Difference between revisions of "Wikitravel:User ban nominations"

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search
(Thanks)
(Trying to erect a crane, to lift the locomotive back on the track, after this massive derailment...)
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
* '''Nominated''' -- [[User:Cjensen|Colin]] 04:34, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
* '''Nominated''' -- [[User:Cjensen|Colin]] 04:34, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 
* '''Support'''. Please note the archive of his talk page at [[User:Peterfitzgerald/EEarchive]], lest anyone think that this is a recent phenomenon or that good faith efforts have not been made. Phrases like "before I crack", "You can do whatever the hell you want I am not gonna attempt to control you like you do me", and the whole of [http://wikitravel.org/wiki/en/index.php?title=User:Edmontonenthusiast&oldid=1034325 his current user page] indicate a profoundly unhealthy relationship with this site. He needs time away from it. [[User:Gorilla Jones|Gorilla Jones]] 07:11, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
* '''Support'''. Please note the archive of his talk page at [[User:Peterfitzgerald/EEarchive]], lest anyone think that this is a recent phenomenon or that good faith efforts have not been made. Phrases like "before I crack", "You can do whatever the hell you want I am not gonna attempt to control you like you do me", and the whole of [http://wikitravel.org/wiki/en/index.php?title=User:Edmontonenthusiast&oldid=1034325 his current user page] indicate a profoundly unhealthy relationship with this site. He needs time away from it. [[User:Gorilla Jones|Gorilla Jones]] 07:11, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 
* '''Oppose''', for now.  According to [[Wikitravel:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban]], user bans "are embarassing, because they are an admission that our community is not strong, patient, and professional enough to deal with unwanted edits using the simple freedom built into the Wiki way."  As such, I recommend instead a formal request that EE ''voluntarily'' step away from the site for a period of time.  Imposing a ban on him will only feed his developing persecution complex, whereas requesting a voluntary separation will a) show that we respect him and his contributions, b) treat him with the dignity he deserves as a fellow Wikitraveler, and c) provide him with an opportunity to prove that he can cooperate with us and exert self-control.  Previously, any similar recommendations have been presented as just that -- recommendations.  If we make it a formal request, as an alternative to this distasteful process of an actual ban, I hold out hope that it will get through to him.  [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 08:46, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
* '''Oppose''', for now.  According to [[Wikitravel:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban]], user bans "are embarassing, because they are an admission that our community is not strong, patient, and professional enough to deal with unwanted edits using the simple freedom built into the Wiki way."  As such, I recommend instead a formal request that EE ''voluntarily'' step away from the site for a period of time.  Imposing a ban on him will only feed his developing persecution complex, whereas requesting a voluntary separation will a) show that we respect him and his contributions, b) treat him with the dignity he deserves as a fellow Wikitraveler, and c) provide him with an opportunity to prove that he can cooperate with us and exert self-control.  Previously, any similar recommendations have been presented as just that -- recommendations.  If we make it a formal request, as an alternative to this distasteful process of an actual ban, I hold out hope that it will get through to him.  [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 08:46, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 
* '''Support''' -- EE has already been asked many times to step away from the site for a while, and has not really done so. Even when he has sworn in the past to stay out of anything but actual articles he has soon set exceptions for himself and subsequently come right back around to stirring up useless crap again. In response to LtPowers points: a) and b) I do respect some contributions he has made to actual articles, and that point has been stressed over and over to him many times by many users, far more than most contributors ever hear about, but I really believe the community has pretty much run out of respect for him because respect has to be reciprocal, and EE has pretty blatant disregard for the way the community works. c) I wouldn't even know how to count all the chances we have given him-- so many that we even refused his own ban self-nomination a few weeks ago. We need to draw the line somewhere, and maybe if we get serious and force it on him it might actually cause him to figure out what he is doing to cause such problems, rather than telling himself he is just staying away to appease unreasonable people who don't understand him. [[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 10:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
* '''Support''' -- EE has already been asked many times to step away from the site for a while, and has not really done so. Even when he has sworn in the past to stay out of anything but actual articles he has soon set exceptions for himself and subsequently come right back around to stirring up useless crap again. In response to LtPowers points: a) and b) I do respect some contributions he has made to actual articles, and that point has been stressed over and over to him many times by many users, far more than most contributors ever hear about, but I really believe the community has pretty much run out of respect for him because respect has to be reciprocal, and EE has pretty blatant disregard for the way the community works. c) I wouldn't even know how to count all the chances we have given him-- so many that we even refused his own ban self-nomination a few weeks ago. We need to draw the line somewhere, and maybe if we get serious and force it on him it might actually cause him to figure out what he is doing to cause such problems, rather than telling himself he is just staying away to appease unreasonable people who don't understand him. [[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 10:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 
*'''Support'''. I like LtPowers idea of a formal request to voluntarily step away, but I'm skeptical that EE would abide by it. He's indicated he will take a break from the site or certain activities (policy discussions for example) in the past and always come back very quickly. He's very wound up right now and has a strong attachment to this site, I think we should make the break for him. He has made valuable contributions in the past and, hopefully, after some time away, he will do so again. [[User:Shaund|Shaund]] 10:38, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
*'''Support'''. I like LtPowers idea of a formal request to voluntarily step away, but I'm skeptical that EE would abide by it. He's indicated he will take a break from the site or certain activities (policy discussions for example) in the past and always come back very quickly. He's very wound up right now and has a strong attachment to this site, I think we should make the break for him. He has made valuable contributions in the past and, hopefully, after some time away, he will do so again. [[User:Shaund|Shaund]] 10:38, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 
*'''Neutral'''.  I think a one-month ban is unprecedented and really harsh, but stunts like his current user page and the fact that he hasn't contributed anything sensible for over a week are doing a really good job of eroding any remaining sympathy, and I don't really have any better ideas at this point.  However, I think it's important to stress that this block's purpose is to cool down the situation, and that he is welcome back afterwards ''if'' he wants to contribute positively to the site. [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] 10:53, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
*'''Neutral'''.  I think a one-month ban is unprecedented and really harsh, but stunts like his current user page and the fact that he hasn't contributed anything sensible for over a week are doing a really good job of eroding any remaining sympathy, and I don't really have any better ideas at this point.  However, I think it's important to stress that this block's purpose is to cool down the situation, and that he is welcome back afterwards ''if'' he wants to contribute positively to the site. [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] 10:53, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 
*'''Oppose -> Support'''. How about giving EE one last chance? We clearly state the parameters where he can focus his efforts (eg: Edmonton and western Canada), and at the same time stipulate that a one month ban will be automatically implemented if he breaks the terms. Personally, I prefer not to see any one banned unless absolutely necessary, and EE does have the potential to be a productive contributor. [[User:WindHorse|WindHorse]] 11:07, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
*'''Oppose -> Support'''. How about giving EE one last chance? We clearly state the parameters where he can focus his efforts (eg: Edmonton and western Canada), and at the same time stipulate that a one month ban will be automatically implemented if he breaks the terms. Personally, I prefer not to see any one banned unless absolutely necessary, and EE does have the potential to be a productive contributor. [[User:WindHorse|WindHorse]] 11:07, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  
 
* '''Strong Support'''. Texugo pretty much echoes my sentiments. We could go on for years "giving one more chance" to figure it out on his own, every time another gf user pleas for it on his behalf... I like that we have a compassionate side, but it's been abused in an spectacular way. From very early on with EE it was clear that his main interest here has not been in writing travel guides, but in sparking community interaction by any means necessary, including asking, pleading, coaxing, harrassing, insulting it out of us. One after another we took turns trying to mentor him and get him on the right track, in an ''unprecedented'' way... He received 200x as much attention and guidance as any other user I've ever seen here. In retrospect, I think this has worked to our disadvantage. If EE is a serious user, he has to really try to understand that our community doesn't really work that way... we're all just volunteers, working largely on our own, unnoticed, and with a minimal amount of input from other editors when it's really necessary, or if they share your interest in a city. If he does come back to the site after a break, it should only be with this in mind. I personally am not interested in watching dozens more good contributors spend silly amounts of energy trying to guide someone to the light, when he already has been handed every map ever printed that will lead him there &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]]  <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 11:36, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
* '''Strong Support'''. Texugo pretty much echoes my sentiments. We could go on for years "giving one more chance" to figure it out on his own, every time another gf user pleas for it on his behalf... I like that we have a compassionate side, but it's been abused in an spectacular way. From very early on with EE it was clear that his main interest here has not been in writing travel guides, but in sparking community interaction by any means necessary, including asking, pleading, coaxing, harrassing, insulting it out of us. One after another we took turns trying to mentor him and get him on the right track, in an ''unprecedented'' way... He received 200x as much attention and guidance as any other user I've ever seen here. In retrospect, I think this has worked to our disadvantage. If EE is a serious user, he has to really try to understand that our community doesn't really work that way... we're all just volunteers, working largely on our own, unnoticed, and with a minimal amount of input from other editors when it's really necessary, or if they share your interest in a city. If he does come back to the site after a break, it should only be with this in mind. I personally am not interested in watching dozens more good contributors spend silly amounts of energy trying to guide someone to the light, when he already has been handed every map ever printed that will lead him there &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]]  <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 11:36, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 
* '''Support'''. While I would like to support the compassionate side of this issue with Windhorse, I think that Jpatokal and Peter, who have been patient, along with others, may have never had the benefit that I have had, of raising two sons. Once you raise some children, you may take a different outlook on someone like EE. It appears to me that his participation has been at the expense of somewhat long term relationships that had been developed by outstanding contributors over a long period of time. So, in my opinion EE, like any child with behavioral problems must be taught the price of misbehavior, after so many warnings which seem to only feed his problem. So I am in favor of a one month ban and total ban if his behavior does not improve to a point where he is no longer a distraction to the other contributors. [[User:2old|2old]] 12:21, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
* '''Support'''. While I would like to support the compassionate side of this issue with Windhorse, I think that Jpatokal and Peter, who have been patient, along with others, may have never had the benefit that I have had, of raising two sons. Once you raise some children, you may take a different outlook on someone like EE. It appears to me that his participation has been at the expense of somewhat long term relationships that had been developed by outstanding contributors over a long period of time. So, in my opinion EE, like any child with behavioral problems must be taught the price of misbehavior, after so many warnings which seem to only feed his problem. So I am in favor of a one month ban and total ban if his behavior does not improve to a point where he is no longer a distraction to the other contributors. [[User:2old|2old]] 12:21, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 
*'''Neutral'''. I really had hoped it would not come to this. While I don't think any of us can really criticise the contributions Ee has made to most of the guide articles he's worked on, I have to agree that some of his recent behaviour on user pages has been borderline to wrong. I think it's important to note the way his contrib log shows a tailing off of guide work and more user and user talk entries... If this were not the case, I would be more inclined to oppose, but he's really not helped himself. On the other hand I don't feel I can support the ban either. I am not trying to make any accusations on any individual, but lately I do feel certain users have, perhaps, been overly harsh on Ee. Sadly, I don't think this is has been as productive as hoped and is probably more likely to provoked Ee somewhat. 2old, you mention children... While I don't have any of my own, I've grown up around enough to spot that many children see things like "Don't do that" or "No" as a challenge (not saying they all do). It was probably inevitable that a situation like this would eventually arise - human nature and a collaborative environment really can't do anything other than head toward it. What we have to be very careful of here is that this case will probably set a precedent which could come back to haunt us! Ee, if you read this I stongly suggest that you take down your user page as that is starting to go too far now (and I'm loathe to blank it or ask an admin to do so given the current debate on that matter) and that you either promise to take a 1 month break from the project; and when you return to keep to working on guides and slowly become involved in further aspects of the site over time; and most importantly listen to and act on the advice that you are given. [[User:Nrms|Nrms]] 12:48, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
*'''Neutral'''. I really had hoped it would not come to this. While I don't think any of us can really criticise the contributions Ee has made to most of the guide articles he's worked on, I have to agree that some of his recent behaviour on user pages has been borderline to wrong. I think it's important to note the way his contrib log shows a tailing off of guide work and more user and user talk entries... If this were not the case, I would be more inclined to oppose, but he's really not helped himself. On the other hand I don't feel I can support the ban either. I am not trying to make any accusations on any individual, but lately I do feel certain users have, perhaps, been overly harsh on Ee. Sadly, I don't think this is has been as productive as hoped and is probably more likely to provoked Ee somewhat. 2old, you mention children... While I don't have any of my own, I've grown up around enough to spot that many children see things like "Don't do that" or "No" as a challenge (not saying they all do). It was probably inevitable that a situation like this would eventually arise - human nature and a collaborative environment really can't do anything other than head toward it. What we have to be very careful of here is that this case will probably set a precedent which could come back to haunt us! Ee, if you read this I stongly suggest that you take down your user page as that is starting to go too far now (and I'm loathe to blank it or ask an admin to do so given the current debate on that matter) and that you either promise to take a 1 month break from the project; and when you return to keep to working on guides and slowly become involved in further aspects of the site over time; and most importantly listen to and act on the advice that you are given. [[User:Nrms|Nrms]] 12:48, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 
*'''Support''' The current state of things, should give a clear cut indication of how harmfull EE has been to the site, far more so than the positive contributions done. I can't think of any approach that haven't been tried, so reluctant as i am, this seem to be the only road we haven't travelled. [[User:Sertmann|Stefan (sertmann)]] 14:04, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
*'''Support''' The current state of things, should give a clear cut indication of how harmfull EE has been to the site, far more so than the positive contributions done. I can't think of any approach that haven't been tried, so reluctant as i am, this seem to be the only road we haven't travelled. [[User:Sertmann|Stefan (sertmann)]] 14:04, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
**Sertmann?  [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 14:06, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
**Sertmann?  [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 14:06, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
::: Indeed [[User:Sertmann|Stefan (sertmann)]]  14:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
::: Indeed [[User:Sertmann|Stefan (sertmann)]]  14:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 
*'''Support'''  There are two possibilities, either the whole wild swinging from hyper-friendly to hyper-aggressive is just a troll, or EE's is who his says he is.  In case 1, the reasons for my support are evident.  In case 2, I agree with the reasoning of [[User:2old|2old]]. --[[User:Inas|Inas]] 17:16, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
*'''Support'''  There are two possibilities, either the whole wild swinging from hyper-friendly to hyper-aggressive is just a troll, or EE's is who his says he is.  In case 1, the reasons for my support are evident.  In case 2, I agree with the reasoning of [[User:2old|2old]]. --[[User:Inas|Inas]] 17:16, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 
::I am who I say I am.  I can't really do anything more to convince you - it's all about believing.  Like I believe you are who ya say ya are.  [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 17:51, 12 January 2009 (EST).
 
::I am who I say I am.  I can't really do anything more to convince you - it's all about believing.  Like I believe you are who ya say ya are.  [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 17:51, 12 January 2009 (EST).
Well am I allowed to comment on this or will someone just revert it?  Basically on one side I totally guessed the people who would support this.  People like Shaund, I am surprised, but I guess you've shown your true colours.  In any rate, I am glad that you guys are discussing this thoughtfully and everything.  The common theme I see is that you don't see my side.  If you had a similar situation - I am sure AT LEAST half of you would be "out of control" as I am.  Again I haven't meant no harm to this site but this is getting out of control.  People said I have set limits to myself - yes I have - then you say I quickly go back - yes, I do - I never said it would be seven and a half months.  Others say I don't take breaks - what are ya a spy?  Seriously you don't know if I take a break from the site - which i have.  Previous to the recent stuff, I only patrolled the Edmonton articles for like a week and a half.  I was taking a break because I lost motivation.  I still don't have motivation.  Why?  Look how nice you guys are being to me, overall.  Although, some of you have made a good point, banning me will only make the situation worse, as have previous bans.  Jpatokal has not aggravated me and has helped me on some cases, so I don't see where you get ideas that are against that.  A couple times he bugged me, but yeah, it's over with that.  The only people I have a problem with are Peter and Cacahuate.  You guys, just look at where I'm coming from - if you had the same thing happen, you probably would be angry too.  In any rate, it would be really nice to have this kept for reference n what not.  I hope you realize, unlike some contributors, I will show my feelings and will actually get angry and not like some who can be ridiculed without any care.  Anyways, I will let the conversation of this continue, and later on I will tell you what I think as I am still thinking things and also want to see more opinions.  So, for now, '''Neutral'''.  [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 16:28, 12 January 2009 (EST).
 
  
:We won't revert this comment, you've said your piece, people know where you're coming from. I'll trust that you will help to keep this page focused and concise though, I appreciate your willingness to think things through more before any further comments. Also, fyi, it's not customary for users to vote on their own nomination of any sort on a wiki :) &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]]  <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 17:04, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
::Hi Cacahuate.  Just cause it isnt normal doesn't mean it can't change.  Anyways, I have seen many noms where the bannie talks their opinion on the thing.  That is kind of what I am doing.  I also want to think things over about the fact if I want to maybe make a deal, do something someone said, ask for another chance, do the 1 month ban, do a permanent ban, and all that jambo.  [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 17:49, 12 January 2009 (EST).
 
:::If you have an alternative ("a deal") for us, we are most certainly willing to listen.  I think we would all prefer it if a different path was available to us. -- [[User:Cjensen|Colin]] 21:09, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
::::Yes I understand and I '''do''' have one but me saying it may get people to think that's what I really want to happen which I am still unsure of.  So, please, lemme think.  [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 23:17, 12 January 2009 (EST).
 
 
*Neutral.  I haven't been following the user's contributions carefully enough to have a strong opinion.  I wanted to express my appreciation though, for this discussion, which is well-reasoned.  I also wanted to express a little regret that things have come to this.  My user page used to say, "I am one of Wikitravel's  administrators. This gives me several powers, some of which (e.g. blocking IP addresses, protecting pages) Wikitravel prides itself on never using."  I changed "never" to "rarely" at some point.  Guess I'd better get rid of the whole sentence.  --[[User:Jonboy|Jonboy]] 18:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
*Neutral.  I haven't been following the user's contributions carefully enough to have a strong opinion.  I wanted to express my appreciation though, for this discussion, which is well-reasoned.  I also wanted to express a little regret that things have come to this.  My user page used to say, "I am one of Wikitravel's  administrators. This gives me several powers, some of which (e.g. blocking IP addresses, protecting pages) Wikitravel prides itself on never using."  I changed "never" to "rarely" at some point.  Guess I'd better get rid of the whole sentence.  --[[User:Jonboy|Jonboy]] 18:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  
Line 38: Line 44:
  
 
:::I'm mystified by how anyone who's taken a responsible reading of this situation could think that a single question of EE's has not been answered. Follow the talk pages and edit summaries, and it's all there. When he gets an answer he doesn't like, he carries on as if he hasn't received an answer. It's that simple. Has anyone looked at the amount of valid information that EE has deleted from [[Edmonton]] today alone? It's not an isolated occurrence. If this ban doesn't pass, it's on those who opposed it to take over dealing with EE, full-time, and not just when it reaches the unprecedented level of a user ban nomination. [[User:Gorilla Jones|Gorilla Jones]] 01:02, 13 January 2009 (EST)
 
:::I'm mystified by how anyone who's taken a responsible reading of this situation could think that a single question of EE's has not been answered. Follow the talk pages and edit summaries, and it's all there. When he gets an answer he doesn't like, he carries on as if he hasn't received an answer. It's that simple. Has anyone looked at the amount of valid information that EE has deleted from [[Edmonton]] today alone? It's not an isolated occurrence. If this ban doesn't pass, it's on those who opposed it to take over dealing with EE, full-time, and not just when it reaches the unprecedented level of a user ban nomination. [[User:Gorilla Jones|Gorilla Jones]] 01:02, 13 January 2009 (EST)
::::Well, maybe you really haven't checked.  I don't feel like turing this into a big debatacle and make it all against certain person so I won't.  But quite frankly, there have been a lot of reverts I don't think you, Gorilla, notice some of my questions are truly unanswered.  Some have answers, but they do little to explain, and I ask further and it is reverted.  Of course I'm gonna get angry.  Gorilla - you don't know nearly as much about Edmonton as I do and I know what is valid and what is not.  I am not doing if for anything but to create a good guide.  The stuff I deleted from there, some ''was'' valid and if you have any questions as to why I deleted stuff, please don't hesitate to ask me in my talk page where we can have a discussion, okay?  If you don't want to participate, Gorilla, go back to your patrolling and whatever else.  [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 11:11, 13 January 2009 (EST).
 
:::::EE, let me teach you about the First Rule of Holes, which says: "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."  Your comment above does an excellent job of demonstrating all of your worst traits: it's a) irrelevant to the actual discussion at hand, b) interprets criticism as a personal attack, and c) blames other people for your own failure to understand and follow even basic, fundamental site rules like "be civil" and "do not edit war". [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] 11:46, 13 January 2009 (EST)
 
::::::Jani, let me teach you that it is not just me.  I just said for Gorilla to continue this off topic discussion in my talk page, if he had any further questions.  I have not presented personal attacks in that post, what, "go back to patrolling, etc." is an attack?  C'mon - I am just saying if he wants to he can go back, nobodies forcin' him.  I don't '''blame''' other people.  I just let other people know my side, and sometimes, sorry to break it to ya, it isn't just me involved - I know, as shocking as it is.  Jani, like Gorilla, if you need to discuss this further, as you yourself are going off topic, please feel free to discuss it in my talk page.  '''Now let's get back on topic, thankyou.'''  [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 11:54, 13 January 2009 (EST).
 
  
:::That noise you hear is EE sucking you further into this black hole of a debate. I suggest the consensus is overwhelming, ban him for a month and get it over, before he sucks you senseless. [[User:2old|2old]] 12:42, 13 January 2009 (EST)
 
:::::What are you talking about?  And you say I'm abusive?  Come on and quit making crap up. Let us bring this back on topic. [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 17:50, 13 January 2009 (EST).
 
 
::::::2old, if people were getting off topic and talking about you in an irrelevant place, don't you think the polite thing to do is to say to continue this on my talk page and get back on topic?  What do you expect me to say?  All I am doing is trying to help this by telling people to get back on topic.  I am not "dualing" or "arguing" for a debate or anything, I do not see where you get this pile of crap from.  I am just being sincere and polite by asking them if they want to continue this discussion to do so in my talk page.  Would you rather me just say Shut up and get back on topic?  Pull-eeze.  If you did had the same problem going on, I wouldn't be mean to you or try and get ('''once again''', yes, everytime you talk about me it's negative) people against me or anything.  So please, try to be nice and if you have negativity towards me, do something that I can't do, be '''polite''' about it.  I think I've made it very clear.  I don't wanna be an ass, but if you make another negative comment like that which is so far from the truth, I will revert it.  Wow - this got longer than I wanted - but I hope my point's clear.  Now we are '''seriously''' off topic, so if you have any more questions, 2old, ask me in my talk page, not here.  You know, sometimes I feel you know (people here in general) what will get this off topic and you do that, and then when i reply to that and say to continue in my talk page, you say mean stuff about me or say that comment was useless or whatever.  That's just plain mean.  Once again ---- '''Back on topic'''.  [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 18:01, 13 January 2009 (EST).
 
  
 
* '''Support'''.  I'm not a fan of bans for a number of reasons, but EE is either a very persistent troll or he is for some reason incapable of interacting normally with others and in either case would benefit from time away from the site.  Comments such as the one below about restoring his inflammatory user page (amongst many, many others) indicate a complete inability to deal with conflicts in a reasonable manner.  The [[Edmonton]] articles are much better due to his attention, but for the sake of the Wikitravel community and EE's mental well-being he needs a forced break from editing here. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 17:05, 14 January 2009 (EST)
 
* '''Support'''.  I'm not a fan of bans for a number of reasons, but EE is either a very persistent troll or he is for some reason incapable of interacting normally with others and in either case would benefit from time away from the site.  Comments such as the one below about restoring his inflammatory user page (amongst many, many others) indicate a complete inability to deal with conflicts in a reasonable manner.  The [[Edmonton]] articles are much better due to his attention, but for the sake of the Wikitravel community and EE's mental well-being he needs a forced break from editing here. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 17:05, 14 January 2009 (EST)
Line 52: Line 51:
 
::Seriously, detach yourself from others' comments.  I'm afraid that you're taking comments on here way to seriously.  I like you and I haven't ever met you, but I'm worried after reading many of your comments that you take others' comments on here '''way too seriously.'''  None of these comments should make you angry or whatever.  If someone comes across as rude, just ignore it.  Move on.  That's what I do.  Whenever my roommate and I start joking around and he takes it to a completely unexpected and impolite level, I just ignore him.  I live with the guy and I am good friends with him, because I can ignore his occasionally stupid comments.  You're inability to stop commenting and take things personally worries me that you will be unable to relax. -- [[User:Sapphire|Sapphire]] • <small>([[User_talk:Sapphire|Talk]])</small> • 18:41, 14 January 2009 (EST)
 
::Seriously, detach yourself from others' comments.  I'm afraid that you're taking comments on here way to seriously.  I like you and I haven't ever met you, but I'm worried after reading many of your comments that you take others' comments on here '''way too seriously.'''  None of these comments should make you angry or whatever.  If someone comes across as rude, just ignore it.  Move on.  That's what I do.  Whenever my roommate and I start joking around and he takes it to a completely unexpected and impolite level, I just ignore him.  I live with the guy and I am good friends with him, because I can ignore his occasionally stupid comments.  You're inability to stop commenting and take things personally worries me that you will be unable to relax. -- [[User:Sapphire|Sapphire]] • <small>([[User_talk:Sapphire|Talk]])</small> • 18:41, 14 January 2009 (EST)
  
== Summary ==
+
== [[User:edmontonenthusiast|EE's]] response==
  
Consensus seems to be leaning towards a ban.
+
Well am I allowed to comment on this or will someone just revert it?  Basically on one side I totally guessed the people who would support this.  People like Shaund, I am surprised, but I guess you've shown your true colours.  In any rate, I am glad that you guys are discussing this thoughtfully and everything.  The common theme I see is that you don't see my side.  If you had a similar situation - I am sure AT LEAST half of you would be "out of control" as I am.  Again I haven't meant no harm to this site but this is getting out of control.  People said I have set limits to myself - yes I have - then you say I quickly go back - yes, I do - I never said it would be seven and a half months.  Others say I don't take breaks - what are ya a spy?  Seriously you don't know if I take a break from the site - which i have.  Previous to the recent stuff, I only patrolled the Edmonton articles for like a week and a half.  I was taking a break because I lost motivation.  I still don't have motivation.  Why?  Look how nice you guys are being to me, overall.  Although, some of you have made a good point, banning me will only make the situation worse, as have previous bans.  Jpatokal has not aggravated me and has helped me on some cases, so I don't see where you get ideas that are against that.  A couple times he bugged me, but yeah, it's over with that.  The only people I have a problem with are Peter and Cacahuate.  You guys, just look at where I'm coming from - if you had the same thing happen, you probably would be angry too.  In any rate, it would be really nice to have this kept for reference n what not.  I hope you realize, unlike some contributors, I will show my feelings and will actually get angry and not like some who can be ridiculed without any care.  Anyways, I will let the conversation of this continue, and later on I will tell you what I think as I am still thinking things and also want to see more opinions.  So, for now, '''Neutral'''.  [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 16:28, 12 January 2009 (EST).
  
The current (moderate) dissent comes from [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] and [[User:Windhorse|Windhorse]].  I believe their objections would be met at this point by a request for the user to have a voluntary break from the site, rather than an enforced one, for one month.   Should that voluntary break not occur, however, we would need to proceed to the next step of a ban.
+
:We won't revert this comment, you've said your piece, people know where you're coming from. I'll trust that you will help to keep this page focused and concise though, I appreciate your willingness to think things through more before any further comments. Also, fyi, it's not customary for users to vote on their own nomination of any sort on a wiki :) &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]]  <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 17:04, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
+
::Hi Cacahuate.  Just cause it isnt normal doesn't mean it can't change.  Anyways, I have seen many noms where the bannie talks their opinion on the thing.  That is kind of what I am doing.  I also want to think things over about the fact if I want to maybe make a deal, do something someone said, ask for another chance, do the 1 month ban, do a permanent ban, and all that jambo.  [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 17:49, 12 January 2009 (EST).
Does this position hold any objectors (other than the user)? - Request voluntary break from editing for one month. Follow up with one month ban should this not occur?  --[[User:Inas|Inas]] 17:21, 13 January 2009 (EST)
+
:::If you have an alternative ("a deal") for us, we are most certainly willing to listen. I think we would all prefer it if a different path was available to us. -- [[User:Cjensen|Colin]] 21:09, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
+
::::Yes I understand and I '''do''' have one but me saying it may get people to think that's what I really want to happen which I am still unsure of.  So, please, lemme think. [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 23:17, 12 January 2009 (EST).
:I have no objections to that; though perhaps a forced voluntary retreat is the same as a ban and should just be such so that it's on record in his block log. But I'm fine either way &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]]  <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 19:25, 13 January 2009 (EST)
 
 
 
:No objections, I think we're as close to consensus as we'll ever get on thisHowever, I think a self-enforced "retreat" would be preferable to a ban and should not be considered one, since if voluntarily maintained, it would at least show good faith on EE's part. [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] 22:21, 13 January 2009 (EST)
 
 
 
::So, do the three of you want to change from support/neutral to oppose? I'm a little at a lost on this? -- [[User:Sapphire|Sapphire]] • <small>([[User_talk:Sapphire|Talk]])</small> • 15:45, 14 January 2009 (EST)
 
 
 
:::Of course not. I suppose we're now just deciding if the block button is going to be pushed at the 3 day mark, or if EE is going to be asked to take a 1 month leave voluntarily. I don't think that EE's actions over the past 2 days have shown any move towards reasonability, or any progress with getting in tune with community practices, and still feel swayed towards an outright block. Also consider that if he doesn't stay away for a month, we're back to having to draw everyone into this again to discuss the next step &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 16:10, 14 January 2009 (EST)
 
 
 
=== [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|Edmontonenthusiast]] objection because his does not fit the criteria of the earlier for some reason===
 
  
 
:I object for two reasons:
 
:I object for two reasons:
Line 81: Line 71:
 
::::::Just to show me you actually have a heart and give me some time.  Look below - I posted it because you guys were being impatient about it.  [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 12:28, 14 January 2009 (EST).
 
::::::Just to show me you actually have a heart and give me some time.  Look below - I posted it because you guys were being impatient about it.  [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 12:28, 14 January 2009 (EST).
  
==Some ideas from moi==
 
 
My ideas:
 
My ideas:
 
:1) Ask me to not log in but to still be able to work on the site anonymously, this would make me less likely to go into discussion outside of say Talk:Edmonton, Talk:Edmonton/Old Strathcona-University, etc.  The only time should I be allowed to go online is if there is a problem (i.e. technically).  This would be in effect for 1 entire month.  If I am caught posting in an account without a good reason (i.e. question me before making claims) then you formally block me from the site in every way for  1 month.
 
:1) Ask me to not log in but to still be able to work on the site anonymously, this would make me less likely to go into discussion outside of say Talk:Edmonton, Talk:Edmonton/Old Strathcona-University, etc.  The only time should I be allowed to go online is if there is a problem (i.e. technically).  This would be in effect for 1 entire month.  If I am caught posting in an account without a good reason (i.e. question me before making claims) then you formally block me from the site in every way for  1 month.
Line 116: Line 105:
 
::You are, once again, conflating criticism of the way you interact with other people with a personal attack, a rejection of you personally and of your work.  How many times have you been told that your work on this site is commendable?  How many?  Yet you still say stuff like "If you don't want my help on articles".  '''''On the contrary''''', had you restricted your interaction to articles, we wouldn't be here right now.  Instead, you a) begged for attention, b) overwhelmed the site with your questions and requests for advice and assistance, c) consistently failed to take that advice and assistance when it came to interacting with others, d) were rude to new users when they did something slightly wrong, and e) overreacted completely whenever anyone said anything the least bit critical.  You are doing it again -- overreacting at the slightest criticism.  People got tired of your reactions, so they started ignoring you.  Then you were persistent in asking why people were ignoring you, so they started reverting you.  Then you were persistent about restoring your text, so they started blocking you.  And now we're here, and you still haven't learned how to interact well with others.  (Hint: threatening people with "I'm going to badmouth your work" is ''childish'' in the extreme.)  [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 19:02, 14 January 2009 (EST)
 
::You are, once again, conflating criticism of the way you interact with other people with a personal attack, a rejection of you personally and of your work.  How many times have you been told that your work on this site is commendable?  How many?  Yet you still say stuff like "If you don't want my help on articles".  '''''On the contrary''''', had you restricted your interaction to articles, we wouldn't be here right now.  Instead, you a) begged for attention, b) overwhelmed the site with your questions and requests for advice and assistance, c) consistently failed to take that advice and assistance when it came to interacting with others, d) were rude to new users when they did something slightly wrong, and e) overreacted completely whenever anyone said anything the least bit critical.  You are doing it again -- overreacting at the slightest criticism.  People got tired of your reactions, so they started ignoring you.  Then you were persistent in asking why people were ignoring you, so they started reverting you.  Then you were persistent about restoring your text, so they started blocking you.  And now we're here, and you still haven't learned how to interact well with others.  (Hint: threatening people with "I'm going to badmouth your work" is ''childish'' in the extreme.)  [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 19:02, 14 January 2009 (EST)
 
:So Peter and Cacahuate (I am sick of not saying their names, they need to be heard) were write in reverting my questions '''that would only help me further?'''  I still can't get over how if a user is respectable that means they cannot do anything wrong at all because they are divine on this website for some stupid reason.  Seriously, what they did was unbelieveably rude.  Sure, I wasn't able to let it go, but that is how I am but they couldn't reply even one time?  '''Come on.'''  [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 19:23, 14 January 2009 (EST).
 
:So Peter and Cacahuate (I am sick of not saying their names, they need to be heard) were write in reverting my questions '''that would only help me further?'''  I still can't get over how if a user is respectable that means they cannot do anything wrong at all because they are divine on this website for some stupid reason.  Seriously, what they did was unbelieveably rude.  Sure, I wasn't able to let it go, but that is how I am but they couldn't reply even one time?  '''Come on.'''  [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 19:23, 14 January 2009 (EST).
 +
 +
::::Well, maybe you really haven't checked.  I don't feel like turing this into a big debatacle and make it all against certain person so I won't.  But quite frankly, there have been a lot of reverts I don't think you, Gorilla, notice some of my questions are truly unanswered.  Some have answers, but they do little to explain, and I ask further and it is reverted.  Of course I'm gonna get angry.  Gorilla - you don't know nearly as much about Edmonton as I do and I know what is valid and what is not.  I am not doing if for anything but to create a good guide.  The stuff I deleted from there, some ''was'' valid and if you have any questions as to why I deleted stuff, please don't hesitate to ask me in my talk page where we can have a discussion, okay?  If you don't want to participate, Gorilla, go back to your patrolling and whatever else.  [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 11:11, 13 January 2009 (EST).
 +
 +
:::::EE, let me teach you about the First Rule of Holes, which says: "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."  Your comment above does an excellent job of demonstrating all of your worst traits: it's a) irrelevant to the actual discussion at hand, b) interprets criticism as a personal attack, and c) blames other people for your own failure to understand and follow even basic, fundamental site rules like "be civil" and "do not edit war". [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] 11:46, 13 January 2009 (EST)
 +
::::::Jani, let me teach you that it is not just me.  I just said for Gorilla to continue this off topic discussion in my talk page, if he had any further questions.  I have not presented personal attacks in that post, what, "go back to patrolling, etc." is an attack?  C'mon - I am just saying if he wants to he can go back, nobodies forcin' him.  I don't '''blame''' other people.  I just let other people know my side, and sometimes, sorry to break it to ya, it isn't just me involved - I know, as shocking as it is.  Jani, like Gorilla, if you need to discuss this further, as you yourself are going off topic, please feel free to discuss it in my talk page.  '''Now let's get back on topic, thankyou.'''  [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 11:54, 13 January 2009 (EST).
 +
 +
:::That noise you hear is EE sucking you further into this black hole of a debate. I suggest the consensus is overwhelming, ban him for a month and get it over, before he sucks you senseless. [[User:2old|2old]] 12:42, 13 January 2009 (EST)
 +
:::::What are you talking about?  And you say I'm abusive?  Come on and quit making crap up. Let us bring this back on topic. [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 17:50, 13 January 2009 (EST).
 +
 +
::::::2old, if people were getting off topic and talking about you in an irrelevant place, don't you think the polite thing to do is to say to continue this on my talk page and get back on topic?  What do you expect me to say?  All I am doing is trying to help this by telling people to get back on topic.  I am not "dualing" or "arguing" for a debate or anything, I do not see where you get this pile of crap from.  I am just being sincere and polite by asking them if they want to continue this discussion to do so in my talk page.  Would you rather me just say Shut up and get back on topic?  Pull-eeze.  If you did had the same problem going on, I wouldn't be mean to you or try and get ('''once again''', yes, everytime you talk about me it's negative) people against me or anything.  So please, try to be nice and if you have negativity towards me, do something that I can't do, be '''polite''' about it.  I think I've made it very clear.  I don't wanna be an ass, but if you make another negative comment like that which is so far from the truth, I will revert it.  Wow - this got longer than I wanted - but I hope my point's clear.  Now we are '''seriously''' off topic, so if you have any more questions, 2old, ask me in my talk page, not here.  You know, sometimes I feel you know (people here in general) what will get this off topic and you do that, and then when i reply to that and say to continue in my talk page, you say mean stuff about me or say that comment was useless or whatever.  That's just plain mean.  Once again ---- '''Back on topic'''.  [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 18:01, 13 January 2009 (EST).
 +
 +
 +
 +
== Summary ==
 +
{{warningbox|EE Please limit your input to the appropriate section above, you are (as usual) derailing the discussion, I will revert or move any comments by you made in this summary section --[[User:Sertmann|Stefan (sertmann)]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Sertmann|Talk]]</sup></small> 21:17, 14 January 2009 (EST)}}
 +
 +
Consensus seems to be leaning towards a ban.
 +
 +
The current (moderate) dissent comes from [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] and [[User:Windhorse|Windhorse]].  I believe their objections would be met at this point by a request for the user to have a voluntary break from the site, rather than an enforced one, for one month.  Should that voluntary break not occur, however, we would need to proceed to the next step of a ban.
 +
 +
Does this position hold any objectors (other than the user)? - Request voluntary break from editing for one month.  Follow up with one month ban should this not occur?  --[[User:Inas|Inas]] 17:21, 13 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
:I have no objections to that; though perhaps a forced voluntary retreat is the same as a ban and should just be such so that it's on record in his block log. But I'm fine either way &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]]  <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 19:25, 13 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
:No objections, I think we're as close to consensus as we'll ever get on this.  However, I think a self-enforced "retreat" would be preferable to a ban and should not be considered one, since if voluntarily maintained, it would at least show good faith on EE's part. [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] 22:21, 13 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
::So, do the three of you want to change from support/neutral to oppose?  I'm a little at a lost on this? -- [[User:Sapphire|Sapphire]] • <small>([[User_talk:Sapphire|Talk]])</small> • 15:45, 14 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
:::Of course not. I suppose we're now just deciding if the block button is going to be pushed at the 3 day mark, or if EE is going to be asked to take a 1 month leave voluntarily. I don't think that EE's actions over the past 2 days have shown any move towards reasonability, or any progress with getting in tune with community practices, and still feel swayed towards an outright block. Also consider that if he doesn't stay away for a month, we're back to having to draw everyone into this again to discuss the next step &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]]  <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 16:10, 14 January 2009 (EST)
 +
  
 
== Thanks ==
 
== Thanks ==

Revision as of 02:21, 15 January 2009

Add nominations for user blocks to the list below, but please do so only after reviewing Wikitravel:How to handle unwanted edits. In general the preferred way of handling problem users is through the use of soft security. In the case of automated spam attacks the Wikitravel:Spam filter can also be a valuable tool for stopping unwanted edits.

For a history of older nominations see Wikitravel:User ban nominations/Archive.

User:Edmontonenthusiast

I nominate this user for a one month ban. The user has trouble understanding various policies but has been unwilling to help themselves, preferring instead to ask for help. This formerly useful and helpful contributor has been reduced to working on nothing within the guide preferring instead to vent at people he sees as his opponents rather than just trying to work things out. As this is a community project, being able to work things out with others is quite simply a prerequisite which the user is now failing at. I believe the user should be given some time away from this project. If he then wishes to return and work collaboratively while ignoring stuff he might not like, then he would be most welcome.

  • Nominated -- Colin 04:34, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Support. Please note the archive of his talk page at User:Peterfitzgerald/EEarchive, lest anyone think that this is a recent phenomenon or that good faith efforts have not been made. Phrases like "before I crack", "You can do whatever the hell you want I am not gonna attempt to control you like you do me", and the whole of his current user page indicate a profoundly unhealthy relationship with this site. He needs time away from it. Gorilla Jones 07:11, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Oppose, for now. According to Wikitravel:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban, user bans "are embarassing, because they are an admission that our community is not strong, patient, and professional enough to deal with unwanted edits using the simple freedom built into the Wiki way." As such, I recommend instead a formal request that EE voluntarily step away from the site for a period of time. Imposing a ban on him will only feed his developing persecution complex, whereas requesting a voluntary separation will a) show that we respect him and his contributions, b) treat him with the dignity he deserves as a fellow Wikitraveler, and c) provide him with an opportunity to prove that he can cooperate with us and exert self-control. Previously, any similar recommendations have been presented as just that -- recommendations. If we make it a formal request, as an alternative to this distasteful process of an actual ban, I hold out hope that it will get through to him. LtPowers 08:46, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Support -- EE has already been asked many times to step away from the site for a while, and has not really done so. Even when he has sworn in the past to stay out of anything but actual articles he has soon set exceptions for himself and subsequently come right back around to stirring up useless crap again. In response to LtPowers points: a) and b) I do respect some contributions he has made to actual articles, and that point has been stressed over and over to him many times by many users, far more than most contributors ever hear about, but I really believe the community has pretty much run out of respect for him because respect has to be reciprocal, and EE has pretty blatant disregard for the way the community works. c) I wouldn't even know how to count all the chances we have given him-- so many that we even refused his own ban self-nomination a few weeks ago. We need to draw the line somewhere, and maybe if we get serious and force it on him it might actually cause him to figure out what he is doing to cause such problems, rather than telling himself he is just staying away to appease unreasonable people who don't understand him. Texugo 10:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Support. I like LtPowers idea of a formal request to voluntarily step away, but I'm skeptical that EE would abide by it. He's indicated he will take a break from the site or certain activities (policy discussions for example) in the past and always come back very quickly. He's very wound up right now and has a strong attachment to this site, I think we should make the break for him. He has made valuable contributions in the past and, hopefully, after some time away, he will do so again. Shaund 10:38, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Neutral. I think a one-month ban is unprecedented and really harsh, but stunts like his current user page and the fact that he hasn't contributed anything sensible for over a week are doing a really good job of eroding any remaining sympathy, and I don't really have any better ideas at this point. However, I think it's important to stress that this block's purpose is to cool down the situation, and that he is welcome back afterwards if he wants to contribute positively to the site. Jpatokal 10:53, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Oppose -> Support. How about giving EE one last chance? We clearly state the parameters where he can focus his efforts (eg: Edmonton and western Canada), and at the same time stipulate that a one month ban will be automatically implemented if he breaks the terms. Personally, I prefer not to see any one banned unless absolutely necessary, and EE does have the potential to be a productive contributor. WindHorse 11:07, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Strong Support. Texugo pretty much echoes my sentiments. We could go on for years "giving one more chance" to figure it out on his own, every time another gf user pleas for it on his behalf... I like that we have a compassionate side, but it's been abused in an spectacular way. From very early on with EE it was clear that his main interest here has not been in writing travel guides, but in sparking community interaction by any means necessary, including asking, pleading, coaxing, harrassing, insulting it out of us. One after another we took turns trying to mentor him and get him on the right track, in an unprecedented way... He received 200x as much attention and guidance as any other user I've ever seen here. In retrospect, I think this has worked to our disadvantage. If EE is a serious user, he has to really try to understand that our community doesn't really work that way... we're all just volunteers, working largely on our own, unnoticed, and with a minimal amount of input from other editors when it's really necessary, or if they share your interest in a city. If he does come back to the site after a break, it should only be with this in mind. I personally am not interested in watching dozens more good contributors spend silly amounts of energy trying to guide someone to the light, when he already has been handed every map ever printed that will lead him there – cacahuate talk 11:36, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Support. While I would like to support the compassionate side of this issue with Windhorse, I think that Jpatokal and Peter, who have been patient, along with others, may have never had the benefit that I have had, of raising two sons. Once you raise some children, you may take a different outlook on someone like EE. It appears to me that his participation has been at the expense of somewhat long term relationships that had been developed by outstanding contributors over a long period of time. So, in my opinion EE, like any child with behavioral problems must be taught the price of misbehavior, after so many warnings which seem to only feed his problem. So I am in favor of a one month ban and total ban if his behavior does not improve to a point where he is no longer a distraction to the other contributors. 2old 12:21, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Neutral. I really had hoped it would not come to this. While I don't think any of us can really criticise the contributions Ee has made to most of the guide articles he's worked on, I have to agree that some of his recent behaviour on user pages has been borderline to wrong. I think it's important to note the way his contrib log shows a tailing off of guide work and more user and user talk entries... If this were not the case, I would be more inclined to oppose, but he's really not helped himself. On the other hand I don't feel I can support the ban either. I am not trying to make any accusations on any individual, but lately I do feel certain users have, perhaps, been overly harsh on Ee. Sadly, I don't think this is has been as productive as hoped and is probably more likely to provoked Ee somewhat. 2old, you mention children... While I don't have any of my own, I've grown up around enough to spot that many children see things like "Don't do that" or "No" as a challenge (not saying they all do). It was probably inevitable that a situation like this would eventually arise - human nature and a collaborative environment really can't do anything other than head toward it. What we have to be very careful of here is that this case will probably set a precedent which could come back to haunt us! Ee, if you read this I stongly suggest that you take down your user page as that is starting to go too far now (and I'm loathe to blank it or ask an admin to do so given the current debate on that matter) and that you either promise to take a 1 month break from the project; and when you return to keep to working on guides and slowly become involved in further aspects of the site over time; and most importantly listen to and act on the advice that you are given. Nrms 12:48, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Support The current state of things, should give a clear cut indication of how harmfull EE has been to the site, far more so than the positive contributions done. I can't think of any approach that haven't been tried, so reluctant as i am, this seem to be the only road we haven't travelled. Stefan (sertmann) 14:04, 12 January 2009 (EST)
    • Sertmann? LtPowers 14:06, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Indeed Stefan (sertmann) 14:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Support There are two possibilities, either the whole wild swinging from hyper-friendly to hyper-aggressive is just a troll, or EE's is who his says he is. In case 1, the reasons for my support are evident. In case 2, I agree with the reasoning of 2old. --Inas 17:16, 12 January 2009 (EST)
I am who I say I am. I can't really do anything more to convince you - it's all about believing. Like I believe you are who ya say ya are. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 17:51, 12 January 2009 (EST).
  • Neutral. I haven't been following the user's contributions carefully enough to have a strong opinion. I wanted to express my appreciation though, for this discussion, which is well-reasoned. I also wanted to express a little regret that things have come to this. My user page used to say, "I am one of Wikitravel's administrators. This gives me several powers, some of which (e.g. blocking IP addresses, protecting pages) Wikitravel prides itself on never using." I changed "never" to "rarely" at some point. Guess I'd better get rid of the whole sentence. --Jonboy 18:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)
  • Neutral, also. I've been doing my homework and I'm somewhat indecisive. He's been around for 2.5 months, so I understand when people get annoyed that he doesn't get it through his head. (Reminds me of Mainer2006/Traveler2006) But, I do see how easily I could get annoyed if no one responded to my questions/comments, but, then again, I can see how annoyed I, as an admin, would be if a persistently annoying person kept asking me the same damn questions over and not reading any of the policy pages I pointed to him on multiple occasions. Then again, if I were a user in his position, I'd either say 'fuck this' and leave or find something else to do on the site that was constructive and not time wasting. I'm also perplexed and uncomfortable by EE continuing to welcome new users despite obvious dissatisfaction with his behavior. I especially do not believe he should be welcoming users when he's had a history of abrasive comments toward others (I am not referring to anything he's said to admins, but to new users who, by accident, screwed something up). Finally, I, like Jonboy, am a little sad to see the Evan wiki philosophy die out. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 19:49, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Not even just dissatisfaction with behavior in general, but has specifically been asked at least 2 or 3 times not to welcome new users. This is a prime example of how pretty much everything falls on deaf ears. As for Evan's wiki philosophy, it's not dying out — just because you lose your virginity doesn't mean you have to move straight into the slutty phase of your life. We'll continue to have dignity, keep our legs closed, and engage with only the most persistent aggressors – cacahuate talk 22:06, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Anyone can change their user page to say whatever they like. We've certainly established that, with the diatribes against Peter and Cacahaute here. But I take strong exception to the idea that Wikitravel has abandoned its pride in rarely using blocks, and has now embraced some harsh new wiki philosophy. This user ban discussion has taken place over one day so far, but for the very small group of admins who do the day-to-day work on this site — spambots, patrolling recent changes, et al — this has taken place over more than two and a half months. We have taken pride in being welcoming and supportive beyond reproach. The vast majority of the burden of dealing with this user has been placed on a couple of admins, primarily Peter and Cacahaute. They signed up to be janitors, and instead they've spent two and a half months being therapists, guidance counselors, and targets of abuse from this user. To quote from elsewhere on this site, we're janitors, goddammit. What has any of this got to do with producing a travel guide? How many recent changes are going unpatrolled while we deal with this? There is an element of personal responsibility on EE's part for his own conduct that has been and continues to be completely ignored.
I'm mystified by how anyone who's taken a responsible reading of this situation could think that a single question of EE's has not been answered. Follow the talk pages and edit summaries, and it's all there. When he gets an answer he doesn't like, he carries on as if he hasn't received an answer. It's that simple. Has anyone looked at the amount of valid information that EE has deleted from Edmonton today alone? It's not an isolated occurrence. If this ban doesn't pass, it's on those who opposed it to take over dealing with EE, full-time, and not just when it reaches the unprecedented level of a user ban nomination. Gorilla Jones 01:02, 13 January 2009 (EST)


  • Support. I'm not a fan of bans for a number of reasons, but EE is either a very persistent troll or he is for some reason incapable of interacting normally with others and in either case would benefit from time away from the site. Comments such as the one below about restoring his inflammatory user page (amongst many, many others) indicate a complete inability to deal with conflicts in a reasonable manner. The Edmonton articles are much better due to his attention, but for the sake of the Wikitravel community and EE's mental well-being he needs a forced break from editing here. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:05, 14 January 2009 (EST)
What is that supposed to mean? I have a mental problem? Since I am so terrible, how should I handle this, Ryan, about my problems "below"? Huh? edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:34, 14 January 2009 (EST).
Seriously, detach yourself from others' comments. I'm afraid that you're taking comments on here way to seriously. I like you and I haven't ever met you, but I'm worried after reading many of your comments that you take others' comments on here way too seriously. None of these comments should make you angry or whatever. If someone comes across as rude, just ignore it. Move on. That's what I do. Whenever my roommate and I start joking around and he takes it to a completely unexpected and impolite level, I just ignore him. I live with the guy and I am good friends with him, because I can ignore his occasionally stupid comments. You're inability to stop commenting and take things personally worries me that you will be unable to relax. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 18:41, 14 January 2009 (EST)

EE's response

Well am I allowed to comment on this or will someone just revert it? Basically on one side I totally guessed the people who would support this. People like Shaund, I am surprised, but I guess you've shown your true colours. In any rate, I am glad that you guys are discussing this thoughtfully and everything. The common theme I see is that you don't see my side. If you had a similar situation - I am sure AT LEAST half of you would be "out of control" as I am. Again I haven't meant no harm to this site but this is getting out of control. People said I have set limits to myself - yes I have - then you say I quickly go back - yes, I do - I never said it would be seven and a half months. Others say I don't take breaks - what are ya a spy? Seriously you don't know if I take a break from the site - which i have. Previous to the recent stuff, I only patrolled the Edmonton articles for like a week and a half. I was taking a break because I lost motivation. I still don't have motivation. Why? Look how nice you guys are being to me, overall. Although, some of you have made a good point, banning me will only make the situation worse, as have previous bans. Jpatokal has not aggravated me and has helped me on some cases, so I don't see where you get ideas that are against that. A couple times he bugged me, but yeah, it's over with that. The only people I have a problem with are Peter and Cacahuate. You guys, just look at where I'm coming from - if you had the same thing happen, you probably would be angry too. In any rate, it would be really nice to have this kept for reference n what not. I hope you realize, unlike some contributors, I will show my feelings and will actually get angry and not like some who can be ridiculed without any care. Anyways, I will let the conversation of this continue, and later on I will tell you what I think as I am still thinking things and also want to see more opinions. So, for now, Neutral. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 16:28, 12 January 2009 (EST).

We won't revert this comment, you've said your piece, people know where you're coming from. I'll trust that you will help to keep this page focused and concise though, I appreciate your willingness to think things through more before any further comments. Also, fyi, it's not customary for users to vote on their own nomination of any sort on a wiki :) – cacahuate talk 17:04, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Hi Cacahuate. Just cause it isnt normal doesn't mean it can't change. Anyways, I have seen many noms where the bannie talks their opinion on the thing. That is kind of what I am doing. I also want to think things over about the fact if I want to maybe make a deal, do something someone said, ask for another chance, do the 1 month ban, do a permanent ban, and all that jambo. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 17:49, 12 January 2009 (EST).
If you have an alternative ("a deal") for us, we are most certainly willing to listen. I think we would all prefer it if a different path was available to us. -- Colin 21:09, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Yes I understand and I do have one but me saying it may get people to think that's what I really want to happen which I am still unsure of. So, please, lemme think. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 23:17, 12 January 2009 (EST).
I object for two reasons:
1) I still would like to see more opinions
2) I still want to think things over, as I have some ideas.

edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 17:51, 13 January 2009 (EST).

And I want a pony! Jpatokal 22:21, 13 January 2009 (EST)
What the hell? And you wonder why I get angry! Is this to torment me or just to make a joke? Either way it's innapropriate. Don't mock me and don't be arrogant. I have an opinion and as do you but I don't go around making you feel like an idiot or that your opinion doesn't count. the Golden Rule? edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 22:28, 13 January 2009 (EST).
This section is called "Objections", but you're not objecting to anything anybody has said, you just want a pony "more opinions" and to "think things over". Why should that sway any of us? Jpatokal 05:43, 14 January 2009 (EST)
Just to show me you actually have a heart and give me some time. Look below - I posted it because you guys were being impatient about it. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 12:28, 14 January 2009 (EST).

My ideas:

1) Ask me to not log in but to still be able to work on the site anonymously, this would make me less likely to go into discussion outside of say Talk:Edmonton, Talk:Edmonton/Old Strathcona-University, etc. The only time should I be allowed to go online is if there is a problem (i.e. technically). This would be in effect for 1 entire month. If I am caught posting in an account without a good reason (i.e. question me before making claims) then you formally block me from the site in every way for 1 month.
2) Give me, as others have said, 1 more chance. Simply that, just give me another chance.
3) Give me another week. If (after this discussion) there’s still big hiccups and whatnot and I am not contributing aside from those “hiccups” then a full 1 month ban is in place.

Do any of these seem reasonable? edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 22:33, 13 January 2009 (EST).

  1. In reality, this would just make it harder to contain and identify your behaviour.
  2. In complete fairness, you have had chance, after chance after chance. Even during this dicussion, you have not been able to refrain from inappropriate actions even while this discussion was taking place!
  3. See previous point.

This discussion has only been reached after everything else has been tried, more than once, more than twice. Suggesting we try something that did not work on multiple occasions previously, would be an exercise in futility, and take even more time and overhead to manage.

At this point, you have had the opportunity to read the comments of many people on your disruption. You have to accept some responsibility for this. Wikitravel has never reached this point with any other user before now. Not with trolls, not with vandals, not with the most disruptive editors that have been here. Never.

If you really are not a troll, like you say you are not, take some advice from people outside of the wiki, take some responsibility instead of blaming others, and take some time away from the wiki.

If you still persist after all of this, if you continue to edit, abuse, and then seek forgiveness again, then I really cannot believe you are anything other than a very successful troll, achieving what many others have failed to do. If so, well done, congrats, and now bugger off. --Inas 22:51, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Inas - I can tell you my IP address, although it might be changing soon, so I would have to say the new one. The difference between the 1 week thing and the no limit thing is if you just monitor another week of me, that's it and if something goes wrong, then we can go through the 1 m ban process. Inas - I have taken many breaks from this website. for like 15 days i just patrolled stuff then i was upset by someone and we got into this. other times i have stepped away from the computer blah blah blah blah. but it does not change my opinion, just calms me down - which i do believe is the point. Well I am not a troll - in fact before coming to this site, I didn't know what it was and had to wiki it when I was labelled it. I am still not entirely sure of the concept especially considering a troll wouldn't care about the website or contribute to it well and whatnot - or from what I've read. Inas, whether or not you believe me is a worry of me, I told you the truth, and I know that truth, if you fail to agree with it well I cannot do anything. Again - seriously consider my ideas. I would rather not feel like an idiot with those ideas, I actually thought they were good. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 23:47, 13 January 2009 (EST).
EE: read this information on "misidentified" trolls. I'm with Inas - I'm very suspicious that you are merely a very bored and very patient troll. If you are a troll then I would prefer not to interact with you at all. If you are not a troll then you either need to work on your behavior (see the previous link for suggestions) or find some other place to fill your free time. No response to this comment is necessary - I don't have anything further to add, and (for what it's worth) one of the easiest ways to spot a troll is when someone needlessly drags on a conversation without adding anything new to the discussion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:37, 14 January 2009 (EST)
Agree with Inas and Ryan. All of your options above still involve us monitoring your actions, and that's not why any of us are participating in Wikitravel. By asking for another chance, you're saying "give me another chance to just try to contain my silliness (or further mask my inner troll)", when what you should be doing, if the tiny chance that you are a serious user is real, is taking a step back from the site, for a month, and just observing how the community works without you. Watch how other users are able to pick up on policies, practices, and our goals with just a small amount of guidance. Watch how every other user on this site just wants to write a travel guide, and aren't seeking out excessive interaction as if this were facebook. And watch how all of the users you've been working hard at distracting for the last few months get back to producing travel guides. If you do come back in a month, you will be given very little further guidance, everything you ever need to be told has already been said. What you now refer to as being ignored (when people won't explain something to you more than once) is actually just the way things work, and is what you can expect a lot more of. If you don't like that, then you should probably find a new hobby – cacahuate talk 11:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

This how you feel? You cannot even acknowledge my ideas? I was even gonna work on Edmonton a bit again. You cannot even appreciate me? Hmm? Fine - you want me to leave this site forever? edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 12:22, 14 January 2009 (EST).

  • I can live with that. 2old 13:41, 14 January 2009 (EST)
  • Yes, I would prefer it. But that's your choice. If you stick around, shape up and check your baggage at the door – cacahuate talk 14:09, 14 January 2009 (EST)
  • Note to EE: that is a textbook example of your overly dramatic reactions. Your ideas have been acknowledged, it's just that these users have rejected them as insufficient. Your contributions have been appreciated -- repeatedly, and more thoroughly than almost anyone else's. Yet you are still not satisfied and you continue the melodrama. If you still cannot see why this is not garnering you any friends, I don't know what else to say. LtPowers 14:13, 14 January 2009 (EST)
LtPowers, why wouldn't I be giving a "melodrama" after the comments above yours. 2old has been nothing but rude to me my whole experience and Cacahuate isn't much better ( I am actually thinking of bringing back that user page thing ). It is all getting out of hand and I fail to see why you interrogate me but not people who've been rude to me. Come on! edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 16:56, 14 January 2009 (EST).

It seems certain that the ban will go into effect and that the community will not accept the terms you suggested, because your terms effectively amount to a block and we haven't seen a cohesive and very cognitive counter argument to the proposed block. All I have seen is 'why don't you treat me right?' I would've been inclined to oppose your block if you at least didn't keep replying to comments and dragging this on. If someone says something mean to you at school, what do you do? Do you repeatedly ask them to stop being mean to you? No, you don't because it eventually borders on pathetic, because you can't simply have the courage to ignore people and go about yourself. If you were sincere about your proposed terms of working solely on Edmonton related articles, you would've begun the moment you posted your ideas. If you had gone about that, I would lean even further toward opposing this nomination. I, however, do not see much sincerity or the capacity to comprehend the idea of just ignoring people or conflicts. If after the block, you can learn not to invest so much emotional stock into the website, I would encourage you to come back. But, if you're still very much emotionally attached to Wikitravel, I'd suggest you stay away for a little longer so that you can develop a sense that Wikitravel isn't as important as it's come to be in your life. What people write here or the way you're treated on here, shouldn't make you angry and shouldn't have any physically disadvantageous effects on you. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 18:21, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I am not attached, Sapphire, to this website in the way you think. In any way, if you block me for a month I am never going to come back to this site and will hate talk it to everyone I can. I will never forgive this site for the abusive treatment. I don't mean that comment to sway someone's opinion or to be a threat or whatever else you guys can come up with but it's true - simply that. Maybe I am just not as mature as you guys and maybe I want to be involved in the community - that is not bad in any way. Every other site I am encouraged to participate. Is this the anti social hangout or whatever? Even Wikipedia seems to have better interaction with the people. And you can quit with the "ooh they have more users than us" - tuff! I actually liked this site but this has gotten out of hand. If you don't want my help on articles, which is evident I am not going to waste my time here anymore and you guys can deal with incorrect information from new edits or ones that were better before or leaving closed businesses up - that's fine. Let the Alberta articles rot. Now you are probably thinking, "so, it's just Alberta - how gives a crap about it?" right? I've gotten hints about that about my Edmonton work so whatever. My goodness - I've lost sight of why I was writting this. I will keep this comment for the community to see. This is quite sad. This has got to be the worst treated I have ever been on a website - it's like a restaurant with crappy food and crappy service - I won't be coming back (per statements already said, and if) and I won't recommend it and if there was a site for that sort of thing, I would give it a bad review. That sort of thing. Whatever. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:42, 14 January 2009 (EST).
You are, once again, conflating criticism of the way you interact with other people with a personal attack, a rejection of you personally and of your work. How many times have you been told that your work on this site is commendable? How many? Yet you still say stuff like "If you don't want my help on articles". On the contrary, had you restricted your interaction to articles, we wouldn't be here right now. Instead, you a) begged for attention, b) overwhelmed the site with your questions and requests for advice and assistance, c) consistently failed to take that advice and assistance when it came to interacting with others, d) were rude to new users when they did something slightly wrong, and e) overreacted completely whenever anyone said anything the least bit critical. You are doing it again -- overreacting at the slightest criticism. People got tired of your reactions, so they started ignoring you. Then you were persistent in asking why people were ignoring you, so they started reverting you. Then you were persistent about restoring your text, so they started blocking you. And now we're here, and you still haven't learned how to interact well with others. (Hint: threatening people with "I'm going to badmouth your work" is childish in the extreme.) LtPowers 19:02, 14 January 2009 (EST)
So Peter and Cacahuate (I am sick of not saying their names, they need to be heard) were write in reverting my questions that would only help me further? I still can't get over how if a user is respectable that means they cannot do anything wrong at all because they are divine on this website for some stupid reason. Seriously, what they did was unbelieveably rude. Sure, I wasn't able to let it go, but that is how I am but they couldn't reply even one time? Come on. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 19:23, 14 January 2009 (EST).
Well, maybe you really haven't checked. I don't feel like turing this into a big debatacle and make it all against certain person so I won't. But quite frankly, there have been a lot of reverts I don't think you, Gorilla, notice some of my questions are truly unanswered. Some have answers, but they do little to explain, and I ask further and it is reverted. Of course I'm gonna get angry. Gorilla - you don't know nearly as much about Edmonton as I do and I know what is valid and what is not. I am not doing if for anything but to create a good guide. The stuff I deleted from there, some was valid and if you have any questions as to why I deleted stuff, please don't hesitate to ask me in my talk page where we can have a discussion, okay? If you don't want to participate, Gorilla, go back to your patrolling and whatever else. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 11:11, 13 January 2009 (EST).
EE, let me teach you about the First Rule of Holes, which says: "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." Your comment above does an excellent job of demonstrating all of your worst traits: it's a) irrelevant to the actual discussion at hand, b) interprets criticism as a personal attack, and c) blames other people for your own failure to understand and follow even basic, fundamental site rules like "be civil" and "do not edit war". Jpatokal 11:46, 13 January 2009 (EST)
Jani, let me teach you that it is not just me. I just said for Gorilla to continue this off topic discussion in my talk page, if he had any further questions. I have not presented personal attacks in that post, what, "go back to patrolling, etc." is an attack? C'mon - I am just saying if he wants to he can go back, nobodies forcin' him. I don't blame other people. I just let other people know my side, and sometimes, sorry to break it to ya, it isn't just me involved - I know, as shocking as it is. Jani, like Gorilla, if you need to discuss this further, as you yourself are going off topic, please feel free to discuss it in my talk page. Now let's get back on topic, thankyou. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 11:54, 13 January 2009 (EST).
That noise you hear is EE sucking you further into this black hole of a debate. I suggest the consensus is overwhelming, ban him for a month and get it over, before he sucks you senseless. 2old 12:42, 13 January 2009 (EST)
What are you talking about? And you say I'm abusive? Come on and quit making crap up. Let us bring this back on topic. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 17:50, 13 January 2009 (EST).
2old, if people were getting off topic and talking about you in an irrelevant place, don't you think the polite thing to do is to say to continue this on my talk page and get back on topic? What do you expect me to say? All I am doing is trying to help this by telling people to get back on topic. I am not "dualing" or "arguing" for a debate or anything, I do not see where you get this pile of crap from. I am just being sincere and polite by asking them if they want to continue this discussion to do so in my talk page. Would you rather me just say Shut up and get back on topic? Pull-eeze. If you did had the same problem going on, I wouldn't be mean to you or try and get (once again, yes, everytime you talk about me it's negative) people against me or anything. So please, try to be nice and if you have negativity towards me, do something that I can't do, be polite about it. I think I've made it very clear. I don't wanna be an ass, but if you make another negative comment like that which is so far from the truth, I will revert it. Wow - this got longer than I wanted - but I hope my point's clear. Now we are seriously off topic, so if you have any more questions, 2old, ask me in my talk page, not here. You know, sometimes I feel you know (people here in general) what will get this off topic and you do that, and then when i reply to that and say to continue in my talk page, you say mean stuff about me or say that comment was useless or whatever. That's just plain mean. Once again ---- Back on topic. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:01, 13 January 2009 (EST).


Summary

Travel Warning WARNING: EE Please limit your input to the appropriate section above, you are (as usual) derailing the discussion, I will revert or move any comments by you made in this summary section --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:17, 14 January 2009 (EST)


Consensus seems to be leaning towards a ban.

The current (moderate) dissent comes from LtPowers and Windhorse. I believe their objections would be met at this point by a request for the user to have a voluntary break from the site, rather than an enforced one, for one month. Should that voluntary break not occur, however, we would need to proceed to the next step of a ban.

Does this position hold any objectors (other than the user)? - Request voluntary break from editing for one month. Follow up with one month ban should this not occur? --Inas 17:21, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I have no objections to that; though perhaps a forced voluntary retreat is the same as a ban and should just be such so that it's on record in his block log. But I'm fine either way – cacahuate talk 19:25, 13 January 2009 (EST)
No objections, I think we're as close to consensus as we'll ever get on this. However, I think a self-enforced "retreat" would be preferable to a ban and should not be considered one, since if voluntarily maintained, it would at least show good faith on EE's part. Jpatokal 22:21, 13 January 2009 (EST)
So, do the three of you want to change from support/neutral to oppose? I'm a little at a lost on this? -- Sapphire(Talk) • 15:45, 14 January 2009 (EST)
Of course not. I suppose we're now just deciding if the block button is going to be pushed at the 3 day mark, or if EE is going to be asked to take a 1 month leave voluntarily. I don't think that EE's actions over the past 2 days have shown any move towards reasonability, or any progress with getting in tune with community practices, and still feel swayed towards an outright block. Also consider that if he doesn't stay away for a month, we're back to having to draw everyone into this again to discuss the next step – cacahuate talk 16:10, 14 January 2009 (EST)


Thanks

I just wanted to find somewhere to say thank you to those who have taken the time to deal with and contribute to managing this issue. Particularly to those, including Peter and Cacahuate, who have been on the receiving end of personal attacks as a result, which should be unnecessary when are just trying to write a travel guide. I know it isn't much fun. Anyway, I know this probably isn't the right place, but thanks anyway. --Inas 20:02, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I am sorry but that was a big insult to me. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 20:25, 14 January 2009 (EST).