Week-Long Block, No Warning, And MONGO rises to challenge... Options

[jd turk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...rown_Dog_affair

Seems like Viridae just locked this one down without a lot of warning. Crum only had three edits to the page in the last four days (and looked like he was also posting to the talk page), and he got slapped down for a week.

[Viridae]

Did you notice the revert by crum going back nearly a month perchance??? NO I thought you didn't. He most definitely knew what he was doing.

[Proabivouac]

Did you notice the revert by crum going back nearly a month perchance??? NO I thought you didn't. He most definitely knew what he was doing.

Crum's block log for previous edit warring is unconvincing - one dates to 2006, and the other would have better been characterized as principled but misguided disruption. It seems probable that someone will reduce the block to the same 48 hours that Para received.

[Gold heart]

Did you notice the revert by crum going back nearly a month perchance??? NO I thought you didn't. He most definitely knew what he was doing.

Crum's block log for previous edit warring is unconvincing - one dates to 2006, and the other would have better been characterized as principled but misguided disruption. It seems probable that someone will reduce the block to the same 48 hours that Para received.

Blocks shouldn't be done on a whim, as they add to editors "block logs", and then they are cited again and again months, and even years afterwards. A bit like a "bad record".

Talk about "giving a dog a bad name"! Ugh!

[Viridae]

Hardly a whim...

Can this be appropriately merged please.

[jd turk]

Did you notice the revert by crum going back nearly a month perchance??? NO I thought you didn't. He most definitely knew what he was doing.

No, I did. It's still not enough evidence to block him for a week with no warning, especially when he hadn't edited the page in ten hours, and just three times in the last four days. If blocking is only used for protection and not punishment, it seems a simple warning would have sufficed (even though both editors were familiar with the concept).

[Gold heart]

Did you notice the revert by crum going back nearly a month perchance??? NO I thought you didn't. He most definitely knew what he was doing.

Crum's block log for previous edit warring is unconvincing - one dates to 2006, and the other would have better been characterized as principled but misguided disruption. It seems probable that someone will reduce the block to the same 48 hours that Para received.

Blocks shouldn't be done on a whim, as they add to editors "block logs", and then they are cited again and again months, and even years afterwards. A bit like a "bad record".

Talk about "giving a dog a bad name"! Ugh!

Hardly a whim...

Can this be appropriately merged please.

Just generalising. Couldn't resist the pun.

[Viridae]

Did you notice the revert by crum going back nearly a month perchance??? NO I thought you didn't. He most definitely knew what he was doing.

No, I did. It's still not enough evidence to block him for a week with no warning, especially when he hadn't edited the page in ten hours, and just three times in the last four days. If blocking is only used for protection and not punishment, it seems a simple warning would have sufficed (even though both editors were familiar with the concept).

He had reverted warred for nearly a month, against 4 different people, citing a talk page consensus that didn't exist? A warning shouldnt be required to tell an established editor that they are way out of line.

[Aloft]

x-posted, sorry

For the people saying that Viridae should have warned first, check out this diff from Crum concerning this very situation, with the edit summary of "no need for warning for experienced editors"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=224250230

3RR warnings are only needed for novice editors, and this one is an experienced one. He also declined the encouragement to self-revert by reverting it with an insulting edit summary. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] 00:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This was in the 3RR report for Para a few days ago. So there you go, Crum himself has said that a warning isn't necessary.

[jd turk]

He had reverted warred for nearly a month, against 4 different people, citing a talk page consensus that didn't exist? A warning shouldnt be required to tell an established editor that they are way out of line.

Likewise, a week-long block against an established editor shouldn't just come out of the blue.

You say this wasn't on a whim, but how else would you describe it? It doesn't seem like you were on this article trying to help establish consensus or trying to sort through things, it looks like you just surfed on and blocked both sides with no warning and no discussion, even though the debate wasn't even active.

This was in the 3RR report for Para a few days ago. So there you go, Crum himself has said that a warning isn't necessary.

I'll agree with both of you, a warning isn't necessary. However, it seems like a courtesy to issue a warning to both editors in a cold edit war before slamming the door on them for multiple days. If this is such a big deal and has been a huge problem for a month, why did it get this far?

Just looks bad, that's all I'm sayin'.

[Viridae]

He had reverted warred for nearly a month, against 4 different people, citing a talk page consensus that didn't exist? A warning shouldnt be required to tell an established editor that they are way out of line.

Likewise, a week-long block against an established editor shouldn't just come out of the blue.

You say this wasn't on a whim, but how else would you describe it? It doesn't seem like you were on this article trying to help establish consensus or trying to sort through things, it looks like you just surfed on and blocked both sides with no warning and no discussion, even though the debate wasn't even active.

This was in the 3RR report for Para a few days ago. So there you go, Crum himself has said that a warning isn't necessary.

I'll agree with both of you, a warning isn't necessary. However, it seems like a courtesy to issue a warning to both editors in a cold edit war before slamming the door on them for multiple days. If this is such a big deal and has been a huge problem for a month, why did it get this far?

Just looks bad, that's all I'm sayin'.

How is a block out of the blue when it follows a month of edit warring?

[jd turk]

How is a block out of the blue when it follows a month of edit warring?

If I may ask, how did you find this edit war, just for future reference?

It seems that Crum has made more than a few edits to the talk page in that month, which seems to me to be showing good faith. You say he was making edits based on what he thought/said was the consensus. I don't think a week-long block on somebody who was discussing things on the talk page is appropriate, not without at least discussing where their pattern of editing is violating policy. Discuss, gain consensus, make changes. That seems to be what he was trying to do, or at least was trying to give the illusion of doing. Either way, it seems like it deserves more than just a drive-by week-long block.

In all fairness, I haven't looked at the edits for Para. It was just the length of the block on Crum that stood out to me.

[Aloft]

Discuss, gain consensus, make changes.

That's fine, except Crum was leaving out the "gain consensus" step. He reverted four other people, and only Slim agreed with him on the talk page, despite his "per talk" claims.. Reverting ten times in that situation is clearly not acting in accordance with policy.

He knew better, he did it anyway, and his actions over the past month clearly indicated that he wasn't going to stop until someone stepped in and prevented him from doing it again.

[jd turk]

He knew better, he did it anyway, and his actions over the past month clearly indicated that he wasn't going to stop until someone stepped in and prevented him from doing it again.

Bang. That's Wikipedia Justice. Some scofflaw was talking things over and it didn't seem like he was getting the message, so rather than discuss it, you just drop a week-long ban on a longtime editor.

I thought blocks were to protect, and not to punish. A page protection or a 1RR notice could have served the same purpose, couldn't it? Just curious.

[Viridae]

He knew better, he did it anyway, and his actions over the past month clearly indicated that he wasn't going to stop until someone stepped in and prevented him from doing it again.

Bang. That's Wikipedia Justice. Some scofflaw was talking things over and it didn't seem like he was getting the message, so rather than discuss it, you just drop a week-long ban on a longtime editor.

I thought blocks were to protect, and not to punish. A page protection or a 1RR notice could have served the same purpose, couldn't it? Just curious.

Page protection removes the ability of everyone else to edit the page as well. The blocks are protectionist and the length of time is based on the length of time spent edit warring on the article as well as the knowledge that they are both experience users and should have known better.

[jd turk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=225155133

Three and a half hours of unproductive discussion later, both blocks are lifted.

[Aloft]

Reverting to begin again shortly.

[jd turk]

Reverting to begin again shortly.

The good faith assumed here is overwhelming.

[Aloft]

Why would I assume good faith?

[gomi]

Reverting to begin again shortly.

The good faith assumed here is overwhelming.

Wikipedia's "Assume Good Faith" rubric is one of the more ridiculous charades in the place. We are not bound by it here.

If we had a silly set of useless rules, ours would likely be something like "Assume Reality" -- obviously not a sentiment that would travel far on WP.