User talk:Vianello/Archives/2014/February

Spam removal at User:CorrChilled

Thanks, I was not aware of that tag. Will keep in mind for later. --Dmol (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Infraction

• EeuHP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Srnec user has violated the rule of three reversals twice ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and [6] [7] [8] [9]). He took advantage of the system rules. He got it from blocking me so I could not report him and now his offense has expired, they tell me. I can not believe that this could be possible and I think that deserves a penalty.--EeuHP (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the official statement on blocking is that "Blocks are preventative, not punitive." If this user is no longer actively engaged in the activity that is of concern, there is not a need to block them. Should they have been blocked at the time? Well, yes, probably, in my opinion. But the measure exists to make them stop, not as a punishment or penalty. There is no need to impose a block to prevent something that is no longer occurring. Speaking of which: As EdJohnston mentions below, you do appear to be resuming the edit war for which you were blocked in the first place. Is this going to continue? - Vianello (Talk) 19:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you did this editor the kindness of unblocking him a few days early, he has now resumed one of the edit wars for which he was blocked, here. So far he is up to two reverts, restoring his preferred version from last December. His two reverts at Peter III of Aragon were at 23:06 on 24 February and 14:08 on 25 February. Any suggestions of how to handle this? Since October 2013 he has been blocked four times, for increasing lengths of time. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)