Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FT2 (talk | contribs) at 11:00, 28 October 2007 (→Section break and outside view: underline omitted - fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Swatjester
User Page	Talk	Contributions	My Awards	Sandbox	ToDo	View Subpages

Swatjester for ArbCom. Lead the way!

1. Before leaving any messages pertaining to help on a certain subject, check to see if the question is answered here before leaving a message on this talk page!
2. To start a new message, click the + mark by the "edit this page" tab. Enter your subject, message, and sign your name (see rule seven if you don't know how to sign your name).
3. If I begin a topic on your talk page, I will respond on your talk page.
4. If you begin a topic on my talk page, I will respond on my talk page.
5. I may deviate from that if I choose.
6. As always, please adhere to civility rules and no personal attacks rules.
7. If you write a topic out of the ordinary, and delete the topic or text later, I will see it via the history page. Please think before you type.
8. ALWAYS sign with ~~~~ four tildes, or your message will be deleted.
9. I have the right to delete inappropriate messages!
10. Formatting on this page and its transcluded parent courtesy of User:Miranda.

--- Swatjester

Misplaced Pages Signpost and Admin Backlog summary enclosed

24 December 2024 News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Curiousity

Just out of curiousity, what is the reason for the Denny Crane part of your signature? Is it the Denny Crane played by William Shatner in Boston Legal? Why does it link to WP:Climbing? Most sigs link to contrib or talk pages so yours surprised me. Sbowers3 05:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Same Denny Crane as played by Shatner. It's probably my favorite TV show ever, and he's my favorite character. As for WP:CLIMB, I founded the wikiproject. My sig does link to my talk page, it just has problems linking properly in some browsers. ⇒ SWATJester 19:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI: for me, the arrow links to your user page, but SWATJester comes in as black and gold but doesn't show as a link. Denny's fine. (I'm on Firefox.) The arrow gets me close enough though. Tvoz |talk 19:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat. My sig is supposed to send the "SWATJester" part of my sig to my talk, but doesn't for some reason.⇒ SWATJester 19:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Kilogram

Let’s not have a battle on this one. These issues have been thoroughly discussed and no one else agrees with him. His placing of the “dispute” tag is beyond reason and other editors have told him so. Don’t let him hoodwink you. Greg L (my talk) 17:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how you removing fact tags that he placed, without any reasoning why or filling in of sources is within reason. I also fail to see how claiming he is hoodwinking me assumes good faith. ⇒SWATJester 21:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

re: indenting

I agree completely with what you are saying. Your first example is indented correctly to show what responds to what. I would not change it. Your second example indicates a completely different order of replies and who is replying to whom. If I make a change I will be careful to preserve the structure. You are correct to worry about the possibility and to try to prevent an error before it occurs. BTW, do you prefer that users reply on your page as I am now, or to reply on my page below your comment? Either way is okay with me, but I like to conform to the other party's preference. Sbowers3 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter too much to me. I prefer it on my page, so I get a notice about it, but I check my watchlist at least 30 times a day (no joke) so I'd see it on your page either way. ⇒SWATJester 22:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA nom

Hello. I appreciate the offer however I don't think it's a good idea right now. I'm involved in some pretty sticky articles attempting to improve them and I tend to get on the wrong side of people in the process, if you know what I mean. I've been working on Homeopathy, Parapsychology, and Race of Ancient Egyptians some of the most disputed articles on the project. In the process of improving them, even the most civil and restrained editors tend to make a lot of enemies by default. Though most of the time a lot of editors who show hostility towards me during the rewrites appreciate the work done in the end, during the process a few tend to hold animosity toward me, and even a few do after the articles are fixed and are GAs or FAs. In the foreseeable future it's only going to get worse as I'm taking on Race and Intelligence, which will no doubt cause a swarm of hostility towards me when that hornets nest is turned upside down. The most likely scenario is that I would get a lot of oppositions from editors from past and current article rewrites who hold resentment towards me for one reason or another, which would in turn lead to even more oppositions from editors just taking a glance at the other oppositions and opposing based on that, generally without reading them. You know, the whole "Oppose per above" comment from people opposing on a glance just to get more RFA counts. So I'm going to have to turn down your offer. I just don't believe that any request for adminship on my part would possibly succeed, at least at this time. Thanks anyway though. Wikidudeman 02:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: admin nom

I actually appreciate you for considering nominating me for RfA. I've thought about it, and since in the past couple days I resolved the only remaining conflict I have had with another user, I think that now would be a good time for me to make my first attempt. If you'd like, you can submit the nomination for me, and I'll accept it and answer the questions and all that stuff. Thank you, Ksy92003(talk) 03:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thank you very much. I accepted the nomination and answered the other questions, and if you would like to take whatever extra procedures are necessary for the RfA, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Ksy92003(talk) 05:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I added my RfA to WP:RfA, so I don't think anything else needs to do. Thanks one more time for the nomination. Ksy92003(talk) 06:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please withdraw my nomination? I know it isn't going to be successful, and I also wanted to go through with it for feedback, which I've gotten. I've no need for it anymore, so could you please close it for me? Don't worry; I'll still try again later. Thanks again for the support. I'll let you know when I'd like to try one more time. Ksy92003(talk) 01:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Swatjester is done for the night so I've closed it. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for closing it for me, Wknight, but I do have something to say about your comment. You say that Chris was the one who ended the dispute, not me. That's because you told me not to talk to him. I was going to discuss this with him after his block expired, but you told me not to try to make peace with him. So how else could I try to end the dispute if you told me not to try? Ksy92003(talk) 16:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA nom

Wow - thanks for the thought. I'll have a think about it and get back to you at some point next week - I'm not going to be around much for the next couple of days from home, and WP is blocked at work at present because too many rude words in articles have triggered the pornography filters! Regardless of whether I say yes or not, I am deeply honoured that you think I'm up to the task. Regards, Bencherlite 04:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why you should support me....

I've got a proven record of vandalfighting without being overzealous about it, and I know WP policies very well because of the time I've spent here learning about how WP works. I'm willing to contribute in lots of different areas; I will often comment on ANI if I think I have something of value to say, or find things to look into from ANI. I do a lot of the "dirty and thankless"-type jobs: I RFCU clerk, I worked on COI for a bit, and I have spent some time on XfDs and article creation. Some of the reasons people wouldn't support me are because of my supposed article specialization, but I have plenty of contribs to other things besides Freemasonry-related articles. I've revamped the entire Patriarca crime family article and cat, reorganized the cats under Category:Motorcycling, and cleaned up quite a few band articles as best I could. There was a Jarmann rifle article I was asked to copyedit and did (I forget what it was - WegianWarrior will know), and I've also done things per League of Copyeditors request on a town in the UK. I don't track these things; I just do them in order to make WP better, and because I want to do them, and I think as far as adminship goes, I don't want it to have some sort of status, but rather because it will help me do things better on WP, and contribute better in different areas that require admins to clear backlogs.

In short, I think I do have the range of WP knowledge and breadth of WP experience to be an effective administrator and the maturity not to be heavy-handed or abusive about it. MSJapan 05:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:RfA nom

Hi, I thank you for the offer. I accept your nomination. What would the next step be? Just out curiousity, what made you want to nominate me? Thanks! --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 09:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, have you started the nomination page? Thanks! --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 22:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, while you were typing that, in fact. My kittens distracted me for a bit, but it's up now.⇒SWATJester 22:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination. I am logging off now but will be sure to complete it tommorow morning. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to put it on the RFA page when you're finished. ⇒SWATJester 22:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:RfA nom

Um, my first one failed 0-6 - with many critical comments. I have also been blocked once under a different name. I'm not sure I'm ready. I can give you names of my comrads here and get their opinions.Mitch32 10:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rfa Nom

Thanks I accept, since you appear to be offline I'll start the rfa page and you can add your nom statement when your online. --Chris  G  10:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA nomination offer

I have responded at User talk:Camaron1. Thanks. Camaron1 | Chris 11:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Real names = outing users = bad policy for Misplaced Pages

Concerning your activity here, while prudent and needed for the project, there is no User:Greg Kohs, so you should probably oversight and revamp your edit summary. SpiralingMusic 13:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Greg Kohs is well known to the foundation, and uses his real name on Misplaced Pages review. I don't see a need to do it. Considering he has many sockpuppets and I don't remember which is the name of the original one, it's easier to just identify it that way.⇒SWATJester 17:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: RFA nom

Goodness! Heh, I did not see that one coming! Well, sure, and thank you very much! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why so many nominations?

Why are you nominating so many editors for admin? It seems that at least some of them have an unlikely chance of succeeding, so why have you been nominating so many in the past day or two? Wikidudeman 01:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Because we need more admins. I nominate people who I believe would do a good job, not who I believe can pass the RFA. If they pass the RFA, good. If not, they know what to do next time. But we currently have a promotion rate of approximately one admin per day (350 a year or so), slightly over that. We need to double that, especially since anon page creation was just enabled. ⇒SWATJester 04:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Swatjester; we do need more admins. You've nominated some very promising future admins. Keep it up, — jacĸrм (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Since when was anon-page creations enabled? Can you provide a link to the relevant discussion page? Thanks. --Hdt83 04:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

See village pump policy, and Wiki-EN-L mailing list. ⇒SWATJester 05:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"I nominate people who I believe would do a good job, not who I believe can pass the RFA" - Good, keep doing that. Even if some may not be good candidates and some may not be ideal unanimous-support candidates, it's worth it. - TwoOars (Rev) 05:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus, it teaches them more than an editor review will about the actual process. ⇒SWATJester 05:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a break from editing?

Why would you think I need a break from editing, uploading non-free images perhaps would be understandable (even for those; however, I provide detailed explanation and were supposed to be qualified as fair use under United States copyright law and were, at least up until now). My deal with "High on a tree" is that he removed the images days before the expected deletion dates read. Is that not considered vandalism, should not one have the right to provide/add explanation for non-free rationale until the last day the tag reads?--Harout72 05:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: We don't agree

We seem not to see eye to eye based on the comments of Wikidudeman above in your recent relentless RfA nominations for some candidates that really don't appear ready. The most recent withdrawl by a candidate with a recent history of incivilty whom you described as "civil" in your nom being a case in point. In addition I recall an ANI thread where you accused me of being in error and alowing myself to be trolled when this was clearly not the case (over a clear sock blanking parts of the RFB process). However this is an aside, as I believe your RfA for ChrisG to be wise, and I certainly hold no personal animosity - I just often don't agree with your views on things when I've seen them expressed. That of course can be positive, as consensus bulding and editors holding different views is what strengthens this work. I certainly wish you well and look forward to collaborating with you. Very Best. Pedro :  Chat  13:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeeny

I have posted a request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection to have this users talk page protected. Thought i would let you know. Tiptoety 04:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Block

All the articles I have started were mass deleted. 203.218.133.216 04:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tiptoety 05:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking part in the discussion, i (for the most part) did not think you did wrong, but do to the fact that there were multiple regular users who disagreed with your action and the fact that a wikipedian (Jeeny) decided to leave, i thought it best to have some kind of mediation/ANI discussion about it. Thank you again! Tiptoety 06:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI Question

"As picaroon said, we shouldn't punish other users by protecting the page just because these twothree can't play nice. "

So are you willing to unprotect the page now? - Rjd0060 06:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments in all of this by the way. I hope to have a successful RfA sometime in the future so I am trying to get involved in these things, and it gets somewhat chaotic. - Rjd0060 06:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected. I hope, however, you can view the changes that Jeeny made and see how they are more than just spelling and grammar changes, and actually change the meaning and context of the sentences. The fact that the changes were disputed reinforces how contentious they were. ⇒SWATJester 06:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of them were. I agree that some did change meaning, but some edits were strictly spelling and grammar. I know those two users have had problems in the past, which I believe, is the reason they were warring. But thanks again. - Rjd0060 06:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your block of Jeeny, but am not here to contest it. I'm here to comment that I have now seen two blocks this morning of yours which I disagree with. Your block of SchmuckyTheCat was just plain wrong. Reading the ANI discussion, you obviously didn't grasp the situation and got trigger happy. I suggest you research a little more thoroughly before you block in similar situations, and that you perhaps take a break from editing if your irritation level rises to such a point that you think blocking is the best option. That block came across to me as simple abuse of power. Jeffpw 07:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Or you could read the situation again. The block of SchmuckyTheCat was correct. Checkuser could not show a conclusive link between Kowlooner and the banned user. With no conclusive evidence to show that Kowlooner was a banned user, SchmuckyTheCat's edits were against policy. Even if the user WAS banned, they were highly disruptive. I'll ask you next time to do a little more research as to what I "obviously" grasped or did not grasp, and before you give me a lecture make sure you have the facts straight. ⇒SWATJester 08:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The user repeatedly asked you what the point was to block with the page being protected, and I must admit, I, myself, was becoming aggravated upon reading your curt non-responses (and curt block review, it is just too brief). I really am not comfortable with this particular post-block block. When the blocked user is already prone to incivility due to a block, the best thing to do upon an attack is to protect the talk page for a while, not block for longer and leave the page open for potentially more of the same. I am really quite surprised someone with your experience would commit this oversight. I am removing the one-week block extension and am reintroducing the original 48-hr duration. Regards, El_C 08:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I notice you're active right now, so I'll give a chance to respond before undoing. Regards, El_C 08:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

El C did you not see the original block, as applied by Picaroon, was valid for 3RR vio? I've now provided three times evidence of the 3rr vio. I could look back for the entire 24 hours and probably find 8 reverts by Jeeny. I unprotected the page (It should not have been protected in the first page). There was no oversight. Jeeny editwarred knowingly, without an attempt of consensus, and given her extensive extensive block history, should have known better. Frankly, I'm quite surprised that you don't see the situation here for what it is. It was a valid block, and the block extension was valid. Jeeny has always been a troublesome contributer, even despite the good edits that she does. After 6 blocks, one should make an attempt to learn what the policy is and not blatantly violate 3RR, especially after having been blocked for it before. No, a block of Jeeny was entirely appropriate, and her response to being shown evidence was entirely inappropriate. There is no excuse, whatsoever, for repeatedly, over three edits, telling someone to fuck off. ⇒SWATJester 08:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't respond to my argument about treating a blocked user sensitively, which you seemed to have failed to do. El_C 08:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Curtness does not necessarily equate to incivility or insensitivity, and neither justifies the kind of reaction Jeeny did. I won't pretend I coddled Jeeny, but I certainly was not uncivil or insulting about it. ⇒SWATJester 08:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

When a blocked user becomes uncivil, the conventional response is to protect the page, not extend the block, which seems needlessly punitive. El_C 08:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if they were simply incivil. Blatant personal attacks combined with gross incivility warrant a block, especially given Jeeny's previous blocks for personal attacks and harassment. Once again, she should have known better. Had this been a first time vandal, perhaps things would have been different, in fact they probably would have. But this was no first time vandal. This was a user with 6, now 7 blocks, for 3RR, personal attacks, harassment, etc. Jeeny at this point should have known better, and should be held to a higher standard. ⇒SWATJester 08:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The page should have been protected; I'm not sure what you expected, seeing how volatile the situation was. El_C 09:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Unindent-- I should note that this has already been discussed at AN/I. Unanimously there, my actions were deemed appropriate. Kuryhk brought up the good point that protecting the page serves only to divert the discussion to another page. That the page should have been protected is your opinion. It's my opinion that the extending the block was correct. Wheel warring over this is a terrible idea, I'd urge you not to do it. I'm not sure how you think that protecting the page was a better idea, especially given the number of people talking there; but certainly your opinion alone isn't grounds to undo the block.⇒SWATJester 09:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This will not be wheel warring, wheel warring would be if someone reverts me. Obviously, the reference is to the user's own talk page (!). El_C 09:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Bleh, the WP:WHEEL page has changed since I was promoted, it used to say, do not revert another admin's action without discussion and agreement, or consensus if there is no agreement. The point still stands. The original block was valid, and my block was valid. If she had said those words on any mainspace page, it would be instantly blockable. There is no difference to her doing it on her page. We regularly extend blocks for incivility and abusiveness. This is just another one of those times, no different. ⇒SWATJester 09:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You should have protected the user's talk page, seeing how volatile the situation was, and how your curt responses where not particularly design to facilitate calm. El_C 09:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That I should have protected the user's page is your opinion only. Plenty of other people agree with my actions. I disagree with your opinion. ⇒SWATJester 09:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't respond to the substance of my opinion (just noting you disagree with it dosen't help much). I am restoring the original block; someone else may reissue it. Regards, El_C 09:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? I've responded to the substance of your opinion all over the place above. Jeeny committed a blockable offence. I blocked. That's valid. Your unblocking has no grounds. There is no policy that says I had to protect the page instead of blocking. I'm extremely disappointed in this, and I've just lost a huge amount of respect for you as an admin. ⇒SWATJester 09:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What? Does it look like I am speaking in jest (no pun intended)? I'll give you time to regain your composure. El_C 09:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a lack of composure, it's a shock that you'd so blatantly ignore that there is a consensus for this block. ⇒SWATJester 09:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the above, I can only imagine the level of calm you would be exhibiting if you were blocked. El_C 09:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, I manage to edit Misplaced Pages without massive 3RR vios, and telling people to fuck off. Somehow, like the vast majority of good users here, I've managed to avoid being blocked once, let alone 7 times. I wonder why that is? ⇒SWATJester 10:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

First you say it was six blocks, now it's seven; I count one block from Coelacan, one from Mr. Z man, and one from Raymond Aritt, for a total of three blocks until today that were not retracted or subject to an unblock. I think you are being far too harsh here (aside, when was the last time you preformed an unblock review?), both to myself and to her. There's no reason for me to act immediately, but I am, generally, disappointed with post-block civility blocks. This isn't the first time I spoke on the matter. El_C 10:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

When was the last time I performed an unblock review? Daily, in one format or another. I'm regularly on unblock-en-l, #wikipedia-en-unblock, and OTRS unblock queue. Your personal disappointment with post-block civility blocks isn't really my problem. Change the policy if you don't like it. As for the # of blocks, I count 1 from Coelacan, AGK, Mr Z-man, Phil-Sandifer, Raymond, Picaroon, and Myself. Of those, only AGK's was unblocked. ⇒SWATJester 10:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Phil apologized for blocking. The additional two blocks (you include your own) was today. I'm not sure it's productive for me to continue commenting here, however. El_C 10:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Phil did not apologize for blocking, he requested that admins do not consider this block because Jeeny is worried about it. That's not an apology. ⇒SWATJester 10:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Section break and outside view

It's a well established principle both from policy and arbcom practice, to everyday editorial conduct norms and admin handling, that preventing people from performing disruptive activity, making personal attacks or being uncivil, and dampening behavior that stirs drama and inflames disputes, are all legitimate uses of blocking policy.

Even for incivility there is strong precedent that a block is protective, for example this block decline by a current arbcom member, stating (to another editor):

"You were indeed warned to be civil; you chose to ignore the warnings. Preventing you from being incivil for 24 hours is a legitimate block".

The protective use of such blocks, and the damage caused by such conduct not being inhibited, is emphasized and re-emphasized in policy pages. For example see:

Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks: "Personal attacks ... hurt the Misplaced Pages community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia". "Some types of comments are never acceptable: epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse." "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" "Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia." "A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to end up in the dispute resolution process, possibly including the serious consequences of arbitration, and may become subject to a community ban." "In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." (Note that NPA is a core conduct policy on Misplaced Pages, not an optional afterthought)

Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy: "A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights of ... A block for protection may be necessary in response to: persistently making personal attacks." "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to: ... persistent gross incivility; ... edit warring or revert warring; ... persistently violating other policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violation is disruptive." "The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future. Administrators should consider: ... the severity of the behavior; whether the user has engaged in that behavior before."

Jenny breached the bright line rule WP:3RR which is there to dampen and curtail revert warring no manner whether right or wrong and replace it by dispute resolution. She responded to declination by making the following personal attacks .

Accordingly I concur with the block, and in the circumstances and, given the previous record of blocks for harassment, incivility that had already been escalated somewhat past the minimal 24 hours (even ignoring the Phil Sandifer block as he has requested), I concur that a week's block is an appropriate use of judgement.

FT2 10:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The user was already blocked at the time of the extension. El_C 10:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That changes things, how? ⇒SWATJester 10:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User is more volatile while blocked, turning mild insensitivity, in their mind, into de facto baiting. El_C 10:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

El C (edit conflict) -- a change to a block (both unblocking, or extending) is not especially unusual. Additionally, in this case the sequence was as follows: contribs log Oct 28 2007 block log

• 03:25, October 28, 2007 -- Picaroon blocks (48 hrs) for "revert warring".
• 04.28 and 04.31, October 28, 2007 -- Jenny, an editor with a history of both warnings and multiple blocks for recent incivility/NPA already (Aug 18 48hr, Sept 22 72hr), then posts multiple personal attacks when unblock declined.
• 04:35, October 28, 2007 -- Swatjester extends block to a week for incivility.

FT2 10:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

El C- source that people are more volatile when blocked? Source that Jeeny wasn't an overly volatile person to begin with and that's why were here in the first place? ⇒SWATJester 10:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)