You can review the discussion where Florence got involved at the following URL,
http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cynewulf&oldid=2935...
No project is trying to play "whack a mole" and we *all* want to get on with producing content. I've issued my fair share of blocks on Wikinews, but if someone from another project wants to question a block I'm going to explain myself - provided CheckUser evidence isn't involved.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jeandré du Toit Sent: 29 December 2007 12:55 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wiktionary blocking policy
Looking at the last 50 English wiktionary blocks at http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&p age= I see that the longest blocks were 4 one year blocks: 2 open proxies and 2 external link spammers.
Looking at contributions of infinite account blocks at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist of non sock accounts, where the edit wasn't deleted, I see only http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=maxim&diff=prev&oldid=3462092. That no warnings were given simply means that the wikt admins are trying to create a dictionary instead of playing whack-a-mole with the obvious vandalizing only accounts and spammers. OTRS is there for any bad blocks.
If the ORS tickets (all emails sent to info-en@wiktionary.org) were for really bad vandals, then there isn't a problem. Looking thru the queue for open block tickets, there's ticket 2007122410005487 where the IP didn't get an infinite block as claimed, but 1 day; and ticket 2007121710004036 about an entry deleted by 3 different admins because it's obviously spam and not a dictionary entry.
Please provide some diffs which resulted in incorrect infinite blocks. The wiktionarians, stewards, or foundation can then look into it.