Wikipedia:Account suspensions/Witkacy
User:Witkacy
Witkacy (talk · contribs · block log)
- 15:29, September 3, 2005 TenOfAllTrades blocked "User:Witkacy" with an expiry time of 23 hours (Disruption of Wikipedia: Edit war over Gdansk/Danzig in Georg Forster)
- 15:28, September 3, 2005 TenOfAllTrades unblocked User:Witkacy (Remove block by potentially involved admin, will replace with my own)
- 14:17, September 3, 2005 Chris 73 blocked "User:Witkacy" with an expiry time of 24 hours (disrupting Wikipedia against community consensus, see user talk page.)
Gdansk decision. Since Chris73 was one of the editors who reverted Witkacy (Diff
), Witkacy felt that the block was an inappropriate abuse of admin powers.
I unblocked and reblocked Witkacy for 23 hours as a (hopefully) neutral third party to the dispute. The last thing we need is someone restarting the Gdansk/Danzig forest fire. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- While I don't question blocking Witkacy for disruption of Wikipedia, I doubt that a result of voting on a particular article's talk page (wikipedia policy. While I understand that such voting is not a proper way to establish a policy, I would suggest that its outcome is either made into one, or considered binding only for the relevant article, where the voting took place. Otherwise it's going to be a source of constant irritation and disruptions, as I've seen over the last few days. --Lysy (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)]
- FYI, the vote was announced on many article talk pages, user talk pages, forums, and the signpost, trying to reach a as wide audience as possible. The outcome with about 100 individual votes is probably more than what we have with the votes for many official policies. Also, I think an official policy is the wrong thing to do if it applies only to a small fraction of pages in Wikipedia. -- Chris 73 Talk 21:41, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- OK, let's try to make it into official policy then, as I suggested in another discussion already. So far, the way of establishing an "ersatz policy" through a back door seems highly questionable, regardless of whether it was supported by 51% or 65% of those involved. I don't want to look like a formalist, but I think some level of consistency would be a good thing. The sooner make it into an official policy, the more unnecessary future disputes will be avoided. --Lysy (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- This really has nothing to do with the purpose of this page, but for what it's worth, I agree with Lysy. The other issues are more pertinent and pressing, but making something an actual official policy (I know, I know, instruction creep and all that, but...) wrt the naming of Danzig/Gdańsk would prevent the problem from arising in the future, and could very well serve as a model for resolving potential future similar problem areas. Tomer TALK 02:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- OK, let's try to make it into official policy then, as I suggested in another discussion already. So far, the way of establishing an "ersatz policy" through a back door seems highly questionable, regardless of whether it was supported by 51% or 65% of those involved. I don't want to look like a formalist, but I think some level of consistency would be a good thing. The sooner make it into an official policy, the more unnecessary future disputes will be avoided. --Lysy (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- FYI, the vote was announced on many article talk pages, user talk pages, forums, and the signpost, trying to reach a as wide audience as possible. The outcome with about 100 individual votes is probably more than what we have with the votes for many official policies. Also, I think an official policy is the wrong thing to do if it applies only to a small fraction of pages in Wikipedia. -- Chris 73 Talk 21:41, September 4, 2005 (UTC)