User talk:Light current/archive16

Block duration
Could anyone please tell me when my current block is due to expire? By my calcs it should have expired at 17.40 today. Have I got it wrong?--Light current 22:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like Rockpocket did a 48-hour block starting from when he was extending it, not from the original block time: 23:21, 27 January 2007 Rockpocket (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Light current (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours -- SCZenz 22:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah well it looked just like an extension to me. So do i have to remian blocked for another 24 hr due to an error?--Light current 22:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, just another 33 minutes by my watch. I just went through Rockpocket's comments in the history, and I see no specification of his intent, so I'm not sure there's a reason to overrule him when it's just another half hour. -- SCZenz 22:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * well ok/. I thought it was going to be another 24! No need to get bitter and twisted about 30 mins! 8-)--Light current 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strage I still seem to be blocked. Anyone know for certain when Ill be unblocked?--Light current 00:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A search for your name on Special:Ipblocklist reveals no active blocks. Are you sure you can't edit? -- SCZenz 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have to apologise for the confusion over the length of the block. I did indeed reblock for 48hrs from the time I issued it. So it wasn't an extention to 48hrs, rather an extension of 48hrs. I should have made that clearer. According to the log, the block has expired, however, so you should be good to edit now. Are you still having problems? Rockpock  e  t  00:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * yes Im afaid so. I still cant edit! 8-(--Light current 00:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you had added on 48 hrs then my current inability to edit wouild not be surprising, but Im just not sure by how much you extended my original 24 hr block. 8-?--Light current 00:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So if this has gone over your intened block period, could I ask you to now unblock me please?--Light current 01:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. I turns out you were autoblocked, which I have now lifted. I was sure I had unchecked the autoblock function, but obviously I didn't. Again, i'm sorry about that. You should be ok to edit now. Let me know if you are still having problems. Rockpock  e  t  01:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks Ill try it now--Light current 02:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah it ok now!--Light current 02:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Great. I think what happened was when you tried to edit because you thought the block was finished (though infact it wasn't due to the misunderstanding of the 48hr extension), the software logged your IP and autoblocked it for a further 24hrs. Anyway, happy editing and let me know if you need anything from me regarding your RfC. Rockpock  e  t  03:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Prophecy come true
It does seem as though the whole Admin team has become extremely excited (if not frenzied) and trigger happy over very innocent remarks that they are happy to use themselves against editors. (like trolling -a word I dont like, etc). Solution? Depends whether you want to be blocked every few days for nothing! 8-)--Light current 16:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC) --Light current 17:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Favourites for RfC
In order of evil my preference


 * User:TenOfAllTrades
 * User:Chairboy
 * User:Friday
 * User:Rockpocket

RfC
I see that you've identified me as one of your targets for RfC in this edit. I'd be glad to help you with it in any way you need, if jabbing out at me will make you feel better and could help you get past whatever strange thing you're going through, then let's get started. Since you're current under sanction, might I suggest that you begin work on the formal RfC in your userspace on a subpage instead of soapboxing on your talk page? That way, once your block is over, you can move it straight over to RfC and get the ball rolling. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 23:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with Chairboy on this one. I'll be happy to co-operate with you in anyway I can. Rockpock  e  t  00:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please dont be sarcastic, hypocritical or condescending toward me. Thanks 8-((--Light current 01:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you explain please how anyone other than you is being any of the above at the moment? - C HAIRBOY (☎) 01:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Look at your own edits for a start.--Light current 01:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I note that you appear to have accidentally deleted this section, so I've restored it for your response. As you've just 'promoted' me (I take it you disagree with some things I've been saying) on your enemies list, I strongly urge you to consider my offer above more than ever. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 00:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strange you should all be as keen as turkeys at Xmas. Seems to be a cocky attitude to me8-?--Light current 00:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We're just trying to help. That your behavior has been egregious is obvious to everyone but yourself.  If an RfC can give you the reality check that gets you back on the right path, then we should do it by all means, and immediately. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 01:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No youre not! Please dont try to patronise me 8-(( You will feel the full force of an Rfc. Are you braced for it?--Light current 01:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that you're frustrated, but I'm not patronizing you. RfC isn't a weapon, btw, it's a tool to gauge community consensus on something special.  No 'bracing' is needed, and like I mentioned above, I'm offering to assist you in any way necessary in your efforts to file the RfC. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 01:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont believe you! What about blocking: is that a weapon, punishment or preventaive measure?--Light current 01:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask the admin who's currently blocking you if they'd consider unblocking you on the condition that you'd only edit the RfC you're filing for the remnant of your block, I just want to make sure you'll abide by those conditions before I make the request. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 01:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not worth the effort. I have so many things to say to so many people. Not just about inapproporiate and outrageous admin actions and comments.
 * Maybe its best for me to be forced to store them up and let them fester in order to vent them with maximum ejaculatory force, virulity and damning damage when I am finally unblocked? 8-)--Light current 01:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that your block is up, I assume that you'll be filing the RfC. Can I assist? - C HAIRBOY (☎) 02:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Im just recovering from a painful shoulder injury so my response time may be a little longer thtn normal 8-((--Light current 02:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on the prolific number of edits you've made today, I take it you've healed! Good to hear, I'm glad you had a speedy recovery.  I assume you'll be creating the RfC now? - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 02:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * thank you im getting better. but part of my editing ability tonite is due to lots of pain killers and a few beverages. I shall need to recover my emotional strength before embarking on tha RfC (which of course can only be on one person). so I would ask you to have patience. remember, this is not a persnal revenge attack against the unlucky admin: this is an attempt to get admins to abide by the current blocking policy -- thats all. nothing personal you understand. basically i would like to say that i have nothing against the individual adm=ins as people: its just some of their actions i disagree with. 8-)--Light current 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I would hope that the community is prepared to give me just a little 'warm up' time after my recent spell in the cooler. Im warming up by doing some editing on real (important) articles (how novel!)--Light current 02:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Prophecy come true
''It does seem as though the whole Admin team has become extremely excited (if not frenzied) and trigger happy over very innocent remarks that they are happy to use themselves against editors. (like trolling -a word I dont like, etc). Solution? Depends whether you want to be blocked every few days for nothing! 8-)--Light current 16:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)'' --Light current 17:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Saying of the Day
I have a horrible feeling of déjà vu here, LC. But I'm going ahead anyway because I want to give you the chance to reconsider before it earns you an extension to your block.


 * Very magnamamous of you.

I have noticed that when you are blocked, your contributions to your talkpage increase in frequency.
 * So what? Is it surprising at all when Im responding to unfair blocking ?--Light current 22:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the tone of the posts appear to become more and more agitated - usually at the admins in general or one in particular. Your current saying is a perfect example of what not to do when you are on a block.
 * I must express my self. I dont believe I have named anyone. But if the cap fits....--Light current 22:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You will argue that it isn't an attack on anyone and it implies nothing, a bit like StuRat's defence of his equally inadvised comment that started this.  Rockpock e  t  02:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont agree.

Godwin's Law not withstanding, your comment is no more acceptable than saying "TenOfAllTrades is acting like a Nazi". Now, if that is truly not what you meant, I would strongly urge you to understand that that is exactly how it reads to me - and i guarantee you it is how others will interpret your intent. Therefore, I urge you to replace it before you receive another block for something you didn't do or mean. It is in your power to avoid these "misunderstandings", rather than to have to complain about them afterwards. So, please, change that saying before someone less adverse to blocking than I reads it. Rockpock e  t  22:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many totalitarian and communist regimes that act in this censorial manner. Pick one.--Light current 22:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm also reading your 'message of the day' as essentially calling TOAT a nazi. This is unacceptable, and I'd like to offer you a final opportunity to change it operating under the assumption that you A: Didn't mean that, and B: Didn't realize that was a reasonable interpretation of your message. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 22:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Im not calling TOAT anything. To assume so is being hyper sensistive. Chill baby!.--Light current 22:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed per req


 * No if Id wanted to imply TOAT was a NAZI, I would have said TOAT is a NAZI 8-)--Light current 23:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But I didnt! YOU did! So you should get blocked Yes? 8-)--Light current 23:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

SCZs comment
Quit this silliness, Light current. You are as much responsible for what you imply as for what you say, and I don't believe your implications are accidental. Your cute jokes and pleas that you didn't mean it are getting less and less believable. And comments like "so you should get blocked" is just goading people further. Make civil arguments at an RfC; don't use your talk page as a platform for taunting those who you believe have wronged you. -- SCZenz 23:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No its what you infer that is causing you a problem. You need to grow out of the schoolboy innuendo syndrome. BTW you may have forgotten that I'm blocked. So how else can I make comment except here?--Light current 23:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not where you make your comments, it's what you say. And If I am the one with the "schoolboy innuendo syndrome," why is that that I only see inappropriate implications in your comments? -- SCZenz 14:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Cos youre pervertted?--Light current 21:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an absurd, and rude, comment. If you honestly can't understand that, I'm sorry, but whether you understand it or not we can't afford to tolerate such things anymore.  -- SCZenz 21:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Meaning what exactly?--Light current 21:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok then, its because you are looking for them. Seek and ye shall find! 8-)--Light current 23:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket comment
I tried to warn you, LC, but instead of heeding the advice, you simply push the limit of what is acceptable even further.

Lets me be clear, attempting to game the system will not work. A personal attack is a personal attack, even if it is hidden behind layers of subtext. You were given the benefit of the doubt, but when you continue to play these games after you have been asked to stop, you have no-one to blame but yourself. For your records (as I'm sure i'll feature on your RfC favorites list now), this edit summary, was the straw that broke the camel's back and earned you an extension to your block.

If you think this is an example of a totalitarian Wikipedian system, I suggest you take a lesson from Isaiah Washington's current predicament and note that similarly repeated insults are deemed unacceptable to in civilised societies everywhere. And, if you contine along these lines, I will protect your talkpage thoughout the length of your block. Rockpock e  t  23:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if you think this is unwarrated, you should make a request to be unblocked. A totally independent admin will review and I will abide by their decision. Rockpock e  t  23:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Are there any Admins who are not in the block the bastards club? I see youve joined! 8-((--Light current 00:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why dont you block Choirboy? It was he who suggesteted TOAT was a NAZI Not me!
 * Are you kidding me? - C HAIRBOY (☎) 00:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I never mentioned TOAT or NAzis in my saying--Light current 00:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Casual Blockings -- Serious investigation needed by ArbCom
Im starting to think that, since no one seems to be taking me seroiusly on this point, a full RfA is going to be needed against all casual blocking Admins to sort out the actual policy once and for all.

Basically this is a total abuse of power and flouting of the rules and guidelines on blocking. How long are these Admins going to be allowed to get away with these unjust and damaging action? $:-(

retrieved from archive--Light current 18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

SCZenz Offer of help
Do you need help filing a request for arbitration? You can certainly do so, even while you're blocked, although it will be easier if you wait until your block expires. I'll be glad to assist with any technical issues in setting up the request. -- SCZenz 18:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, for a slightly less formal venue, you might consider a request for comment. I'd be happy to help with that too. -- SCZenz 18:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think RfC would be best initially. THen if no satisfactory out come RfA 8-|--Light current 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll wait until someone lifts my latest unjust block., or it expires. --Light current 19:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, once you're unblocked, if you need help on how to post an RfC, remind me I said I would. For clarity, I'm not going to support your position on this RfC; I believe my recent blocks of THB were justified, and I've not reviewed your block in detail but it sounds like an acceptable judgement call by TenOfAllTrades.  However, administrators are responsible to the community, so as long as you behave civilly you have every right to request an outside look at our actions.  Your first step, by the way, would be to read Request_for_comment. -- SCZenz 19:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And the rest of the instructions are here: Requests for comment/User conduct. Again, remind me if you need further assistance. -- SCZenz 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Im not necessarily talking about your block of THB, although that may come into the remit. Since you have not been responsible for the large number of RD related blocks, I thought of leaving you out of it actually! Up until today, you seem to have used your amin powers very responsibly and conservately, so I dont think I will be including you in the list. --Light current 19:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know you've been very angry with me at points, and I imagine you might be angry again at what I say on the RfC if you file one; my advice to you, in this and in fact for everything on Wikipedia, is to keep more of an even keel. I'd also like to suggest, now that I've offered to help you with an RfC, that you consider not filing one; my best guess is that the community will generally support the administrative actions taken in regard to you, so it won't particularly make you happier.  But it's up to you. --  SCZenz 19:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Tell the truth and shame the Devil. So will I and other victims--Light current 21:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Another way?
If there was another way to prevent over zealousness on the part of some Admins, I would take it. But any comments I make just get me blocked, threfore a more formal approach is necessary. I believe most Admins are acting outside the blocking policy. I (and others)intend to show that is the case. Lets get it all out in the wash once and for all! --Light current 19:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Why I blocked THB
Since you asked... It all started when StuRat made an inappropriate joke on the reference desk. Justanother called him on it, and StuRat was willing to let it go (if not to admit the intention of the joke). Then THB began giving Justanother trouble about it, as in this edit; I responded by asking THB not to make further arguments of the "you can't prove what he meant" type, as when things are sufficiently obvious it's just time-wasting and game-playing. He responded, shall we say, rather negatively, and I warned him that I would block him if he played any more games. That's when he started swearing at me. It's pretty clear he was trying to taunt me into blocking him, but frankly I think he got away with enough silliness for one day. -- SCZenz 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm I shall have to look at it more closely 8-|--Light current 00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong in asking someone to apologise for an erroneous statement. After all, admins ask us to do it on poain of blocking quite often! 8-|--Light current 19:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do so, LC. But please try and resist getting involved (as I have), its not in anyone's interest. Rockpock  e  t  06:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please take Rockpocket's advice not to get involved. This sort of remark is exactly what he was talking about.  You're stirring the pot just so you can take cheap (and poorly aimed) shots, rather than letting the situation die down.  Please don't try to goad any of the parties.
 * This is your last warning, and I will block you if you continue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I didnt continue but you still blocked me. Hows that?--Light current 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Im trying to advise THB on his own talk page of how to avoid future situations.--Light current 16:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rockpockets Comments
I, personally, wouldn't have blocked you for this LC, but I can totally understand why ToaT did considering your past record of synergistic agitation with THB. The bottom line is StuRat is not stupid. He knew fine well the unsavory inference that would be drawn his comments. Therefore, irrespective of the right or wrongs of removing comments from RD, this is the worst possible test case for you and THB to get behind. There is no merit in it. I understand that you wanted to express your opinion on the wider subject, but it was totally inevitable that this would happen - which was why I tried to advise you from getting involved. I actually think it would be a good idea for you to open an RfC on this, as I think it might demonstrate that this isn't a small group of admins on a crusade against you, but that the community at large supports these actions. Of course, I could be wrong and the community may think you have been victimised. In that case, the admins will certainly take that onboard. Rockpock e  t  20:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Synergistic agitation? WTF does that mean? Any examples?--Light current 20:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant that both your and THB's previous run-ins with administrative intervention have - to a greater or lesser extent - involved each other. I think there is a feeling that THB, StuRat and yourself bring out the worst in each other (so to speak). I could be wrong, of course, but the record speaks for itself. The only reason you were blocked was because you got involved in THB's clash with SCZenz. The only reason THB was blocked because he got involved in StuRat's clash with Justanother. It was the opinion of the blocking admins that both of you were purposely agitating the situation. Rockpock  e  t  20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm blocking for mutual victim support actions? See that just one example of acing outside Admin authority.--Light current 20:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

SCZ steps in
On the contrary, labelling yourselves as "victims" and mutually supporting each other is a guarenteed way to lose touch with the standards of the rest of the community. If you feel you've been treated unfairly, you should ask neutral users to step in. -- SCZenz 20:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All in good time SCZ, all in good time. Meanwhile carry on the good work, you are not involved.--Light current 20:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is, you should have done it earlier. It was precisely your interaction with THB, that allowed you to feel mutually "victimized" and to ignore feedback from other quarters, which got you into this mess. Anyway, I'm glad to see you're getting neutral feedback now. -- SCZenz 20:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To which particular mess do you refer? The latest one blocking by TOAT?--Light current 20:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket
No Im actually opening an RFC on ALL over zealous Admin actions related to these pages and associated user pages. I havent looked at your block record yet, so Im not sure if ill include you! 8-|--Light current 20:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm just looked. It appears you too have been using your powers responsibly.I shall therfore NOT be including you in the RFC.--Light current 20:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Ok, I see. Well, thats a pretty ambitious scope for a single RfC. My block record is pretty sparse, I'm afraid, so I'm probably not the best example for such a class action RfC. However, if you think I have abused my tools then I do encourage you to include me. As you have pointed out previously, i'm relatively new to adminship and would welcome constructive criticism from the community. Rockpock  e  t  20:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know you are new. THere is no point in including your actions as they all seem ok to me.--Light current 20:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket has now gained access to the list
Well, it seems that blocking you = evidence of admin irresponsibility, in your opinion. There is an obvious WP:COI in that analysis, of course, making it difficult for you to be objective. Neverthless, I guess that is partly the point of an RfC. Rockpock e  t  00:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If I was doing anything obviously wrong, I would expect to be blocked or told off. Its when admins think they know what Im intending to imply and then block me: THats when I get annoyed--Light current 01:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be interested to know that you are now on my RfC list 8-)--Light current 01:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed that. Its absolutely fine with me. As i suggested above, I welcome a RfC and will co-operate with you in filing it. If my judgment is not supported by the community then it is important I realise this so I do not make the same mistakes in future. Irrespective of the outcome, I will gain feedback to make me a better admin. So, I should really thank you for taking the time to put it together. Its the least I can do to offer my assistance should you need it. Rockpock  e  t  02:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Look this is not to say you are definitely going to be selected. Others are well ahead of you for abuse of Admini powers. So do not get your hopes up too high!

Blocked
Please understand that you will be blocked every time you choose to take cheap shots and play dumb in the future rather than taking sensible, polite advice and warnings. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well TOAT that is truly unbelievable! I was trying to expalin in THBs language the inadvisability of making comments that could be misinterpredted when I seem to have fallen into the same trap. I would however like to say that this extreme siensitivity on the part of the Admins is disruptive to WP. If one cannot say anything without fear of blocking, then what is there to say? CENSORSHIP RULES OK? 8-((

Prophecy come true
''It does seem as though the whole Admin team has become extremely excited (if not frenzied) and trigger happy over very innocent remarks that they are happy to use themselves against editors. (like trolling -a word I dont like, etc). Solution? Depends whether you want to be blocked every few days for nothing! 8-)--Light current 16:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)'' --Light current 17:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Acoustic suspension
The article you wrote, Acoustic suspension, is uncategorized. Please help improve it by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related articles. A stub marker or other template doesn't count - please put in an actual category in the article. Eli Falk 10:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts on selective blocking
What a good idea! General blocking is such a blunt instrument and acts more as punishment than a preventative measure.

Advantages

 * Protects the specific pages form vandalism/disruption
 * Does not stop user from contributing elsewhere (ie minimising punishment effect)
 * Does not piss off user as much

Disadvantages

 * Needs new coding to implement (possibly)

Comments
The only way editors currently get partially "blocked" in this fashion is when ArbCom bans them from specific articles. It's self-policing, really; if an editor breaches the ban, they simply get blocked for poor behavior. Otherwise, I'm not sure who would do the blocking-per-article; who would determine that an editor is bad news on one article but not elsewhere? Occasionally we have informal arrangements, such as when an admin tells a troublesome editor "stay away from this article or I'll block you outright for disruption"; the community has generally supported such unilateral bans, and they often work, in my observation anyway. Implementing the selective blocking you like isn't hard; it would just require adding a field to the user record that contains a list of article titles that they're blocked from, no big deal. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah OK. But do we need ArbCom to decide on this? Could it not be done by say 2 or more Admins agreeing to block an individual in this manner. I certainly would have preferred to have been blocked only from the pages where I was accused of disruption etc, and allowed to carry on contributing elsewhere. Im sure this would be a much better form of protection of pages and also not seen as a punishment for the editors concerned. It would also I feel lead to less resentment from those who are temporarily blocked.--Light current 23:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two separate issues involved. One is whether admins have the authority to direct a user not to edit a particular article, as a lesser sanction to being blocked altogether. The consensus seems to be that in appropriate circumstances they do, although the "community sanctions" proposal was a little bit controversial and you, Light current, were pretty much the last person I expected to be arguing in favor of a new power for administrators. :)


 * The second question is whether the software should be rewritten to enable selective blocks to be enforced automatically. With regard to that aspect, the rule seems to be that ArbCom does not have authority to direct the Developers (who actually write the code) to do something, as acknowledged in the so-called Giano case, when the ArbCom voted unanimously that a particular record in a log should be expunged "if developers cooperate," and the lead developer posted to the Workshop with the comment "Absolutely unacceptable.... Will not be fulfilled" and it wasn't (at that time, anyway). Bear in mind also that the Mediawiki code is written not just for this English Wikipedia but for hundreds of other projects, so they can't make a change based on one project's input alone. Having said that, it would be a good button to have; for example, I've often wished that 3RR blocks could be just from the article being edit-warred over rather than the whole site. Hope these thoughts are helpful, or at least coherent. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if Admins have the power to block editors from all WP, I dont see selective blocking for a defined period as a particular ethical problem. I am arguing in favor because it is the lesser of the two evils (for the editor concerned); ie better to be blocked just from the pages where you are percieved to be causing trouble rather than WP as a whole! Remember Im not all bad -- It just seems that way (sometimes)!
 * The implementation problems I leave to others with regard to whether the idea is practicable. I have benn told twice it can be done easily and twice that it cant!--Light current 00:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My question would be: why would an editor who has been disruptive enough to warrant a block from one page, be trusted to not be disruptive on another page? Rockpock  e  t  01:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 3RR would be a good example. Sometimes someone who loses perspective on a particular issue and needs a breather (that's what 3RR is for, after all) might still be able to perform good edits elsewhere. -- SCZenz 01:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes problems with a particular editor (like me) tend to occur on one page I feel. For instance, I have temporarily 'blocked' myself from the RDs to see if situation improves without me. But, I can still edit other pages which keeps me occupied and takes my mind off the other issues. I can also contribute to policies and present other suggestions for improving the WP process--Light current 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (unindent) well...thing is, a reasonable, well-intentioned editor acting in good faith can likely be counted on to behave elsewhere if told not to edit one problematic article, so the actual blocking mechanism isn't necessary; and the other sort of editor will be a pain on other articles, regardless of whether they are banned or actually blocked from one article, so I'm not sure how selective blocking would really improve things on the whole. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont agree that the other sort of editor will necessarily be a pain on other articles. But thats just my opinion. I dont know if there are any statsitcs on 'disruptive editors' and how far they extend their disruption in any one period. You would probably know better than I. 8-)--Light current 05:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess a good metric would be "how many editors that have been banned from specific articles on ArbCom have continued as 'good editors' elsewhere, how many have become troublesome elsewhere, and how many have simply stopped editing anything at all?" I don't know the answer to that -- it would be an interesting little research problem for someone that wants to wade through every old arbitration case. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 08:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Now if I wanted to take this idea further, where would be the best place to air it? Village pump?--Light current 17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess. Policy, probably? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts for you
Light current, I've been following the discussion on this page and on the noticeboard. I know you have made real contributions to the encyclopedia and that Wikipedia is important to you. I also know you've been warned about various things by several different administrators. You're sad the possibility that things might change or you might not be able to edit any more.

What I would like you to do is ask yourself this. Why do you think that a number of different editors and administrators are asking you to change your behavior. Please indulge in the assumption that all the people who have criticized you have come to the good-faith conclusion that some of your comments are problematic, rather than conspired to harass and drive away a long-time editor. I know you feel put upon sometimes, but honestly, I don't think that a group of people conspired on- or off-Wiki to gang up on User:Light current.

Ask yourself, Why have these people, who are also long-time and valued contributors, come to the conclusion that there are things about Light current's contributions and comments need to change? Are any of these concerns legitimate, do you think? What can you do to help satisfy them?

You don't need to respond to any of this on-Wiki if you don't care to, but if you introspect about what I have just written for a little while it might help you to "assess your options" as you put it above.

Anyway, pardon my putting my thoughts and questions here, but I hope they will be considered "nourishing" enough. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I must have written this at the same moment you were writing your goodbye post on the noticeboard. If you are leaving, then thank you for the contributions you made while you were here, and I wish you well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope this is farewell rather than goodbye. Wikibreaks are a good thing and yours is well earned.  Come back when you're tanned, rested, and ready.  And thoroughly chilled.  Regards,  Durova Charge! 02:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A mere respite!--Light current 02:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you really are Steve McQueen, i'd like to see you riding that bike with a big smile very soon. I'm sure in this rerun he'll escape. David D. (Talk) 02:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I always have a wicked big smile (except when I dont)