User talk:Cremepuff222

Yawn

I am going to bed, wikipedia. I will be awake later if you have any questions. :) Also, great show! --cremepuff222 (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it appears I am blocked? Anti-climatic ending. :( --cremepuff222 (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because that's enough, Cremepuff222. As you say here, you're now here to screw around. We don't have time for these childish games, as you well know. Your previous indef block was lifted when you promised to behave yourself. You've barely last a week before you slipped into behaving like a fool again.

In order to prevent further disruption and the waste of further time, I have restored the indef block. Time for you to take a break. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 11:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Break taken

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cremepuff222 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked for a week now and I think I am sufficiently stable enough to resume editing. Input from everyone is appreciated.

Decline reason:

You had your second chance when you were unblocked after you gave up the bit and you lasted barely a week before you began being disruptive again. The fact this whole thing was because you found it funny gives me no reason to unblock you Jac16888^Talk 02:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

--cremepuff222 (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you not even going to bother with an apology and explanation? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the wasted time. I'm not really sure there is an explanation... I just found it funny how big of a deal it was to others that I posted silly messages like "Do you like apples?" --cremepuff222 (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not much to address the issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I was blocked to prevent waste of time, and I will not be wasting any more time. Are there other issues to address? --cremepuff222 (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't be engaging in any more disruptive editing sprees, I promise. I know I broke my promise before, but basically I'm just asking for another chance. And if I can't prove that I'm here to benefit the project, then the block should be reinstated. I don't see the harm in giving me just one more chance. --cremepuff222 (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The block decline reason seems a little punitive, Jac. Only two days out of the nearly three years that I positively contributed I engaged in disruptive editing. Don't my positive contributions outweigh the few disruptive ones that I promise to not do again? --cremepuff222 (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No I don't think so, you promised not to do it again last time. --Jac16888^Talk 02:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even going to get a chance to prove that I want to help? --cremepuff222 (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that you deserve one, I'm sure we'll cope fine without you--Jac16888^Talk 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My edits were hardly disruptive in the first place. --cremepuff222 (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not true at all. You had ANI in an uproar, twice. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, just because I made a few silly edits, it seems. --cremepuff222 (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If I will not be unblocked now, can we agree on a specific time for the block to end? I think that an indefinite block is unfair, as I did not use this account exclusively for the purpose of harassment or disruption. --cremepuff222 (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous Dissident: AN/I gets in an uproar over anything and everything. I don't give the reaction of the peanut gallery there much weight. And I don't believe you really do either.

The reality is that prior to about two weeks ago, Cremepuff222 was a completely productive editor (and admin). This seems like a severe lapse in judgment over the course of the holidays, but I don't see anything that merits not ever revisiting this block.

I'm inclined to unblock in a week if Cremepuff222 apologizes for his behavior and agrees that any further disruption will lead to a swift re-block. We don't need to be punitive here, we just need to ensure that the problematic behavior will stop. I think it will. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Even during his this (current) block, Cremepuff spammed my email until he lost that privilege.

After his first block, he promised to do better in almost exactly the same terms: "Whatever the case, I will not engage in anymore of these nonconstructive editing sprees. And again, apologies to those whose time I've wasted."

And I agree with Jac16; the fact that he did this because he found it entertaining, the fact that he abused his admin tools by the repeated deletion and undeletion of Giggle, the fact that he set a consistently bad example... I think we'll cope very well without all that as well! ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 08:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure ANI over-reacts. It doesn't mean time wasn't wasted. Disruption is disruption, regardless of whether the reaction was justified. Furthermore, Cremepuff knew what the reaction would be. I've got no opinion on whether he should be unblocked, but "hardly disruptive" is a fallacious description of his actions. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And Cremepuff's claim of having been disruptive on only "two days" is a clear lie. Aside from all the, "Do you like apples?" comments etc., the disruptive !votes on RfA, the Giggle incident, the email spam, the creation of vandal-sockpuppets, the editing while logged out... all this happened over a period of way over two days. I don't know why he would tell such a blatant fib and expect us to accept him with open arms. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 08:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag: I don't think your presence on this talk page is helping matters. Please stop posting here. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(replied on your talk-page to keep this discussion on-topic) ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 08:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that I must disagree with the contention that this problem is a recent and brief one. For example Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cremepuff222 shows that he has engaged in socking over a period of years, and his admin logs show frivolous actions dating back over a year. Obviously frivolous admin actions won't be a problem anymore, but before he's unblocked I would like to see some acknowledgement that there was in fact a problem here, which Cremepuff seems to be denying to some extent. This whole Jeckyl and Hyde routine where he deliberately causes a ruckus and then turns around and claims he doesn't know what the problem is is getting old. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I assure you that if I am unblocked, I will not engage in disruptive editing again. I thank everyone for considering to give me another chance. Tags, the edits you describe (RfA comments, user talk comments) all took place over about two days, maybe more or less, I'm not sure, but the point is that it was only recently, and long ago, that I engaged in those edits. Recent sockpuppets of mine did not engage in vandalism (I suppose I used one to, though shortly afterward I reverted the vandalism), but I do admit the one from years ago I used to vandalize.

Until thinking about it more today after your comments, I honestly felt that my actions were not disruptive enough to warrant blocking (indefinitely, at least). However, I realize that my edits were really a waste of everyone's time, and I once again apologize for my actions. My previous apology was not an attempt to trick the community, however much it seems like this. I regret breaking my promise, and I understand why the community would think it was a lie. I promise I will work hard to regain the trust of the community if unblocked, even though at this point I am not sure it is possible... but I will definitely try. If unblocked and I do abuse the privilege of editing, I understand that this will lead to a quick reblock.

I assure you my statements above are honest and true, and I hope everyone considers giving me just one more chance. --cremepuff222 (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I recommend that viewers of this page review this cartoon and see if it has a familiar ring:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Entertaining, but please. I've tried my hardest to get the message across that I will not engage in disruptive editing again. I'm not trying to fool anybody. --cremepuff222 (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Beeblebrox's research, this is not a problem over a short period, but over a long haul that merely accelerated during a recent interval. The problem is, why is your promise now any better than the one you broke recently? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, the problem was only during my early days as an editor, and during recent times. Over a year of positive contributing in between. I'm not sure the promise is better, but the current block has given me a taste of what it is like to be restricted from participating in a project that is accessible to all. --cremepuff222 (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not how I read what Beeblebrox is saying. The admins have to decide whether you're still playing the same game as the mouse in that cartoon. It might help if you could explain what was going on with you that impelled you to do this stuff, and what major change has occurred with you that would fundamentally change your approach. I don't think "a taste of what it's like" is really going to make it. I'm talking some major life change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't say that the edits (the rfa votes, the messages) and the admin actions (blocking myself, deleting/recreating pages) were done for any particular reason. Except maybe just to see what I can get away with, which I have found out. After the block was removed, I quickly resumed making constructive edits, copyeditting a few articles and making a major rewrite to the Origami article. However, after my edits to the origami article were reverted, I became frustrated. I took out that frustration on a few contributors who participated in the first ANI discussion, whose comments earlier I had chosen to ignore. As for a "major change", I don't think that there is much I need to change in the first place... except to find better outlets for frustration, and to find other sources of entertainment. I doubt that will be very hard to accomplish.

I still don't understand why I am indefinitely blocked, however. Wouldn't a shorter block (three months or so) do the trick? --cremepuff222 (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Bugs has it right. What I'm seeing is a long-term pattern of treating Wikipedia like a toy. Why would you delete an article or block yourself just for laughs? I honestly don't even see why anyone would find that to be funny at all. (If you block yourself by accident, that's hilarious, but doing it on purpose, not) How is sending pointless talk page messages to a user who has made it clear they do not wish to receive such messages supposed to help? You say you think everyone should lighten up, and your apparent method to accomplish this goal is to deliberately annoy and waste the time of other users, to create vandalistic sock puppet accounts, and then to play innocent when someone calls you out on it. I also would like to know what has changed in you so much in the space of a mere 10 days since you made this statement [2]. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any pattern at all. It happened once a long time ago, and once recently. Hardly a pattern. And I wasn't trying to make anyone else laugh, but I found it pretty funny at the time. "Vandalistic sock puppet accounts", once long time ago, once recently, whose edits I reverted. I don't see why any of these things are a big deal at all. --cremepuff222 (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. For those of you keeping score, put me down firmly in the "leave this user blocked" category. If you can't see any problem with your actions then any promise not to engage in further disruptive behavior is hollow. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but does posting silly messages and creating harmless sock accounts warrant indefinitely blocking a once trusted user? --cremepuff222 (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• (undent) I'm more or less done as I believe I've stated my opinion on this fairly clearly, but the more I look at your history the more convinced I am that the trust the community previously had in you was sorely misplaced and you should never have been an administrator. How you got through RFA with socking and vandalism already under your belt boggles the mind. Apparently no one brought it up at the time. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As a parting thought, I would share this exchange from Cremepuff's RFA, which, in retrospect, seems to argue for the block being upheld:

9. Let's say this happened: You came across a user who had done serious damage, then got unblocked and did even more damage. He says he really won't do any more damage, and please unblock him. He says that at the slightest bad thing from him, please block him. What would you do?

A: One thing IRC has taught me is that people who say this often will continue doing disruptive things. This can be applied to Wikipedia as well. The user would likely continue vandalizing if unblocked, and if not, he or she can create a new account and start over again.

Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to justify my actions, but I probably just said that because I knew it was the "right answer". --cremepuff222 (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And to expand further on my comment about my actions not being a "big deal". Certainly my actions are problems, but I just don't see how it justifies an indefinite block. An indefinite block would imply that the actions would never be corrected. If the community doesn't think I can turn myself around in a few days, then a block of a few weeks or months seems more fair. As blocks are only used for prevention, I believe an indefinite block is not necessary. --cremepuff222 (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

<-I find it interesting that around a week after being blocked (by me) for disruption and wasting time, you place an unblock request that doesn't address the problem behaviour, giving the appearance that you are doing it to be disruptive and to waste time. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 08:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A proposal

During Cremepuff222's brief unblock a couple weeks ago, he rewrote the Origami article in good-faith. This, to me, confirms that he is most certainly capable of editing constructively. As such, I propose that we allow him to overhaul or create another in a subsection of this talk page, and if the result is satisfactory, we unblock in a week's time. Sound reasonable? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Ignoring for a second the idea that this is basically saying its ok to cause trouble as long as you edit too, I recommend you take a look at this diff, [3]. It shows puff's first edit to the page on the 21st, to his last on the 23rd. What part of that diff is constructive?--Jac16888^Talk 15:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I said he edited the article in good-faith, which I don't think anyone can reasonably doubt. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)30 edits with the final one reverting all of his intermediate edits seems a bit odd, don't you think? Leaky Caldron 15:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all; he was asked by another editor to amend or improve his changes. [4] –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A novel proposal, and a good one, I think. The act of improving an article here would be a prime indicator of an intention to return to constructive contribution. And, if he decides to go ape after he's unblocked, we've still got some content work to show for it. :-) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I strong believe he should remain blocked. Cremepuff has twice caused significant disruption, not to mention the now apparent ongoing disruption, sockpuppets and vandalism and such. He was given a last chance already and threw it back in the face of the community, this is after he was given the trust of the community. His comments on this page show no sign of remorse, in fact from them and his so-called explanations for his actions, Cremepuff seems to me to be nothing better than your run of the mill internet troll--Jac16888^Talk 18:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like the sign of a run-of-the-mill troll, Jac. I'm not advocating the sort of behavior Cremepuff222 has recently engaged in, but maybe he just got bored and had a lapse in judgment. I'm willing to grant him another chance to redeem himself. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not, but it doesn't mean we should go easy on him, half the threads on WR are about admins getting away with more than a standard user, and this case they'd be right. Besides, if you took this, this, and all the various messages between these diffs, plus the sockpuppets and the vandalism and the little games, all suggest that if he wasn't a troll when he did that rfa, he's no better than one now--Jac16888^Talk 23:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Offering a strict and provisional unblock isn't by any means going easy on him. What's the harm in trusting his word and giving him a final chance? If he continues to post silly comments, we can indef him for good and forget about him. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The harm is that we already did that once, and the result was [5] barely a week later, despite making the same promises of "no more" he's making now. How many last chances are we going to give him?--Jac16888^Talk 00:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I fully acknowledge and accept that. But this seems more like a punishment than anything else at the moment, since, to the best of my knowledge, he never really disrupted the encyclopedia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

...to the best of my knowledge, he never really disrupted the encyclopedia... – where on Earth did you get that idea from, Julian? ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 07:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Did he actually vandalize an article? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

His vandal-sockpuppets did, yes, and his deletion and undeletion of Giggle could also be considered vandalism, but I never said that anyway. I said that he was disruptive, which doesn't necessarily include vandalism, as you should know. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 15:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea Julian. If Cremepuff222 can come up with a good rewrite to an article to show he's serious about coming back then I see no reason not to let him - I'd certainly be willing to unblock him. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with reducing the span of CP's block, but the whole "rewrite an article an you can come back" thing just seems like administrative hoop-jumping to me. What does his ability to improve articles have to do with the disruptive behaviour he's shown in the past? I can see how he might have found some of the abuses of his admin bit entertaining, but the lack of gravitas displayed led to the loss of that bit. Similarly, the renegging on his promise led to him being indef-blocked.

No one questions CP's ability to improve articles, we question his motivation to do that instead of being a pain in the ass. If there is to be some test, then let it be one that demonstrates his commitment to not being annoying and immature, not one that demonstrates his ability to improve articles. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it shows that the user is willing and able to work towards improving the encyclopedia. It's a standard perquisite for unblock proposals, and it's worked fine most of the time. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems fair to me. I would be willing to give it a shot. --cremepuff222 (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that CP has shown himself to be both willing and able to improve the project. It's his extracurriculars I'm worried about. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this discussion should be taken to a wider venue, as I can't really see a consensus developing here to either maintain or lift the block.--Atlan (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Cremepuff222 –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Julian, I appreciate your efforts, but the problem is that the two things aren't related - Cremepuff set out to deliberately act the goat in non-article space, and his reason was stated as being bored and thinking that other editors needed to lighten up. So him editing constructively in article space doesn't show that he won't get bored and start poking bears to see if they will dance again. So far, he's not shown me much indication that he appreciates that his behaviour was disruptive (I'm not sure he's convinced those objecting have a valid point - he seems to me to be just acting the way you do if the headmaster gives you a wigging).Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He's indicated several times that he believes his actions were inappropriate, just not that they were especially harmful; and I tend to agree. To be honest, I haven't seen any compelling reasons not to provisionally unblock him. If he resumes disruption, it takes three or four seconds to re-block him, and if not, we've got a constructive editor. I fail to see any downsides. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree Julian. I have no problem with lifting the block, but I don't want to see it offered in exchange for completing some unrelated task. Give him probation, and be hasty with the banhammer if he acts out again. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Although consensus at the moment is to keep you blocked at the moment, if you will rewrite another article here, including sources and the like, I will take the responsibility of copying over into the mainspace and reducing your block length. While I can see why many people are frustrated with you, you promise that you will be good when you come back, and while the potential positives are high, the potential negatives can be fixed in ~10 seconds with another, final, indefinite block. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

While I have reservations about the rewrite idea, I appreciate your taking a principled stand and willingness to assume responsibility in this matter. Thank you. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am attempting to have a viable reason for a reduction in the block, seeing as everyone's good faith has been worn out. Would you have a better idea? If so, I'd love to hear it, becuase I can't think of anything. :) And yes, I would assume responsibility for Cremepuff's actions if I unblock him. In fact, I'll go further: if I lessen the block and Cremepuff comes back to vandalize, I'll give up my admin bit if five editors tell me what I did was wrong and deserves the removal of the bit. A variation of Malleus' comments here So, the potential negatives for me could be enormous, but the potential positives to the encyclopedia, coming from the improved articles that I hope Cremepuff will write, can be even greater. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no need for such an offer. Cremepuff, and he alone, is responsible for his actions. As far as the rewrite is concerned, that would not address the problem, which was his off-article edits. I believe he has demonstrated that he recognizes what he did wrong and has promised not to do it again. He broke his last promise, and tried the community's patience. Reduce the block, give him 1 year's probation, and see if he is truly committed to improving the project. If he isn't no lasting harm is done and we can restore the indef block and lock his talk page. I think he understands that this would be his final chance. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I'm glad that the community is providing input on the situation, but I have a few thoughts on what has been said so far. As I am not able to post there, I will instead post them here. If someone could bring up at ANI that I have said these things on my talk page, I would much appreciate it.

First of all, it seems that everyone is under the impression that I want to be outright unblocked. I have said a few times that I feel the block length is unfair, and that is what I wanted to be discussed. I did post the {{unblock}} template on my userpage, but only did so in order to bring editors to my talk page to discuss the matter. My apologies if I didn't make myself clear, but that is why I brought this up in the first place. I didn't do it to cause more disruption.

I have been accused of being a liar, a vandal, and a troll, among other things ("jittery", "immature", ...). I have been very upfront about my doings, and throughout the whole ordeal I have been very cool, I haven't made any personal attacks, and I haven't responded to anything "immaturely" (in my eyes at least), and I have certainly not engaged in any trolling. My actions were certainly not called for, but I find the responses to them rather harsh.

Much of this debate is related to my allegedly harassing another user. Are edits like [6][7][8][9] really that big of a deal? Would it not have been easier to discuss the edits directly with my rather than going off to the administrator noticeboard? I have also been accused of abusing Special:EmailUser. I do not deny that I used them for non-constructive purposes. However, I never went on a massive email spam rampage like it sounds like at ANI. I sent one to User:Anonymous Dissident thanking him for this edit, and one to User:Bwilkins regarding this comment. I sent User:TreasuryTag three, all asking him to discuss the issue with me, rather than bringing more people into the drama. I don't see that any of these are abusive, and if the receivers thought they were trolling, they should have asked.

I agree and acknowledge that my actions have caused much disruption and waste of time, but I still find the actions themselves not very disruptive in themselves. I still see users bringing up certain admin actions that I am not proud of. Sure they look bad, but what harm actually came from them? I doubt anybody would have even noticed if I hadn't engaged in my recent edits.

If the community feels that I am not ready for an unblock right now, I still feel that the block should not be indefinite. Anywhere from a month to a year seems reasonable to me. I think the community should move away from this "guilty/not guilty" phase and decide on an expiration time for the block.

Much appreciation to everyone for discussing this matter. --cremepuff222 (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I was not saying you were being immature, I was merely categorizing your original problematic behaviour as such. I think you've been reasonable and level-headed since your second block, and I believe you deserve to have your block shortened. I look forward to welcoming you back to the community. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okays. My apologies for misunderstanding. --cremepuff222 (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, I can see how it might come across that way. Good luck getting the block reduced. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Copied over to ANI. –xeno^talk 23:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The status quo is that you are indefinitely blocked; the AN/I thread asks whether you should be unblocked, and the firm consensus appears to be that you should not be. There are two methods by which editors are community banned - (1) the imposition of an indefinite block that no administrator will overturn (2) the imposition of an indefinite block which is then confirmed by a community consensus, preferably on a noticeboard. It looks like this meets method number (2), in which case any administrator considering unblocking should be careful to have a very strong case for undoing a community ban. Nathan ^T 23:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AN/I, although a usefull board for gaining input, is notorious for occasionally falling into a lynchmob mentality. I don't think any of cremepuff's actions deserve a permanent ban, nor do I think that the totality of his behaviour is deserving of such a ban. I would still like to see more recognition of and contrition for his problematic behaviour, but I, for one, fully support the shortening of his block and a lengthy probationary period. He has proven capable of being a productive editor, and should be given the opportunity to do so again. Remember, blocks are not intended to be punitive, but rather to protect the project. He is not being disruptive at present. Give him some more time to contemplate the feedback he's received from the community, then let him back on a short leash. If he engages in disruptive behaviour again, then by all means indef him. Currently, however, I see the risk to the project as being far too small to warrant a permanent ban. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Lynchmob mentality". I don't think such a characterisation will further your cause. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't really have a cause, I simply disagree with a permanent ban. As for my charaterization, it may be unfortunate, but it's often accurate. Tempers often flare on AN/I, and people get worked into a frenzy over things that warrant no frenzying. I was involved in the initial AN/I thread concerning Cremepuff, and I supported the removal of his admin bit, as well as his initial block. I had hoped he would abide by his pledge not to reoffend, but he did not. Nevertheless, blocks aren't intended to be punitive, and I see little risk to the project that could come from unblocking Cremepuff. As I said, tight probation, in addition to a shortened block, should be fine. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the users above. I was very unwilling to have you blocked, and since the consensus seemed to show that you were a lunatic (granted ANI is a dramafest), so I really didn't have much behind my reasoning. I see that you are willing to do better now, and I'm sorry about the momentary doubts. I agree that you should have a shortened block, as you seem to be wanting to do this project good. I understand where the naysayers came in, and I understand that you weren't able to defend yourself from the many piggy-backed responses. See you in a few months! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Two points, really. Firstly, despite what is claimed above, I did try to discuss the harrassy-talkpage-edits with Cremepuff first; he ignored this, so obviously I came to ANI next. What else did he expect me to do?

Secondly, his multiple emails to me were not "all asking [me] to discuss the issue" – the first said, "Sup. :P Gonna post this on ANI as more evidence that I should be burnt at the stake? Okay. :) Sounds like great fun!" (very constructive!), the second simply, "How predictable. :) Thanks for your help!" (not really how Cremepuff described it above!), and the third was vaguely threatening in tone: "You make me giggle, you silly goose you. :) Making it sound like I'm spamming you hundreds of emails? Okay. How about instead of going off and complaining to the big old administrators you talk to me yourself for once?"

So, even now, he lied about me going straight to ANI rather than coming to him first; he lied about the contents of his spammy emails... and it's so blatant, too :( ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 08:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You did come to me, but you didn't even attempt to talk to me about it. The previous three times you simply reverted the edits. I don't think arguing is going to get us any further though. I'm very sorry for being a nuisance and for wasting your time, TreasuryTag. I would like to put this behind us. --cremepuff222 (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Redvers, oh yes, I did forget about the email I sent you. "You blocked me. :)" I just wanted to talk to you about it. --cremepuff222 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Throwaway85, I sent the emails at... 5:05 AM, 5:55 AM, 6:02 AM, 6:03 AM, 6:09 AM, and 6:15 AM. I was up rather late. :O --cremepuff222 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

I believe you should answer this, despite the fact that wikipedia is not test-wiki. From viewing your talk page at test-wiki, you appeared by be using your admin tools(which were granted by a single user, without the appearance of discussion by other editors) to do what you want. As is said on what test wiki is not, it is not a place where nonsense articles will stick, and yet, you protected a nonsense article indefinitely. This to me looks like pure abuse, and you should not be allowed to have your way against policy just because you have the bit on the wiki.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I know you addressed your comment to Cremepuff, but I'd just like to opine that it seems readily apparent that he will never regain his admin bit here, and indeed had it taken away for similar behaviour. It does seem to be in keeping with the behaviour he promised not to repeat, however, and I think an explanation is in order. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, it's the test wiki. I was given administrator rights there to do some cleanup around the wiki, deleting articles on such. However, I suppose I didn't understand correctly when someone explained which articles to delete and keep... Thus I stopped deleting. That page was awesome, and I wanted to keep it, just as a joke of course... I might also add that I protected that page nearly a week ago, and I haven't engaged in policy-breaking rules on the test wiki since then. --cremepuff222 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As is quite clearly said on the policy page for test wiki, test wiki is not a place where nonsense articles will stick. 42 is quite clearly a nonsense article, so why leave it up, then?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

My bads. I wasn't aware of any sort of policies on the test wiki to be honest. --cremepuff222 (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

• News and notes: Fundraiser ends, content contests, image donation, and more

• In the news: Financial Times, death rumors, Google maps and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)