On 12/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
As far as I can see, it's entirely over his editing of his talk page, removing unblock request refusals and re-unblock-requesting, plus arguing with people there.
That appears to be the case.
Further, no unblock request refusal appears removed save one, and that one appears to be the result of the servers misprocessing an edit conflict;see his talk page in the "To Rosicrucian" section.
And that one unblock request refusal was made by Tariqabjotu, who's the admin who blocked him in the first place. No matter if Tariq had good intentions or not, that's a definite no-no!
As a personal opinion - lengthening blocks due to ongoing argument
ONLY on a blockee's talk page is among the worst abuses that a pack of administrators can commit, ganging up on someone.
Precisely.
RunedChozo came into the argument with a bunch of abuses he'd
committed counting against him, and certainly was being disruptive on several levels. He did have one point that I see - Itaquallah did use inappropriate edit summaries and remove material with source info claiming it's unsourced. There was a two-sided abusive edit war going on; Itaquallah was not an innocent party there, and should have been warned against that.
But that's unfortunately not how Wikipedia has worked, that I've ever seen. It's always one side getting swatted and the other side being held blameless.
It's hard to see this and not wonder if RunedChozo is too disruptive
to be a Wikipedia participant, but a bunch of admins have gone and collectively beaten up on someone in a way which is not called for or appropriate. If someone can't stop being a dick on their talk page while they're blocked, admins need to just walk away and let them cool down.
Bad day.
Indeed, very bad day. And what makes it worse is the sheer number of problems I documented a few emails back, where I doublechecked FayssalF/Svest's claim that RunedChozo had "five blocks in one month" and it didn't look nearly as bad as he was making it out to be when he was using the block log as a bludgeon.
There are plenty of conflicts of interest here, and there's plenty of evidence that it is a collective effort to beat up on one user rather than a real problem user.
Parker