Durovawrote:
There are times to put one's foot down and that time was today. Wikipedia has been entirely too lenient about this type of disruption, with the result that when one brief and overdue block occurs a cluster of people are shocked by it.
I understand. But it behooves you to be careful, to choose the best moment to put your foot down.
If Cla68 is as disruptive as claimed -- and I have no reason to doubt it -- you need only a little patience to wait for a truly disruptive action to apply the waited-for block in response to. But this wasn't it:
Most of us usually try to give some reasoning for any action, proposed action, or threatened action that we discuss on an article's talk page. Would you mind doing the same?
You and the rest of the insiders may know that Cla68 had it coming and was long overdue for a block, but when outsiders take this question and your response in isolation -- as of course they are going to do -- it just makes you look bad; it unnecessarily provides fresh fodder for those who want to claim that Wikipedia has become petty and spiteful.
Cla68 may have deserved blocking, but not for that question, which was innocent enough on the surface, and which could certainly be ignored even if you know it was posted with ulterior motives.