User talk:Cromwellian Conquest
 |
This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. (see: block log · contributions · current autoblocks) |
Blocked
[edit]Indefinitely blocked for these contributions
in combination with username and apparent intent to disrupt and harass other editors. Rd232 talk 11:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- +talk page privileges removed for this. Rd232 talk 12:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- What kind of block message is this?, and indefinite block? how many warnings (BY ADMINS) was this user given? lmao BritishWatcher (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why are you defending this troll? He just cruised around Wiki accusing people he doesn't like of being child molesters. He's gone. --King Öomie 12:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Im not defending his actions or challenging the block.. I just found it rather amusing that in some cases indef bans can be imposed with very few warnings (if any from admins) yet others get warning after warning after warning, followed by short block after short block. Im all for a police state, its the inconsistency i find troubling. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I gave several warnings to stop the personal attacks. Me not being an admin to give the warnings is irrelevant.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- The inconsistency is due to the fact that a user has to be absolutely BLATANT to go to AIV, and before that point, we've got 1,600 different admins, each with their own tolerance for trollyness. Trollquest happened upon one of the good ones (of which there are many, don't get me wrong). --King Öomie 13:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I dont get why you guys tried to have something done about his username rather than his comments which i agree are far more extreme and woulda led to action anyway. A couple of standard warnings by a non admin about personal attacks to an indef block still seems rather odd when you look at how much others get away with after having a long block log lol. Hed obviously had enough fun though, will be interesting to see if any new uesr arrives in the coming days / weeks with the same sort of comments. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- The inconsistency is due to the fact that a user has to be absolutely BLATANT to go to AIV, and before that point, we've got 1,600 different admins, each with their own tolerance for trollyness. Trollquest happened upon one of the good ones (of which there are many, don't get me wrong). --King Öomie 13:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I gave several warnings to stop the personal attacks. Me not being an admin to give the warnings is irrelevant.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Im not defending his actions or challenging the block.. I just found it rather amusing that in some cases indef bans can be imposed with very few warnings (if any from admins) yet others get warning after warning after warning, followed by short block after short block. Im all for a police state, its the inconsistency i find troubling. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why are you defending this troll? He just cruised around Wiki accusing people he doesn't like of being child molesters. He's gone. --King Öomie 12:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to protect this page if people won't leave it alone. Go away and do something useful already! Rd232 talk 21:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Footnote: User:Cromwellian Conquest (17 Aug to 25 Aug) was also User:86.133.101.139 (6 - 24 Aug). Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Domer48/Archive and [4] and [5]. Rd232 talk 16:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)