Jump to content

User talk:Rlest: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Leebo (talk | contribs)
m Reverted edits by Rlest (talk) to last version by Moe Epsilon
Rlest (talk | contribs)
Undid revision 150199069 by Leebo (talk)
Line 1: Line 1:
Yes, I've been a sick but I agree with KamrynMatika2 below, all of the Molag Bal stuff and after the Qst RfA was <small>personal attack removed by — [[User:Moe Epsilon|<font color="FF0000">M</font><font color="EE0000" >o</font><font color="DD0000">e</font>]] [[User talk:Moe Epsilon|<font color="0000FF">ε</font>]] 19:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)</small>, it made me not care anymore, I lost faith in this place, I used to love it here but there is one thing I'd like to say before leaving, <small>personal attack removed by [[User:Chrislk02|Chrislk02]] [[User talk:Chrislk02|(Chris Kreider)]] 18:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)</small>, not like you people will miss me but.....well.....bye. [[User:Rlest|Rlest]] 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've been a sick but I agree with KamrynMatika2 below, all of the Molag Bal stuff and after the Qst RfA was dicks like Moreschi and Riana, it made me not care anymore, I lost faith in this place, I used to love it here but there is one thing I'd like to say before leaving, '''Riana and Moreschi are the scumbags''', not like you people will miss me but.....well.....bye. [[User:Rlest|Rlest]] 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
{{blockedsock|Qst}}
{{blockedsock|Qst}}



Revision as of 15:59, 9 August 2007

Yes, I've been a sick but I agree with KamrynMatika2 below, all of the Molag Bal stuff and after the Qst RfA was dicks like Moreschi and Riana, it made me not care anymore, I lost faith in this place, I used to love it here but there is one thing I'd like to say before leaving, Riana and Moreschi are the scumbags, not like you people will miss me but.....well.....bye. Rlest 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on community sanctions noticeboard

Hi. I know your page says you are on Wikibreak, but you should be aware that a discussion concerning the possibility of sanctioning you or banning you from Wikipedia has been started on the Community sanctions noticeboard. I am not involved in the discussion, but it was suggested that we make sure that you were notified of the discussion so that you would have the opportunity to participate. A direct link to the discussion is here. Your input will be most welcome. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that this account is currently blocked. If you wish, you may request an unblock for purposes of contributing to the CSN discussion, or you can post your comments here and they will be copied to the discussion. Newyorkbrad 16:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of blocks

As a result of several discussions on Wikipedia, including that at WP:CSN it has become apparent that the community has lost patience with your actions. A number of editors (myself included) have gone to extraordinary length to support you and assist you in making fresh starts. Such trust is not extended lightly and you have abused that trust. Your continued use of multiple accounts has become untenable - and the latest uses of these accounts for vandalism and incivility have crossed the line. I have therefore decided to block indefinitely all accounts you have used to edit Wikipedia. In the light of the fact that it does not appear any administrator is still willing to unblock you, I think you need to consider yourself community banned. I am truly disappointed that it has come to this. WjBscribe 00:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I'm sorry - you blocked him after the discussion had been ongoing for one day? I love that the thread was immediately archived, obviously there's no need for anyone else to comment other than the few people who have WP:CSN watchlisted. Kamryn · Talk 01:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, not even a day after he was notified - 8 hours?! What the hell. Kamryn · Talk 01:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intention that the discussion would be archived immediately - I've reopened it should someone wish to object to my blocks. But bans do not happen because CSN decides to ban people, they happen when an admin indefblocks a user and no other admin is willing to unblock. I believe that point has been reached. WjBscribe 01:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand what a community ban is (although many at CSN do not). However the banner above (perhaps misleadingly) gives the impression that it is per the CSN discussion and if this is the case the discussion should not have been closed as it was. Thank you for re-opening the discussion, I will comment on the ban there. Kamryn · Talk 01:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that the user was already blocked for a period 2 months in the past 48 hours for block evasion. This wasn't some hurried exercise to block the user in question, he was already prohibited from editing Wikipedia when the discussion began. Nick 01:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware of his previous block and if anything that should have left us all the less hurried to ban him as we had a whole two months in which to decide it. Kamryn · Talk 01:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The decision to ban was unanimous at the time and there appears to be no administrators who would unblock the user, which is a de facto ban. We are interested in hearing other suggestions, however and if you have any sensible suggestions on how to proceed, please don't hesitate to discuss them with us. If there's a better solution, we would naturally wish to pursue such a solution. Nick 02:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Qst was a highly productive editor who did a lot of good work. Yes, he has been an asshole recently, but this downward spiral of behaviour is symptomatic of an editor who has become incredibly frustrated and has no outlet for his frustrations.
I strongly feel that an attempt to engage him would have been much more productive here, as would some editing restrictions, some hard rules about not being an asshole to people, and a clear understanding that he is never going to become an admin.
However his lack of response to this leads me to believe that he is probably currently constructing another sock and it's probably much too late now. How unfortunate and sad that we have allowed trolls like Molag Bal to drive away an editor who seemed fundamentally well meaning, if a bit idiotic. Kamryn · Talk 02:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I think you underestimate the considerable steps that have been taken privately before things reached this point. Wikipedia is not a venue for people to release their frustration. His recent conduct has had nothing to do with Molag Bal - the latest incivility, vandalism and sockpuppeteering have been down to him and he alone is responsible for the circumstances of his having to leave this project. WjBscribe 02:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it was and I am not excusing his behaviour. You can't deny that the Molag Bal incident obviously left a bad taste in his mouth and led to his increasingly bizarre actions. But of course he is the only one responsible for his actions. I will trust what you say about private communication and assume that every effort was made to retain this editor; my apologies, off-wiki contact is difficult to gauge. Kamryn · Talk 02:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This user's sole purpose on Wikipedia is to become an administrator, and I think the worst thing we could do is to prevent him ever becoming an administrator whilst otherwise allowing him to edit away. Qst is not innocent when it comes to Molag Bal, one of the conditions administrators laid down when he was unblocked following gross incivility with the Qst account, was his new account (this Rlest account) would not be connected in anyway with his previous on-wiki identities. This was not something Qst followed through and he subsequently announced that he was indeed Qst and added a link to his old account in his signature. To even reach the point where he was allowed back onto Wikipedia with a new account took the efforts of several administrators and private communication with the user at a time when he was looking at similar situation as we see before us today. We've really, genuinely pulled out all the stops with this user. Nick 02:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Kamryn · Talk 02:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]