Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:16, 28 December 2008

User:AGK/Header

User:Fdguiofdufdugf

Thread re-titled from "talking to banned user." AGK 02:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I realize you are an admin and all, but given your recent interactions with User:Fdguiofdufdugf, you may want to re-read WP:BAN. This is a very disruptive banned user with about 100 blocked socks. Talking to him is only going to make things worse and encourage him to return yet again with another sock, exactly what we want to avoid. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the editor's history, but I am not an administrator who is convinced of the validity of the approach of slamming every door on a banned individual. I've restored the dialogue that I had posted to his user_talk page, and remain interested in his response; hopefully conversing with him will convince him into moderating his opinions and his approach to editing. I would appreciate the opportunity to complete what I'm attempting to do here.

(Side note: having worked with countless banned editors in an administrative capacity, and proposed numerous bans and unbans, over the course of my career on Misplaced Pages, I would say I'm quite acquainted with our banning policy. I am willing to re-read or submit to a pop quiz if you are unconvinced of that. :-))

AGK 00:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, sorry if that came off a little catty, but I really think you are wasting your time talking to this person. On the other hand, sometimes the "good cop, bad cop" approach can be effective. I'm personally convinced this particular user is past the point where they could be reformed and become a "good" contributor, but I won't edit war with you over it if you want to try and reason with him. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've been described in the past as "the most AGFy administrator out," so your disbelief that I'm trying to reason with a banned editor of Fdguiofdufdugf's, er, calibre is not unexpected. :-) There can be little harm in trying, though, can there? If I sense during my discourse with this individual that there will be no positive resolution, I will undertake to tie up the loose ends, as it were, and be sure to communicate to him that evading his ban is wholly unproductive from his and our point of view. Have we reached an accord, Beeblebrox? You're welcome to come back and say "I told you so" in a few days, if you like. ;-) AGK 00:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• We have indeed reached an accord. Good luck, you're going to need it with this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Of course, Fdguiofdufdugf may not reply to my messages at all. Experience has shown me that, once blocked, most sock puppet accounts simply move on to another account; such is the very nature of a "throwaway" account. AGK 00:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• He will for awhile because it amuses him when people believe his BS about wanting to be a "good editor" (he's done this several times before), while he's already doing the same crap under another IP even as we speak. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Could you give me a link to where this disruption is transpiring? AGK 02:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• 68.220.187.133 (talk · contribs) <- check the contribs (his current IP); self-admitted that its him when he bugged me to ask if I was going to go back to dealing with him. He also managed to get one of the articles he regularly vandalizes unprotected so he can go back to vandalizing it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for bringing that to my attention.

JFYI, for what it's worth. He's on his final chance now.

AGK 02:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)