Link to discussion dealing with Kittybrewster's use of alternate accounts
Bad block - Giano II unblocked for 'outing', but given a short block for continued disruption/harassment. Nothing else to see here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See User_talk:Giano_II#Revert. Even with the history of Rockpocket's using every chance to inflame the matters when it relates to Giano, this indefinite block stands out. Can this be addressed swiftly without the ArbCom hassle to save on drahmaz? --Irpen 19:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)Once again a sysop is attacked for attempting to enforce the same rules everyone else has to follow on Giano. Of course, it is the same old crowd doing it. 1 != 2 19:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which rule is this? The one against alleging sockpuppetry? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks very much like a bad block to me, but I really don't see this as desysoppable, and certainly not as being desysoppable outside of normal channels. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to desysop anyone over one bad block - there there's a pattern, take it to RfC. Let's just get a quick concensus here to unblock Giano. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather see an unblock of giano, and some other forum to review rocketpocket's activity if folks feel the need (I don't know enought to have an opinion, and it's not an emergency). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be willing to unblock Giano (I believe I'm relatively independent, since I've hardly ever contacted Giano, aside from an article query). This very much looks like a bad block. Rudget (logs) 19:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with Rudget, Ryan, Rocksanddirt, etc. Ill-considered block, and I would support unblock. Risker (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This happened 20 minutes ago and Rockpocket hasn't even bothered to report it for review on ANI? An indefinite block of an established editor, and it's not put up on WP:ANI, nor on WP:AE? I can't believe it, are you drunk or something, Rockpocket? You don't know to do a simple thing like that? Of course you do—but lrpen has to do it? Words fail me. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Identifying one account as a "sockpuppet" of another account is not by any stretch "outing" an editor, as the Wikipedism has it. Since User:Rockpocket is perfectly aware that "outing" an editor specifically means identifying an editor's actual real-life name, "outing" in this case is a misuse of the vocabulary, perhaps a conscious one. Surely if this was not an intentional effort to intensify a toxic atmosphere, one would expect an admission of error here on the part of an editor— even an administrator— with a sense of honesty.--Wetman (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- RP has unblocked. Rudget (logs) 19:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've unblocked per unblieveabe consensus that this block was wrong - Let's remember all that mistakes can happen, and it was easily corrected, we shouldn't get the pitch forks out for Rockpuppet. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) For someone who's filing a report to minimize 'drahmaz', you've sure chosen a neutral, non-inflammatory header for this section, Irpen. Can we wait for comment from Rockpocket – and geez, guys, it's been less than half an hour! – before we get out the gibbet? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sidestepping the specifics of the case, I don't think there's a need for a more rapid/streamlined demotion process, because admins can simply be blocked if they're taking unambiguously abusive action (they can unblock themselves, but that's a sure way to get demoted). Dcoetzee 19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply unblocking is not sufficient.--Wetman (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No way this is "resolved" until we find out what happened. I removed the resolved tag. Sweeping it under the rug would guarantee the reruns. --Irpen 19:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (For the record, this ongoing thread was tagged "Resolved" by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=221724653&oldid=221723869%7C User:Ncmvocalist, at 10:23)--Wetman (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, we're playing some sort of "game" with the unblock now. [1] [2]. I suggest we do not do that. It appears to have been a bad block, there's consensus here that it was a bad block, and, if this continues to be the case, I am going to wait a short while, then undo it. We do not leave editors blocked on bad blocks, to give the blocking admin enough rope to hang themselves with. SQLQuery me! 19:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I agreed with Nick because I wished to see what Rocket's interpretation of the matter would be. Thus resulting in an unblock, and perhaps a reflection opportunity for Rocket. Rudget (logs) 19:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I misinterpreted your comment, My apologies. I hope you can see why it appeared that way to me.... SQLQuery me! 20:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. I am always happy to clarify. Rudget (logs) 20:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And now we see that Rockpocket does not "consider [his block] a mistake at all". —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiDrNick (talk • contribs)
- Relax - I am sprung! Now why has this happened, (I see 1=2 was quick to involve himself, sadly, he is yet again dissapointed)Now to the nux of the matter User: Sussexman's return - What the hell is going on? Who gave Kittybrewster permission to argue his case as a sock? Giano (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not disappointed, I expected it. Multiple sets of rules, got it. I have stopped using my admin tools some time ago because I can't keep track of which rules apply to which special editors. 1 != 2 20:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1=2, you're not on the right track here. Kittybrewster decided to make another account due to what he considered a threatening atmosphere on WP due to past history (actually, considering the amount that has gone under the bridge, I think that word should be all caps and bolded, like HISTORY). Now, that would have been fine, except the new account did all the same things that KB did, and showed a remarkable amount of prior knowledge of the people, personalities and issues of the prior history. To be quite frank, to the extent that any "outing" occured, KB/Berks did it to himself. You're allowed to call the Elephant in the Room an elephant. Endorse the unblock. SirFozzie (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say Kitty had it coming, especially with the smug popping the cork on the bubbly each time an Irish Republican editor was indef'd. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1=2, please vent your frustrations over the project in general elsewhere. You can make a pose regarding sysop strikes all you want but I am sure you will never give away your sysop tools voluntarily. We are discussing a specific incident and what is to be done about it. Rockpocket's "hit and run" (block and duck out) adds more bad smell to all this. I raised the issue of desysopping on the spot not because this is an emergency, he is unlikely do anything for a couple of days. But because the abuse is so blatant here that I see no need for a full arbcom case. We do not need to an arbcom to block especially bad editors when the editing abuse is so obvious and in the plain view. Here we have the admin tools abused so outrageously, that I do not see a need for a long arbcom process. But if this is required, fine. Let's have ArbCom look at this. --Irpen 20:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can a desysop be made with less hassle than going through ArbCom? Not really. Should it be possible? Yes. Should it happen in this case? Not according to any uninvolved administrator. This thread is all over bar the shouting. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]