User talk:Panyd/Archive 13

January 2015
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You were told to leave Johnny's user page alone. You can be unblocked when you agree to leave it alone. Jehochman Talk 12:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok...how about I leave it alone and then have a discussion about it with the person in question? You know, like a normal editor? Also, 3RR asserts that An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page - which I have not done. That editor in question has not engaged me in dialogue. And ''an indef block for a supposed edit war that doesn't violate 3RR on the basis of that editor told me to leave it alone so obviously I should'.


 * ''Are you insane?' PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll take that as agreement you will stop messing with the userpage (block lifted). Users are allowed to have a link to their own website.  It is a form of COI disclosure, not promotion. 3RR is not an entitlement.  You know how to do better.  If you find yourself having to repeat an action, just stop, leave it in the wrong version, and get some help. Jehochman Talk 12:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It can be a COI disclosure, but that has already been made. It can also be promotion or spam. You, too, know how to do this better and accounts have been blocked for less. A sockmaster with a link to his own website is absolutely promotional and has no place on this encyclopedia. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How is he a sockmaster? He was reported by Cirt, who I am on good terms with, but there was no finding of sock puppetry.  HJ Mitchell made an erroneous block that was lifted. (Lurkers, we are talking about User:Johnnydowns‎.) Jehochman Talk 12:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I've missed the last part of that saga. I stand corrected on the sockpuppet issue. I firmly believe I do not stand corrected on the promotional nature of the link. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Or indeed the absolutely absurd suggestion that an admin be blocked despite not having violated 3RR and an indefinite block at that. How often to you block people? That's absurdly punitive. Especially for an editor with my record. Especially especially with no prior warning. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Admins have no immunity. In fact, there is a presumption that admins know better. And 3 reverts isn't an entitlement. And yes, some people think I'm insane. Jehochman Talk 12:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware it isn't an entitlement but there are many things you can do before indefinitely blocking someone for supposed disruptive editing (seriously, who indefs for that?). Assuming good faith and engaging in dialogue are the pillars of this community and for an admin to completely disregard that is worrying and absurd. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You cannot complain about AGF if you aren't going to assume it yourself... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And the other user gets a light warning. Delightful. Lukeno94, I would have been delighted to engage you in dialogue, and that is the option after you hit the wall of the third revert. However, telling me to 'go be useful elsewhere' does not smack of courtesy and good faith does it? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, stop complaining of "courtesy and good faith" not being shown to you whilst you wander around a legitimate user's own userpage, demanding that a link be stripped out and even dumping a "this user is an indeffed sockmaster", when you hadn't even bothered to check whether they were blocked. And to think you've thrown the "I'm an admin" card down as well... maybe you shouldn't be one. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the link is or is not promotional, or whether or not the editing was disruptive you do not block someone with no warning, doubly so not an indef block and doubly doubly so not an established good faith editor (admin or not); I would have unblocked had you not done so yourself. Everybody here could do with assuming good faith of everybody else, so let's leave it at that and all move on. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * +1 to Thryduulf here. The Land (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm astonished. This was an atrocious block. There is no other way to see it. There were so many other options that could put an end to a minor disagreement between two editors. I'm astonished. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * +1 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, little mob of people expressing outrage. I looked at the page history and was fooled into thinking she was some sort of troublemaker.  Looking at her block log, I saw that it was not clear (neither is mine).  Yes, I mis-perceived things, but so did she because she thought Johnny was a blocked sockmaster, which he wasn't. I'd appreciate if you not go into tar and feather mode.  Everybody makes a mistake once in a while. With a troublemaker, I may block first and discuss later.  With a known contributor, I would warn first. Jehochman Talk 13:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Now it's my turn to be astonished. I supported to assume good faith and move on, - you, instead of doing so, see a mob? ... expressing outrage? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm, Gerda, sarcasm. Jehochman Talk 13:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How would I tell? - I am in the mood for kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion, had to quote that today where I found it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no comment on what happened to start this, however I do wish to express concern over this conversation on an administrator's talk page. If a new editor or inexperienced editor does happen upon Paynd's talk page the block template is a huge red flag to read all the text below, which does no good for any administrator on Wikipedia. I recommend the entire conversation is placed in a collapse box or at the very least the block template is removed, new users are less likely to read a wall of text without the big flag on top. This is just my opinion and concern for the integrity of our administrators.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm going to archive this with a link for the interested. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)