User talk:Allstarecho/Incidents Archive

Home/Talk Awards Userboxes Email Contributions Favorite Images My Launch Pad

Bobby Petrino block

Personal notes to self about this and why this was a bad block:

• this history
• and this history

Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine (talk · contribs)

Blocked

I hadn't realised how far you'd crossed Wikipedia policy in your editing of the Matt Sanchez article. Your addition of the "Prostitution" section and edit warring when that was removed was one of the most blatant violations of Wikipedia's neutral point of view and biographies of living people policies I have ever seen. I have blocked you from editing Wikipedia for 48 hours for breach of fundamental policies of this website. You are welcome to continue editing when your block expires but note that further breaches of Wikipedia's polcies on biographies of living people will not be accepted. WjBscribe 01:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock reason: There was no edit warring WJB. You can't come in 8 hours after the fact and block someone without knowing all of the facts. Aleta and Satyr pointed out those edits and the 2 reversions I did and then we started discussing the issue here and here without any further edits to Matt Sanchez from me in regards to Sanchez's prostitution career. So, no, there was no edit warring and in fact a conversation was began regarding the issue. I feel you're only blocking me because you feel I am one of those you talked about here, and the fact that I linked to this web site which you obviously took offense to based on your comments there. Because of your offense, I removed the link and even said I'm sorry and pointed out why I linked to it. -- ALLSTARecho 02:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your editing of the article Matt Sanchez (a living person) has not been acceptable. You added weekly sourced allegation of prostitutions (previously removed by several admins including myself) . You were reverted by another administrator [1] (User:SatyrTN). But then continued to restore the material. This constituted an edit war on a biography of a living person - it also further escalated ongoing disputes in relation to the article in question. WjBscribe 02:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't say anything new WJB. I said above in my unblock reason that I reverted twice after Satyr and Aleta removed it twice. I then did not add it a 3rd time but instead joined in the 2 different discussions about the information. Secondly, the "allegation" is not weakly sourced. It's Matt Sanchez's own voice admitting, during a radio interview with FOX News' Alan Colmes, that he used to be a prostitute. The second source, the Salon.com source, is Matt Sanchez's own article he wrote, admitting that he used to be a prostitute. If you would bother reading the discussion, I even presented a suggestion on the talk page about how to include both sides.. that he admitted it and that he now denies it ever happened. You are the one that is failing to assume good faith here. -- ALLSTARecho 02:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the pending unblock request, please see my comments at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Contradictory_information. John254 02:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John but your comments themselves there really have nothing to do with the unblock request, other than proving that I did take the issue to discussion with Aleta and you when you eventually weighed in on the discussion. -- ALLSTARecho 03:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The facts are, I made a bad decision - bad as far a policy is concerned. While I still feel the information is valid because it is reliably sourced and admitted to by the subject of the article in a recording, I should have not reverted Satyr's removal of the information - if for nothing more than the simple fact that I hold great respect and admiration for Satyr. Unfortunately, I made the reversion because I feel it is appropriate material (I've since edited it to include both sides thereby avoiding BLP issues and posted the edited version to the article's talk page for discussion). Aleta, another WP individual I have great respect for, removed it again, and she opened the discussion at BLP talk. That was the end of it, as discussion was now taking place in 2 different areas of WP.. until 8 hours later when WJB comes along and is offended by a request I made on Satyr's talkpage for his opinion on my edited version - of which I apologized to WJB for him being offended and explained that certainly wasn't my intention. He went on to accuse me of baiting and such and not acting in good faith. So here we are. I'm not some generic vandal or anonymous user. Indeed, I don't create many articles but I do alot of the "grunt" work on articles - someone has to. I say that to show that everything I do is with the best intentions and in good faith, regardless of who feels otherwise, and my history shows I'm not here just for shits and giggles. -- ALLSTARecho 03:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This block is ill supported by the blocking policy. It is irresponsible, and I urge the reviewing administrator to unblock. ➪HiDrNick! 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with HiDrNick (talk · contribs) for several reasons. The block does not appear to be preventative in any sense, as the article in question is protected, Allstarecho hasn't edited the article in nearly 8 hours, and discussion related to the incident is on going in several places. Additionally, I can't say I would call the blocking admin uninvolved. I encourage WJBscribe to reverse this block. - auburnpilot talk 03:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree as well for the reasons cited by both HiDrNick (talk · contribs) and AuburnPilot (talk · contribs) -- blocking admin was clearly not uninvolved, and the reason for the block doesn't really hold water. Allstarecho (talk · contribs) should be unblocked. Ashdog137 (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This may have some relevance on this however it turns out. Lawrence Cohen 03:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as you pointed out correctly there, I did not bait Matt Sanchez. He was already indefinitely blocked for his violations of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:NOT and WP:COI -- ALLSTARecho 03:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

Having listened to opinions here and in particular to comments make to me by SatyrTN and Steel359, for whose judgment I have great respect - I have unblocked. I think my decision to block was a misjudgment. It reflected the fact that I regard WP:BLP as one of our most serious policies and the fact that I think Allstarecho's edits to Matt Sanchez serious inflamed an alreay controverisal situation. However, I failed to assume good faith on his part and for that I apologise. It is clear from his comment above that Allstarecho appreciates the mistakes he made in this matter, I will now reflect on mine. WjBscribe 03:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you WJB. -- ALLSTARecho 03:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Matt_Sanchez

I feel that the matter of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) and Matt Sanchez now requires the involvement of the Arbitration Committee. Given your recent involvement in the matter, I have listed you as a party to the case. WjBscribe 04:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Law Lord (talk · contribs)

AN/I

04:46 (cur; last) . . (+172) . . Law Lord (Talk | contribs) (→Back from ban and back at it - User:Allstarecho has sex with a person 10 years younger than himself)

Felt I should draw your attention to that edit. ^Avruchtalk 04:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I saw it. It's information that is found on my user page so no biggie. He just used it to get back at me for my own comment I left there. :] -- ALLSTARecho 05:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Stay away

Please do not write on my user talk page any more. I find your pederast life style very upsetting and disgusting. Writing on my talk page about it causes me to vomit. --Law Lord (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, you had a page, User:Law Lord/Sexually attractive people that had an article link to a 17 year old boy. I am 35 years old partnered with a 25 year old man. Who's the pederast here? At least mine is legal and beyond. -- ALLSTARecho 05:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again

I have blocked you for 24 hours (Law Lord is also blocked). This is not the way to carry on this dispute and that post above is unacceptable in any context.--Doc^g 05:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, ok.. I don't feel my reply violates any kind of policy but if you say so.. when someone attacks me in a manner as he did, I certainly feel it's human reaction to reply and defend ones self. I shouldn't have replied and should have just left it alone but again, I'm only human who set forth a natural human reaction to being called a pederast. -- ALLSTARecho 05:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And to Coredesat, should you come by here.. you said Good blocks, both, although I think they should both be extended to a week. Allstarecho's block should certainly be extended. at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Law Lord homophobic attacks. I'm curious as to why you feel my block "should certainly be extended"? -- ALLSTARecho 05:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd say because it is the same insult both ways and the blocks should probably be of the same length. That would be my reasoning, anyway. ^Avruchtalk 05:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but why especially me? I'm trying to figure out what he was insinuating there. Why should I especially have my block extended from 24 hours to a week? Just curiosity since I've never had any run-ins with him before. Even in the Sanchez issue, I don't recall myself and Coredesat exchanging any words. -- ALLSTARecho 05:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess its unclear to me that he meant yours should be a week even if Law Lords is not - I think he meant you should both have a week, but in either case the blocks should match. Just my initial interpretation when I saw it. ^Avruchtalk 05:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, at any rate, I was wrong and shouldn't have replied to Law Lord but as I said, it was human reaction. However, I certainly don't feel a whole week block is in order. I admit I was wrong and have no problems serving the appropriate time out but a week certainly isn't appropriate. So when Coredesat said my block should "certainly be extended" but didn't say Law Lord's should "certainly", that just sticks out as insinuating something - him having a reason for certainly me. Oh well. Anyway, thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 05:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Becasause of the provocation, I will not extend your block. But, be warned - ANY reoccurance of such attacks, provoked or not, will result in a block of at minimum one week. Such abuse is intolerable. If you are subject to it, either ignore it, or report the user concerned. Do not engage in it.--Doc^g 09:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

As I have stated above last night, I should not have restored the attack upon me by Law Lord to my user page so that I could in turn reply to it. 2 wrongs don't make a right and after having thought about this even more today, it is clear that I should have just let the admins handle it as they already were, rather than making an even bigger issue out of as I did. I do apologize to everyone involved, including Law Lord but especially Doc. I was quite angered by the attack because it was one of those kind that just aren't acceptable in a civilized society. I mean, come on, I did get called a pederast. He just might as well have called me a child molester, and who wouldn't have been angry at such an attack? Would you? But the issue is that I replied to the attack with the same venom and I should not have. I should have just let the admins handle it as they already were instead of, in the middle of them handling it, making it worse. Again, I am sorry. - Jody, aka ALLSTARecho

Decline reason:

Per doc, this is light block, and should be let to expire on its own. — Prodego ^talk 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

---

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

(Edit conflict) I was typing a message declining the unblock as well. While I accept that your apology is sincere, I believe that the block is appropriate under the circumstances and that allowing some time for both of you to cool down would be a good idea. One unrelated comment - your talk page colors and font hurt my eyes - I have to use section edit and preview to read the text. You may seriously want to consider changing your color scheme so that either the font size is larger or the text contrasts with the background a bit more. --B (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Better? -- ALLSTARecho 19:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Much. --B (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's so hard to know how something looks to everyone else when there's a million + hardware configurations in the world. The text as it was seemed quite large to me, even more so now but apparently quite small to others. Again, thanks for the feedback. -- ALLSTARecho 19:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, it was also fine with me before. Prodego ^talk 19:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. -- ALLSTARecho 20:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility

This comment is uncivil, please be more cautious in the future. Dreadstar † 18:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. Considering his smart-ass comment to me. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 19:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, then, we can do it the hard way. Take a break for a week.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

lmao Seriously?? Unrepentant incivility?? I didn't realize this was a church and I had to repent. Talk about excessive.. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 19:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I'm sure no one will have the balls to go against the man, but seriously.. a week, for pointing out that I wasn't the only one being uncivil? It's not like I'm some newbie around here. Not even a final warning? Policy doesn't have to be followed by the man himself?

Decline reason:

The fact that you are not a newbie is precisely why you shouldn't require a final warning; there is no "but he did it first" clause to our civility policy. You were asked to remain civil, yet continued unabated, with a less than civil tone even while requesting to be unblock. When the block expires, please return to editing with a more civil approach. If you wish to further contest this block, please contact the blocking admin (Jimbo Wales) directly by email. - auburnpilot talk 19:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

---

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

The thing is, Jimbo himself issued Wikipedia:Ignore all rules as policy and well that states If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. I am not going to interfere with your unblock request, as I am not an administrator but I will leave this note here :) --The Helpful One 19:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but rules for blocking/warning don't prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia so they shouldn't be ignored, even by him. Not to mention blocking is not supposed to be used as punishment (or retaliation) - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To AuburnPilot: Regardless of me not being a newbie, he didn't follow the rules for blocking/warning. But I guess that's ok when you're the man. I'm sure it came down to me having pissed one of his buddies off. Someone as busy as him doesn't just stumble upon my talk page like that. Oh well, not like it hurts me or anything. It just doesn't give a fair view when the founder of Wikipedia can't seem to follow the rules himself. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 20:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude - take a chill? I'd go to bat for you, but this isn't the first time you've been blocked for incivility. You're a great asset to the project - take the time off, read a book, enjoy some non-Wikipedia time. This isn't punishment - this is to point out the benefit of goodwill among editors (which is the whole point of WP:NPA / WP:CIVIL). We want you to contribute, but we want you to do so in a way that doesn't remind people of other uncivil editors =D =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Always the voice of reason, you are. That's why I admire you. Unfortunately I took the WP:BAIT and it got me in trouble, although excessive trouble. I honestly don't mind the week if it weren't for the fact that I've got a good bit of wiki-work in progress and now all of that is on hold for a week. That's enough to just make me want to walk away from this "hobby" for real. Anyway, thanks for your words. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 21:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Jimbo's been kind enough to reduce your block down to 24 hours. When your block has expired, please refrain from making attacks like you did which got you the original block - they will not be accepted. We all have disagreements here, the best thing is to rise above them and show others that you are better than what has been suggested of you, rather than resorting to tit for tat. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But still labeled me as a "worse" user. Nice. Agreed though, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Thanks Ryan. And I guess thanks Jimbo too... - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I was holding my breath waiting for Jimbo to likewise block an editor like SqueakBox based on his comments which make yours look like tea party conversation. However, I'm out of breath; I had to stop.  :-) Welcome back, Allstar. --SSBohio 01:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the 'worse user' label was being applied to you - he was referencing Ryan's comments that other, worse users (as in not you) have been treated more leniently. ^Avruchtalk 02:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Attack of the Right Wing

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Promiscuity. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — CENSEI (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Allstarecho. You *do* seem to be edit warring. (For the moment I have no comment on whether anyone else is warring too). If you add a comment to the article's entry at WP:AN3 and offer to undo your last revert, you may be able to avoid a block. Your comment about 'tantamount to vandalism, which trumps 3RR' isn't going to convince any admins. Well-intentioned removal of sourced content is not vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a well intentioned removal of content though. It's a calculated collusion between the 2 editors. I'm sure I will be blocked, but I won't offer to under my last revert because the content is valid, sourced and relevant and I won't back down from what I believe in because 2 very politically conservative editors want to whitewash content. If I'm blocked, that'll just give me more time to play Resistance 2. :] Thanks for your thoughts Ed. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It absolutely was not proper removal, whether or not i care about hypothetical "intention", and i would ask for objective outsider admins to please look at the behavior of CENSEI and Ejnobarg this week. Those two editors have been so fascinated by topics about men having sex with men, and how many men, and what kinds of sex, and what kinds of homosexuality, etc etc etc.... but their edits have been so pointy it has been necessary for many other editors to come along and undo all the improper POV jamming. I'm getting rather fed up with such jamming, it's not the fun kind of jamming! Thanks ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 20:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Promiscuity. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I knew it would be Deacon of Pndapetzim as the blocking admin. Funny one of the other involved parties, Ejnogarb, also broke 3RR but isn't blocked. And to say Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes is absurd considering THEY are the ones that didn't discuss it BEFORE removing the content or adding content. Seriously, if you see that a user keeps adding content that many others BESIDES MYSELF keeps reverting, do you think as CENSEI did, that you just come along and jump in the fray removing the same content that's been the issue?? COMMON SENSE. But religious zealots have none of that of course. Their obvious collusion off-wiki worked. Good for them. But to those 2 editors, I'll only say that continued effort on your parts to a) whitewash articles and remove content you find disgusting, liberal or otherwise against anything right wing, and/or b) slant articles with right wing POV - as is the pattern in both of your edit history, will be met with reversions. And take some advice.. stop editing all things gay. Homosexuality, Gay, Man on man sex, gay parts in Promiscuity.. someone might think you are a closeted homosexual with all of the attention you 2 are giving the gay articles on Wikipedia. Good day, and now back to Resistance 2. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And now that I'm blocked, here Ejnogarb removing the content again from the Promiscuity article. And of course, he's been reverted. His edit warring continues.. and I'm blocked. LMAO! I better warn User:Bali ultimate to be careful about reverting Ejnogarb's edits because CENSEI will come in and remove the content too and bait another block of someone. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And now Ejnogarb is lieing on ANI. Amazing. He's full force now that I'm blocked and can't reply in those places. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Note to self about Ejnogarb already being warned about 3RR when he was edit warring on American Family Association. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 02:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Hi, i'm so sorry to see you sprayed under the shitfan all for the sake of defending articles which were being intentionally propagandized, i hope somebody who examines unblock requests will look at the Talk Pages on all of those categories of articles around mansex where CENSEI and Ejnogarb were so religiously devoted to slanting and had to be taken to task by a half dozen other editors already this week! On the article TalkPage i suggested bringing the discussion over to AN/I where it belongs. Hopefully a few detached admins will see where you were clearly working to support policies rather than eye-poking POINTs. Sigh. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 02:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Note to self: In regards to this edit by Ejnogarb about leaving the article alone for a while, it didn't last long. At all. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|My block began at 17:30, April 1, 2009 and should now be over but I am still blocked and unable to edit and am presented with a notice banner stating that "This block has been set to expire: 23:20, April 4, 2009". which is 4+ hours longer than it's supposed to be.}}

(dramatic voice) Free ASE from the cold, dark Wikipedia e-dungeon. He has served his time, although for unjust reasons. Let my people gurl go! APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 03:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Unjust reasons for sure but I won't whine, like some users involved in the ordeal, about how everyone is picking on me. Cause I'm a big boy. heh And that vid was horrible. Shame on you for even sending me there. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Shame me daddy, shame me. I hope this video is more to your liking. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 03:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Much better. ;] - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

CENSEI again

Posting an email address

I have blocked you for 24 hours for repeatedly posting CENSEI's email address — as a Senior Editor, you should understand that violating the privacy of other editors is strictly prohibited. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The son of a bitch harasses me off-wiki rubbing in a previous block of me that he was responsible for, and I post the email at a current 3RR report he has tendentiously made to prove how he baits people into blockes, and I GET BLOCKED? THAT is total bullSHIT. If he's so fucking hellbent on not being outted, he should not have fucking emailed me in the first goddamned place with Still smarting from that 72 hour block ehhh? Tee hee. Carl !! Tee hee my ass! When you email me with bullshit like rubbing a block in my fucking face, YOU HAVE NO PRIVACY. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The content of the email got you some sympathy, and you were being let off, but you kept posting it which gave Nyttend no choice but to block you. Continued reinsertion was pointless anyway as everyone had already seen the content and it was being advertised by CENSEI himself in diffs. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is he needs to blocked for harassment via Wikipedia technology (the email function) and filing the frivolous 3RR reports. No one seems to care about that. When you blocked me the other day, I tried my best to point out his agenda and collusion with other conservative editors but to no avail. His email to me proves it and that's why I posted it at the current frivolous and tendentious 3RR report he has filed today! But I get blocked for showing how I was harassed! I had to include the full email, not just his email address but MINE ALSO and the disclaimer Wikipedia puts in those emails, to prove that I wasn't making the email up, that it was a genuine email from that asshole. And I get in trouble for it. This whole house of Wikipedia is off its fucking rocker! - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Note to self: And this edit by CENSEI at WP:ANI where he admits taunting me, but of course, pushes it aside. And of course hasn't been dealt with for said taunting/harassment. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 11:12 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Please don't post the email again, even here. If you do you'll be blocked from editing your talk page. You reported this offline borderline harassment in the wrong way. You do not have to violate wikipedia policy to report such things. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that the matter is known, I don't think you should repost it. However I failed to see that you omitted the email address. My bad. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Deacon, I removed his email address so what's the reason NOW as to why I can't post the content of the email??? Per WP:OUTING, "There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence". I posted it here on my talkpage with HIS EMAIL ADDRESS BLANKED OUT, so what policy was I breaking there?? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 04:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that the matter is known, I don't see why you need to repost it. However I failed to see that you omitted the email address. My bad. I won't lock your page if you repost it, but I don't think it'll serve much purpose. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am truly sorry that you have found yourself blocked for coming to my defense in that bullshit 3RR report against me. Posting the email address probably wasn't a good idea; nevertheless, I am profoundly grateful to you. I would have done exactly the same thing if I had suffered off-wiki harassment too. You have my sympathy, and my thanks. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I, too, must thank AllStarEcho for standing up and getting results, the only thing i would have done differently would be to obfuscate the email address instead of posting it in the first place, by way of saying at the AN/I boards: "I'm going to give your email to the admins to show them you're harassing me" instead of putting it up publicly in the heat of the moment. You were hot-headed, but you totally were right to stand up against off-site harassment. In the future, if somebody harasses me like that, i will not post their email, but i will go to the AN/I and say something like "i'm going to give your email to the admins because this is what you just sent me / quote quote / etc ... " rather than Climb The Reichstag. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 04:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Please be aware that this matter is now under discussion at WP:AN/I as part of a much bigger issue and is best centralized there. I won't opine here about that discussion, or whether Allstarecho's participation there is called for. CENSEI has put himself and his dispute with Allstarecho at issue at AN/I, and the contents (if not the identifying information) of that email are relevant, but CENSEI is not the original or primary focus of that at present. Wikidemon (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Enough is enough. You've made your point, but don't paste the contents of the e-mails. Theres some stupid copyright bullshit involved, but its also kind of drama-inducing uncivil move. And yes, that CENSEI or whatever his name is was abusing the e-mail system has been noted and is going to be dealt with. Now walk away, please--Tznkai (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but I won't grovel or make any kind of promises... - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 04:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not looking for you to grovel.--Tznkai (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know either you or CENSEI, so I'm not participating in the discussion currently at ANI — it's simply the repeated posting of the actual address that led me to place a block. Please understand that I've not done this because I'm attempting to "punish" you for anything. Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Got no beef with you Nyttend. His email to me proves his agenda and supports how his continued 3RR reports are frivolous and tendentious and THAT is why I posted it at the current frivolous and tendentious 3RR report he has filed today! I had to include the full email, not just his email address but MINE ALSO and the disclaimer Wikipedia puts in those emails, to prove that I wasn't making the email up, that it was a genuine email. Additionally, the fact that he hasn't been blocked or anything for his admitted harassment of me via Wikipedia email function, is really the sad part here. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 04:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the email could be forwarded to ARBCOM? It is harrassment. It did not have to be posted publically on WP for attention to be brought to it. LadyofShalott ^Weave 04:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll forward it where ever it needs to go but quite frankly, I didn't know what the hell to do with it other than to post it in its entirety to prove it was legit and not something I made up. Anyone and everyone - be it ARBCOM, an admin, or the Prince of Darkness himself - is welcome to a forward of it. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 04:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making it clear that you weren't unhappy with me. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Note to self: Of course CENSEI's agenda collusion buddy to the defense. And CENSEI is still un-dealt with regarding his admitted email harassment and abuse of the Wikipedia email function in conjunction with that harassment at the time I write this. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 05:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Note to self: Finally someone sane blocked CENSEI. 4+ hours later. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 08:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked

The consensus of editors commenting at ANI link appears to be on the unblock side of things, so I'm lifting the block. That said, in the future, I recommend contacting Arbcom or an admin privately --instead of posting an email on-wiki. R. Baley (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and will do. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 15:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You should be clear now! LadyofShalott ^Weave 16:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all is well now. Thank you! - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 16:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Placeholder

Home/Talk Awards Userboxes Email Contributions Favorite Images My Launch Pad