User:UninvitedCompany/notes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Chronology

  • May 5, 2004 First mailing list post "Trolls - A novel approach - don't feed them"
  • May 6, 2004 Angela set Mark Richards: +sysop
  • Mat 13, 2004 First edit to troll-related article [1]
  • May 24, 2004 Votes against empowering the new Arbitration committee, "this committee does not seem a good use of time"
  • Dec. 20, 2004 Last (257th) mailing list post, content "When is the ability to view deleted pages going to be made available to all users?"
  • Dec. 28, 2004 last edit
  • March 8-10, 2005 returns briefly

[edit] Blocks

  1. 02:54, 7 Jul 2004 Mark Richards blocked "The Fellowship of the Troll" with an expiry time of indefinite (This user was blocked for vandalism, not reincarnation)
  2. 21:16, 13 Jun 2004 Mark Richards blocked "The Fellowship of the Troll" with an expiry time of indefinite (Whimsy)

[edit] Unblocks

  1. 16:01, 9 Mar 2005 Mark Richards unblocked User:The Recycling Troll (No evidence provided and procedure not followed)
  2. 22:02, 8 Mar 2005 Mark Richards unblocked User:The Recycling Troll (No valid reason for block given)
  3. 22:02, 8 Mar 2005 Mark Richards unblocked User:#17934 (No valid reason for block given)
  4. 19:50, 27 Dec 2004 Mark Richards unblocked User:Trollminator (No valid reason given for block)
  5. 19:50, 27 Dec 2004 Mark Richards unblocked User:#13544 (No valid reason given for block)
  6. 00:04, 10 Dec 2004 Mark Richards unblocked Trollminator (talk) (contributions) (I think an indefinate block without even contacting this user for a debatable 'offense' is excessive.)
  7. 23:58, 9 Dec 2004 Mark Richards unblocked [[User:#12551|#12551]] ([[User talk:#12551|talk]]) (contributions)
  8. 02:35, 27 Oct 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "GNAA Popeye" (No legitimate reason for block given)
  9. 02:35, 27 Oct 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "GNAA Popeye2" (No legitimate reason for block given)
  10. 19:03, 21 Oct 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "GNAA Popeye" (See discussion on village pump)
  11. 19:03, 21 Oct 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "#9981" (See discussion on village pump)
  12. 19:03, 21 Oct 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "#9980" (See discussion on village pump)
  13. 19:03, 21 Oct 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "#9979" (See discussion on village pump)
  14. 19:03, 21 Oct 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "#9969" (See discussion on village pump)
  15. 19:03, 21 Oct 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "#9968" (See discussion on village pump)
  16. 19:03, 21 Oct 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "#9967" (See discussion on village pump)
  17. 19:03, 21 Oct 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "#9966" (See discussion on village pump)
  18. 19:03, 21 Oct 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "#9965" (See discussion on village pump)
  19. 02:51, 13 Oct 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "The Recycling Troll" (No evidence presented that this is a previously banned user and no policy violated.)
  20. 16:45, 12 Oct 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "The Recycling Troll" (No policy violations and no evidence of previously banned user.)
  21. 16:45, 12 Oct 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "#9767" (No violations of policy and no evidence of previously banned user.)
  22. 17:09, 16 Jul 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "Leo Trollstoy" ("because it isn't bothering anyone" is not reason to block a user)
  23. 14:18, 16 Jul 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "Leo Trollstoy" (No evidence to justify blocking - Heph please discuss this)
  24. 14:43, 14 Jul 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "Leo Trollstoy" (No evidence presented that this is a reincarnated banned user)
  25. 16:45, 13 Jul 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "Leo Trollstoy" (Groundless blocking)
  26. 16:45, 13 Jul 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "The Trolls of Navarone" (reversing unilateral decision by Heph. No rationale provided by him.)
  27. 02:21, 7 Jul 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "#6769" (unblock)
  28. 14:35, 6 Jul 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "#6754" (Heph, we've been through this already - there is no reason to ban this user)
  29. 14:32, 6 Jul 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "#6754"
  30. 14:31, 6 Jul 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "The Trolls of Navarone" ("Ceasing the postponement of the inevitable"? What does that mean?)
  31. 22:43, 17 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "Leo Trollstoy" (No evidence of this presented)
  32. 01:24, 14 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "JRR Trollkien" (This case is now under review by the AC - please do not undermine their process.)
  33. 19:35, 13 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "Leo Trollstoy" (No attempt by Heph to justify this abuse)
  34. 19:35, 13 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "JRR Trollkien" (No attempt by Heph to justify this abuse)
  35. 19:35, 13 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "The Fellowship of the Troll" (No attempt by Heph to justify this abuse)
  36. 19:35, 13 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "The Trolls of Navarone" (No attempt by Heph to justify this abuse)
  37. 23:17, 12 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "Leo Trollstoy" (No evidence presented / policy not followed)
  38. 23:17, 12 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "JRR Trollkien" (Policy not followed)
  39. 04:27, 12 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "JRR Trollkien"
  40. 04:25, 12 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "Leo Trollstoy"
  41. 04:12, 12 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "JRR Trollkien"
  42. 04:12, 12 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "Leo Trollstoy"
  43. 04:04, 12 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "JRR Trollkien" (No evidence of claim, proceduren not followed by H.)
  44. 04:04, 12 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "Leo Trollstoy" (Procedure not followed by H.)
  45. 03:15, 12 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "JRR Trollkien" (Procedure not followed, insubstantial 'evidence'.)
  46. 03:15, 12 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "Leo Trollstoy" (No evidence presented, procedure not followed)
  47. 18:37, 11 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "JRR Trollkien" (Policy not followed in blocking this user)
  48. 18:37, 11 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "Leo Trollstoy" (No attempt made to contact this user, therefore block not following policy)
  49. 18:21, 10 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "#5668" (Policy not followed)
  50. 18:20, 10 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "#5668" (Policy not followed)
  51. 18:20, 10 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "#5673" (Policy not followed)
  52. 18:16, 10 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "Leo Trollstoy" (Policy not followed for this block)
  53. 18:16, 10 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "JRR Trollkien" (Policy not followed for this block)
  54. 00:24, 21 May 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "#5164" (Blocked against current guidelines)
  55. 00:23, 21 May 2004 Mark Richards unblocked "Leo Trollstoy" (Blocked against current guidelines)

[edit] Talk related to blocks

[edit] Recycling Troll

Let's be honest here. To date, one user with troll in their name has ever turned out good, and that user changed their name when it was pointed out that it could be construed as them being a troll. This user is stalking RickK from edit to edit and trying to get RickK's goat, as it were. When, after the 24 hour block, Recycling Troll took it to the mailing list and was roundly told to stop harassing RickK. He came back and repeated it. The account is new, and thus disruption blocks apply. Furthermore, the deliberately inflammatory username, editing style, and taking it to the mailing list suggest that we have someone who's been here before. I see minimal basis for an assumption of good faith here, and quite a lot of basis for the conclusion that this user is trouble who should be sent elsewhere. Snowspinner 03:40, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) [edit]

[edit] Recycling block

I unblocked because I thought the original reason given, the user name, was inadequate, since the lack of a consensus one way or another about names of this type has been around for a while now. With respect to the subsequent blocks, which are justified on a theory of causing disruption via stalking and harassment, I think some of the evidence would support that theory, but I have little interest in analyzing every last edit. So instead I defer to the judgment of others and decline to get involved further on the question of whether a block is appropriate. --Michael Snow 17:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recyling.

This is not the equivalent of "watching how your congressman votes and writing to them on every issue". The equivalent of that would have been checking RickK's contributions and writing volumes on his talk page. This was the closest wiki equivalent to following your congressman around in his daily life, and making your presence constantly known, while wearing a nametag that says "Hello, I am a criminal".

Secondly sir, if you continue to misquote me, the possibility of productive discussion is going to disappear very quickly. 'You may feel that the entire "policy" system is broken (your emphasis)...' is not what I said. I said "if X, then Y". If we cannot block people for things that would earn them the real-world equivalent of a block, then the "policy" system is broken. Remember that the so-called policy is not some immutable law handed down from on high. The rules exist solely because they are thought to improve the functioning of Wikipedia. When they stop serving that purpose, then we have the option of making up new ones. Sometimes we have to make them up in real time. To quote Jimbo (on a different subject, but still applicable): "If they want to play games with us, fine. This is Calvinball -- we make up the rules, so we win." [5] (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/019013.html)

Additionally, the police (in the US, anyway) can arrest and detain you temporarily without charging you if they have probable cause. Probable cause in this case included imitating a hard-banned troll well enough to fool one arbitrator, stalking another user (that RickK is an admin is immaterial), and yelling very loudly through his username "I am a troll".

Do not think I blocked this person on a whim. I do not block people often or lightly. While I may yet be convinced that The Recycling Troll should not be blocked, the only mistake I'm going to feel I made was opening myself to criticism from people who think that Wikipedia is a game and that following the rules is the purpose of being here. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

For Your Information-Vandalism is a legitimate reason for blocking. Eitherway since my point has been made and I did not make the intial blocks I won't revert on the block log. I would, however, think it to be appropriate if you discussed your unilatteral action with silsor considering he enacted the indefinite blocks. Thanks. Arminius 02:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocking EntmootsOfTrolls

Why did you unblock JRR Trollkien and Leo Trollstoy? It has become clear that they are EofT and should stay blocked. Hephaestos followed Wikipedia:Banning policy#Reincarnations perfectly when he blocked them. Unless you give a valid reason why they should be unblocked, I will reblock them. Guanaco 19:09, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Hello, can you by any chance, connect to irc ? If you could, that would be great to discuss now. irc.freenode.net /join wikipedia. SweetLittleFluffyThing 05:19, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC) [edit]


[edit] Trollkien

This case is not under review by the AC, it is settled in light of his legitimate block under policy. Do you click on the links I provide? Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Votes_and_discussion_by_arbitrators. - Hephaestos|ÎåÎá 02:20, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC) [edit]

[edit] Trolls, Admins, and Policy, oh my

(Lengthy, see User talk:Mark Richards/Archive 2#Trolls, Admins, and Policy, oh my and Mark's response at User talk:Jwrosenzweig/Archive 6)

[edit] Unbanning

I noticed you have unblocked several EntmootsofTrolls reincarnations. Please stop violating the policy of unblocking reincarnations of hard-banned users. Best regards --H. CHENEY 02:05, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

  1. 19:53, 23 Jul 2004 Mark Richards unprotected Religious minorities in Iran (There does not appear to be any more active conflict, and no discussion on talk page.)
  2. 21:22, 19 Jul 2004 Mark Richards protected Religious minorities in Iran (Edit war - please discuss on talk page.)
  3. 02:23, 5 Jul 2004 Mark Richards unprotected User:The Trolls of Navarone (Heph, this page needs protection from you, not by you. Read the policy.)
  4. 04:17, 28 May 2004 Mark Richards unprotected User talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/ban
  5. 22:40, 27 May 2004 Mark Richards unprotected User talk:Michael Snow
  6. 22:39, 27 May 2004 Mark Richards protected User talk:Michael Snow
  7. 21:42, 17 May 2004 Mark Richards unprotected Central Asia
  8. 20:50, 17 May 2004 Mark Richards protected Central Asia

[edit] Deletion

performed 37 deletes per the "speedy deletion criteria", none especially notable

[edit] VfD activity

  • Was a frequent voter on VfD pages while active
  • Balanced voting prior to adminship e.g. [2][3][4]
  • After adminship, never voted "delete" except for deletion of this subpage.
  • Notable "keep" votes: [5] [6] [7]

[edit] Other notable advocacy