User talk:Oh Good Grief

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post here if you dare. Oh Good Grief 23:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Civility warning 2 This is an Enyclopedia 3 Arbitrarily Blocked 4 User page reverts 5 rfa comments

[edit] Civility warning

Please mind WP:CIVIL when posting to the Requests for Arbitration page. Thank you. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Kelly. I apologize. But I will NOT allow Chadbryant to try to lie his way out of this one. Oh Good Grief 23:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This is an Enyclopedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and act accordingly. We use this website to write that encyclopedia. Other uses are not welcome. Zocky 23:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Even the Omicrons from Persai 8? Oh Good Grief 23:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrarily Blocked

I blocked that account just for the username without knowing it was you. From experience, usernames with that type of naming are usually used by vandals. I noticed your post later and left a message on that account's talk page that I would unblock Deathen Taxes which is now done. So which account do you want to use, this one or Deathen Taxes? -- Curps 23:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Deathen Taxes would be better as it has a more . . . "appropriate" . . . sounding name for the circumstances. Oh Good Grief 23:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User page reverts

Hi,

Can you hold off on the user page reverting (sock notices). They are obviously socks, so it really doesn't matter who labels them as such (ChadBryant or someone else). It would be better to just work on writing up documentation for the arbitration case. -- Curps 01:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] rfa comments

Do not edit other people's comments on RFA pages, it is considered vandalism and if you continue you may be blocked for it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I've seen you've been doing this quite a bit and since you have no intention of stopping from you comments on various places I am blocking you for 24 hours for vandalism. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem -- I was thinking of creating yet another sockpuppet anyway. I edit those comments in question because they contain a link to a hate site wherein the subject is my person. Since none of YOU boobs will do anything about it (despite being informed repeatedly), I had to take manners into my own hands. Sue me if you don't like it, Dorothy. Oh Good Grief 23:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 1 week, any more socks you create will be perm blocked. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

this has earned you an indef. block. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 18:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Not partial to criticism Kiefer? OK, I will re phrase - did you gain satisfaction from blocking this user? I see that you joined Wikipedia in June 2005, but you have already tried to run for Bureaucratship twice - do you not feel that is a bit premature for such a new user? I really think the use of blocking by Admins needs to be reviewed. There seems, to me, to be an over hasty resort to blocking in MANY MANY cases. Most of these could be suitably resolved by discussion, not a resort to the tool of least resistance. I would welcome your thoughts Kiefer. --84.67.209.122 18:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll assume that you are Oh Good Grief, but I'm not going to block unless you continue to modify ChadBryant's comments again. No I don't mind criticism however I strongly dislike personal attacks and this was the last straw after a spree of vandalism and sockpuppetry (which in itself isn't bad but when it's use to perpetuate vandalism it is) so I decided to indefinitely block which is also what several other editors suggested on WP:AN/I. If you really feel so strongly that the issue of blocking by admins need to be re-evaluated you are more than welcome to file an request for comment. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 18:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not User:Oh Good Grief or any of his possible socks. I have no history in this dispute, but I monitor WP:AN and WP:AN/I and, frankly, I am disgusted by some of the behaviour I see there. Nice to see that your block button is not depressed. This issue needs wider airing - the readiness to block is far too prevalent IMO. I understand there are vandals and miscreants about, but what happened to WP:AGF? --84.65.81.229 18:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok I believe you when you say that but are you also 84.67.209.122? again if you want greater comment on the issue file an RFC, while talking to me about this is all well and good I am just one administrator and from the way you phrase it it seems that your issues are with more than just this block and an RFC would give more people a chance to comment. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 18:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Considering that this could be a mistake and not actually be Oh Good Grief I am unblocking and I apologize if this isn't actually you. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reinstated the older 1 week block which expires 03:38, December 18. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)