynobody 23:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, assuming good faith on the part of the blocking admin, one must assume that the situations you've seen were errors or difference in opinion. However, I must admit that "why'd I get punished and not him when he did the same thing" never got very much traction when I tried to use it on Dad! "It's unfair!" More to the point -- the purpose of blocks is not punishment; the purpose of blocks is to prevent or stop disruption; and if the disruption is stopped by blocking one editor and not the other, there you go. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the policy isn't meant to be punishment, but the intention doesn't make it so. Editors who are blocked tend to feel punished, or at least that is the impression I get. This seems especially true when one editor is blocked and the other who committed acts of bad faith is not. Anynobody 01:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• WP:KETTLE really doesn't cut it as an argument. It is an unfortunate fact of life that if you get a speeding ticket, the fact that some other people who were also speeding did not get a ticket does not count as an excuse. >Radiant< 14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but the point is well taken that a one-sided block of this sort would unnecessarily cause hurt feelings. We should strive to be fair, when it doesn't get in the way of the more important task of creating an encyclopedia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly my point jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ :) Would it be appropriate to include advice for admins to research the circumstances before issuing a block? In the situations I witnessed I didn't find it an inconvenience to get more background on the situations. I'm not saying the admins who issued the blocks I'm talking about were doing anything intentionally unfair, I think they simply forgot that there are two sides to each situation. Anynobody 21:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that we should try to be fair. However, not infrequently do I see arguments that "the block on me was invalid because this other guy wasn't blocked either" - in other words, people who ignore the possibility that there might be something wrong with their behavior, and simply contest it on grounds of "inequality". Often the situation simply isn't equal - if A is edit warring with B, but A has a history of doing that and/or of making personal attacks and so forth, whereas B does not, then it would not be unreasonable to think that the problem here is A, and therefore the edit war is stopped by blocking A for awhile. Not by default, of course, but plausibly. >Radiant< 08:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying about the other person did it too argument being on it's face invalid because what the blocked editor perceives as "doing it too" may actually be correct actions the blocked user doesn't understand. I'm just saying we need to be vigilant about looking into the background of disputes. People have a tendency to leave out their own bad behavior either because they don't know they are acting poorly or do know and are just gaming the system. Several times I've seen blocks issued on the basis of the accusers complaint alone and no background research. I theorize that some editors see pages like WP:ANI as a tool they can use by making a "bad" enough sounding complaint to get an "opponent" blocked. Anynobody 09:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Your theorizing is correct. The 3RR board likewise. Thankfully it usually doesn't work. >Radiant< 09:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

An example

An example seems to have happened as we've discussed this: 3RR a neutral editor makes an edit which is grammatically incorrect¹. The blocked editor corrected it. Another editor replaces the error, and the blocked editor corrected it again, the same error was once again restored and the correction earned the editor a 72 hour block. There were two editors responsible for not only replacing the errors but making prior successful and unsuccessful attempts to get this editor blocked on the same board. This is the evidence presented which finally got the block they wanted:

• 1st revert: 1 <- Newbie BITING.
• 2nd revert: 2
• 3rd revert: 3

(¹ Spacecraft is the plural for spacecraft, just like moose is both singular and plural. It seems kinda outrageous to block the person making the corrections and editing in good faith while others try to have said editor blocked at any opportunity and for sometimes dubious reasons. I don't think WP:BITE applies to the 1st revert either) Anynobody 04:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, you have misunderstood or are ignoring the rationale, which was about a pattern behaviour. One could cite, say, six reverts on LGAT within the previous 24. Or the frivilous thread on WP:COIN after other warring on Sacred Journeys (book). Save the technicalities: "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time."

Smee had plenty of warning—not least, five previous blocks. Marskell 06:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to make it clear I'm not asking any of the participants of this discussion to take action in this issue, I'm just citing it as a new example of what is being talked about. Marskell you're focusing on the number of reverts, but seem to be forgetting that in some situations more than WP:3RR is allowed. You cite the LGAT reverts, did you notice that several of them were Lsi john removing a reference as being unrelated more than once without actually explaining how. Since references are what makes an article credible, replacing one when it's been removed without adequate explanation shouldn't count as a punishable revert. If anything the editor removing it should be made to explain themselves. Anynobody 07:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"More than 3RR is allowed"? The exceptions are listed at WP:3RR. These were ordinary content disputes, and ordinary content disputes do not constitute an exception; the only real exception in practice is negative material on living people.

I have noticed that Lsi john is involved. I've also noticed that Smee regularly carries on revert wars with a multitude of editors; his recent contribution history is studded with reversions. Nearly Headless Nick wrote "I think this shall serve as a warning to the user, and we can hope that they will not continue revert-warring" when he chose (quite generously) not to block Smee less than 24 hrs earlier. Apparently it did not serve as such. Marskell 07:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's ok to remove a reference without explanation? It's my understanding that an edit war usually involves one editor making improper changes over and over. Anynobody 07:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on your belief that this is meant to be a criticism of you as an admin please understand that these types of issues have concerned me before the situation I mentioned in passing for this conversation. (If you really feel you need to defend yourself then consider doing it on the WP:ANI board where I created a section intended to get some kind of action done about it.

This conversation began: 06:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You issued the block: 21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, this isn't about you but a phenomenon that seems to occur sometimes. Anynobody 08:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I remove unreliable, insufficient, or POV references without explanation all the time. Slapping a ref tag down doesn't mean material has to stay, and it does not constitute an exception under the 3RR policy, which you should probably read before asking silly questions: "reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking -- this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit." For example this "rvv" doesn't count toward 3RR. This incorrectly labelled "rvv" does. Ah, but most admins can see through the "rvv" trick, and will know it for what it is: revert warring. Hope that helps. Marskell 08:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Marskell the point I've been trying to make is whether Smee deserved to be blocked or not, did Lsi john conduct himself in a way that would end the war either? (You know talking on the talk page, not editing every page Smee creates or is editing, etc.) Given how out of his way he's gone to make sure he and Smee continue warring he deserves a block too. It's very analogous to the legal idea of clean hands. Anynobody 08:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

AN, what is with your "example"? Why are you pretending that it was about grammar? Smee was undoing the sense of the edit, not correcting the grammar. I just corrected the grammar, I removed an "s". That is NOT what Smee was about there so please stop your pretending. Thanks. --Justanother 12:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Anynobody, yes. I stopped at 2RR and your logic is faulty. Using your logic, if nobody reverted Smee, then Smee would never break 3RR (which is absurd). The fact is, if Smee has a concensus, then Smee doesn't need to hold the article on his own and thus 3RR is unnecessary. As Marskell has placed his block on the basis of repeated behavior, then discussing the merits of individual reverts is irrelevant. Smee repeatedly goes 3RR and then 4RR (or 7RR) and, once reported, plays on AGF and self-reverts to avoid blocks. Reverting articles up to the 3RR electronic fence is unnecessary under the rules. If Smee has a community (article) concensus then other editors will assist in his efforts. In the specific recent case of Holiday Magic, I was not removing any sourced information. I was re-arranging the article in what I believed was a better form. I addressed my reasons on the talk page. Smee didn't like my form and didn't even address my reasons. Ok, fine. So? Preference is not sufficient justification for reverting 3 times.

Anynobody, I have given you the courtesy of addressing your post. However, due to your lengthy trolling history with me, and with other editors, and having been publically called a troll by at least two admins, I no longer am required to assume good faith, and will not respond further. Lsi john 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as this thread goes, no one should respond further. This isn't the place to rehash a specific incident. Marskell 15:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Continuation of original conversation

from here

I understand what you are saying about the other person did it too argument being on it's face invalid because what the blocked editor perceives as "doing it too" may actually be correct actions the blocked user doesn't understand. I'm just saying we need to be vigilant about looking into the background of disputes. People have a tendency to leave out their own bad behavior either because they don't know they are acting poorly or do know and are just gaming the system. Several times I've seen blocks issued on the basis of the accusers complaint alone and no background research. I theorize that some editors see pages like WP:ANI as a tool they can use by making a "bad" enough sounding complaint to get an "opponent" blocked. Anynobody 09:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Your theorizing is correct. The 3RR board likewise. Thankfully it usually doesn't work. >Radiant< 09:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The example shows what I meant exactly; complain until they are blocked. Marskell said that the previous cases were more of the basis of his block and that is my point. That being so many complaints were made that an uninvolved admin finally blocked the "target". Understanding that I'm not asking for action regarding Marskell, does the repeated posting on WP:3RR I pointed out illustrate the type of behavior you meant too? Anynobody 02:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that all these comments are just special pleading. As we edit Wikipedia, we leave traces of our behaviors (see WP:WRW#Wikipedia_keeps_an_Akashic_record), and these aggregate to represents an editor's public identity and modus operandi. I would suggest moving on... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone who didn't see this in the example, I'd like to repeat:

I want to make it clear I'm not asking any of the participants of this discussion to take action in this issue, I'm just citing it as a new example of what is being talked about.

— Anynobody 07:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) this discussion is not me pleading Smee's case. I'm doing that on WP:ANI. Here I'm discussing WP:BP in general for my own info. Anynobody 02:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)