Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Spartaz

Threaded discussion from outside view by Fut Perf

 * 1) In retrospect, I should have put thus unblock up on AN for discussion but I honestly didn't think the unblock wast hat controversial with an indefblock hanging over the user. My bad I suppose, and something to learn from.
 * One thing to learn is that indef blocks are almost always in place for very good reasons! They are never entered into lightly, and usually reflect the fact that an editor has broken, evaded or ignored many previous temporary bans. Evidence of his previous abuses (and his victims identities whom you really should have contacted!) was all over the relevant contribution and history pages. How did you miss that? Pyrope 21:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The indef was the first proper block for Davnel03 and the blocking admin had no objection to the unblock and in fact rather encouraged me to go ahead. By the way we don't do threaded discussions on the main page, they go on talk. Spartaz Humbug! 21:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why did you start introducing discursive sections on the main page? I replied to a comment where the comment stood. So we only count blocks against the user's main page then eh? Sockpuppets don't count do they not? As for Yamla "rather encouraging" you, what the comment actually said was that you should obtain positive proof that Davnel's character has changed, which you simply did not do. Therefore you ignored Yamla's proviso. Davnel's behaviour since his reinstatement has directly contradicted his assurances that he has changed. I am not arguing that you actions were not well-intentioned, or in good faith, just that they were not properly applied and that you did not adequately research the editor for whom you were planning to unblock. You also acted far too fast in overturning an indef block, the most serious sanction that Wikipedia posesses. You have been duped by a nasty, abusive little con artist. Pyrope 22:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)