[WikiEN-l] Due process ignored, two newbies banned permanently, admin blocks for content

[Jane Halliwell]

>[[User:Eyeon]] has been causing trouble around a number of articles
>for some time, including [[Feces]], where she's trying to insert a
>photograph of a human turd against the wishes of the editors on the
>page.

This is NOT TRUE. If you check the Talk:Feces page, it is clear that public 
opinion is AGAINST censoring the image. Even the poll has 16 in favor of 
inlining, 10 in favor of linking, and ONE in favor complete censorship. 
Unfortunately, this ONE is one of SlimVirgin's fellow admins.

>She's has already been blocked twice for 3RR on that page, once
>by me, and several editors have said her behavior is troll-like.

The first time, I learned of the rule. The second time, I included a 
DIFFERENT, more acceptable image, but SlimVirgin ignored that distinction.

>Today, Eyeon and two new accounts, Niglet and Fecologist, started
>reverting at [[Feces]] to the version with the photograph. Eyeon and
>>Fecologist reverted six times in 10 hours. I therefore blocked Eyeon
>for a 3RR violation, and blocked the two new accounts indefinitely as
>sockpuppets created to violate 3RR.

They are not my sockpuppets, and one has been around longer than I have.

>I also protected the page in case
>Eyeon turned up with more sockpuppets, and to give the other editors a
>rest from having to revert. I've made it clear on the talk  page that
>I'll unprotect if the other editors want to edit.

She is abusing her position to control the content of the page, in violation 
of her terms of adminship, and against the prevailing opinion of the editors 
on the page.

>Eyeon has e-mailed me several times insisting the new accounts were
>not controlled by her, and requesting an IP check. I wonder about the
>value of that, as she may have asked friends to set up the accounts
>for her, which would still make them sockpuppets.

That's absurd. Why would I lobby friends on this issue? Public opinion was 
already in my court. And is there no due process? Call me. 918-313-7160. I 
have nothing to hide. Call the others, if you haven't completely discouraged 
them.

>I've put a request
>for advice as to how to proceed on [[WP:AN/I]].  If anyone here has
>ideas, or feels I should assume good faith and unblock, please let me
>know.

The request you put up is biased to get the response you want. You have 
misrepresented my behavior, you have blocked me from responding. Of course 
you will get support for your actions.

Admins, CHECK the talk:feces page. When my name is slurred, CHECK the 
footnotes. If something looks wrong, ASK ME to explain.

It's awful when an admin can ban people's contributions without due process, 
permanently block two newbies, and block edits on a page in violation of the 
prevailing opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/