|5 August 2017|
For older history, check  as well as the archives.
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Well, well. That's a slightly different unblock request reason. It is clear enough that she was and is acting in good faith; it is just that what she wants to do in good faith is contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Should I have been clearer and kinder in my explanation? It does look a bit terse. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Unblock request on old block by you
WP:UTRS. I'm handling the ticket, and I've requested a Checkuser to determine if there is any recent repeat of the damaging IP editing. Would you have any issues with me handling the request on my own judgement? Given the age of the block and the routine nature I doubt you would, but as a courtesy I figure you ought to be consulted. Regards, The WordsmithTalk to me 14:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC), who you indeffed in 2011 for BLP vio as an IP, is requesting unblock through
- I certainly don't remember what IP or what BLP issues this was all about, and of course I didn't reveal it anywhere. I just ran a CheckUser, and it came up blank. I'd recommend asking this person if they can tell you what they got blocked for in the first place. Simply saying "It has been years since I was originally blocked and have moved beyond the behaviour that led to the block." doesn't indicate any understanding of why they were blocked. But yes, go ahead and handle it yourself. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Clearing off my watchlist & removing User talk:Speedydixon1997 (thanks for dealing with that by the way) I noticed that the block notices on his block log from both you & Kudpung all include the same typo "Vandalism as reported ans also ". I guess it's embedded in some admin tool? Cabayi (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nah. The original one was just a typo by me; and then when I added "cannot edit talk page" to the block, I didn't bother editing the original block reason. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Recent Action on Blocked User
Hey, I just saw that you declined a Joeymiskulin's request to be unblocked, and noticed your comments about them "making physical threats against other editors", which is certainly quite nasty behaviour to exhibit in an edit summary. I should point out he hasn't taken his previous two blocks seriously; as soon as they expired, he went back to disruptively editing The Lego Movie that he's been causing problems on.
But here's something interesting - Do you know that reason he gave for his Unblock? The one that goes: "You can't block me while I was trying to block Crboyer because he reverted my HIDDEN TXT that he requested me to go to the talk page!"
Well... First and foremost, that HIDDEN TXT was what I put in; it was in regards to a number of Wikipedians who edited the page, but constantly changed a setup within the article's Infobox from one to another and back again. I had to step in and put a stop to it, by opening up a discussion for users to review the changes and settle on a setupthat they could agree to use (there hasn't been much activity on it since); as far as I know, one setup was to make it out like the article page it links to (another user I know of, and who I pointed out this matter to, regarded the link article as one that had some issues with it. You can find it here, where there are a couple of discussions on its layout and setup on the article's talk page).
Secondly, Crboyer is not requesting anyone to go to the The Lego Movie's talk page; I am, mainly to have Wikipedians see the issue that was being caused by constant changing between two setups, and hoping to nip it in the bud, before they try switching between the two. I know another User agreed with me that that had gotten ridiculous. Anyway... Joeymiskulin reverted the HIDDEN TXT to begin with, along with switching out of the second format, which used the Plainlist Format, to the first format. The first time he did so, his edit summary stated: "GUtt01 told me that no one must revert this again but I'm reverting this unacceptable thing for good and no disastrous train wrecks! I warned him!!!!!" Quite frankly, I didn't tell him about not reverting this (unless he was operating as an IP User), and he never gave me a warning about it all... He did this five times, before focusing on just removing the HIDDEN TXT. When he focused on the HIDDEN TXT, he gave a quite contradictory edit summary saying: "All right, I'm never reverting this again!"
This is something you should know. It seems that apart from making a physical threat to Crboyer, he also acted like he had the permissions that an administrator has. As soon as Crboyer reverted his third edit because of his disruptive behaviour, Joeymiskulin went to his Talk Page, and slapped him with a Block Notice, claiming he was block for 36 hours. Naturally, Crboyer reverted this adddition, as he rightfully stated that Joeymiskulin was not an administrator and had no legal right to attempt to do this to him. You can see exactly what he did here -> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crboyer&diff=prev&oldid=794471635
Quite honestly, I'm not sure he's taking in the serious nature of why he has been blocked, and has shown extensive, aggressive behaviour with his editing and the summaries he makes. But that last part shows that he is acting in a behaviour that is unacceptable to Wikipedia.
- I think as soon as this block expires he'll do something sufficiently loathesome to get himself blocked forever. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Considering that they acted like an administrator and attempted to illegally put a block on Crboyer, would that behaviour constitute as a second personal attack on them, per WP:PA? GUtt01 (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)