Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive604: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m fixed lint errors – links in links |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 590:
:::I have to agree with Equazcion on this. This editor, SRQ, already has one interaction ban in place and wanted more of us to be included, including myself. I am not a neutral in this as I have had contact with both editors. My contact so far, though brief, with DOH have been pleasant and she has be receptive to ideas and help given her. When will more be accomplished about all of this is the question. I support this I guess, if that's all that is available. --[[User:Crohnie|<span style="color:Indigo">'''Crohnie'''</span><span style="color:deeppink">'''Gal'''</span>]][[User talk:Crohnie|<span style="color:deepskyblue"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 23:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
::::If a member is causing this much trouble to warrant two interaction bans, why not just ban the user. Obviously they are causing more disruption to the project than anything. I'm sure people don't want to have to keep babysitting adults that don't know how to positively interact with each other. What does it take to get banned here? —'''<span style="
:::::I haven't commented on any of the numerous threads on this editor to date as far as I know because, frankly, I have better things to do. I'm inclined to agree with MikeAllen, however I think this interaction ban is worth a go but if it doesn't solve the problem, I think we need to get more drastic. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User_Talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 04:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::I'm not convinced anything needs to be done just yet, but after talking with SRQ on her talk page, I get the impression that she needs a mentor. I would once again encourage her to revise her watchlist and focus on creating and improving article content, or get involved helping with routine maintenance tasks. Anything would be preferable to the constant conflicts and disputes. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 05:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 687:
*'''Support''' Per what I said in the last ANI thread regarding SRQ: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive601#Block_review_of_SkagitRiverQueen]. [[User:RadManCF|RadManCF]] <span style="font-size:130%; background:yellow; border:1px solid black;">☢</span> [[ User_talk:RadManCF|open frequency]] 21:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. There's a limit to how much time the community is willing to put into resolving one dispute after another. However, if she agrees to AniMate's conditions, I've no problem with her coming back in a month or so. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User_Talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 21:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''': Per above. I just recently came into this, and have been flabbergasted to see how long this has been going on. SRQ has been blocked, and then gets unblocked after having a pity party making an admin feel sorry for her. Finally an admin, SarekOfVulcan, has brought some resolution to this. I just hope we all can get back at contributing to the project without having to be sidetracked by these avoidable and disruptive disputes. Thank you, Sarek. I also hope other admins feel the same way and support your decision. —'''<span style="
*'''Support'''. Regardless of any personal issues or conditions she's claimed, Wikipedia has turned into a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground]] for her and anyone who crosses her path. I'd support an unblock somewhere down the line if she ever calms down, but for now, it's a good idea to prevent further disruption. Also, last time she was blocked, SRQ continued her conflicts at great length on her talk page. As that kind of behavior obviously doesn't do anything to calm down the situation, I'd advise an admin keep an eye on the page in hopes of the block having the desired effect. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 22:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I'm not convinced that SRQ can change her behavior, so I'm concerned that any future lifting of the ban be under '''''very tightly''''' controlled conditions, not just an opening of the door. AniMate's suggestion would seem to cover that, but I'd suggest it not be made available until a suitable period of time has passed. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 22:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 709:
*'''Agree''' -[[User:FeralDruid|FeralDruid]] ([[User talk:FeralDruid|talk]]) 23:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
*'''Agree''': I see no reason why WHL would comment on her talk page. Also, an interaction ban is pointless, now, since there can't be any further interactions on articles while SRQ is banned. —'''<span style="
{{Discussion bottom}}
| |||