Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 1
Statement of the dispute
User:Snowspinner 7-day block of User:The Recycling Troll appears to have been in violation of the blocking policy.
Description
User:RickK posted a note on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: "This troll is at it again, stalking me and voting the opposite from my votes on VfD. Has been blocked once before for the same behavior. RickK 00:49, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)"
- 01:13, 2005 Mar 9 Snowspinner blocked "User:The Recycling Troll" with an expiry time of 7 days (Repeating behavior that got him blocked last time.)
Snowspinner blocked RT for 7 days. Extensive discussion has taken place on the noticeboard as to whether this block violated policy.
Powers misused
- Protection (log):
- {list page or pages protected}
- Deletion (log):
- {list page or pages deleted}
- Blocking (log):
Applicable policies
- {explain violation of protection policy here}
- {explain violation of deletion policy here}
- This matter should have been referred to RfC, mediation, or arbitration. At least 4 factors create reasonable doubt as to whether RT's edits merit a 7-day block:
- RT is not a new user account; RT's first edit was in September 2004[1].
- RT has explained his intentions behind his username, refuting the presumption that he is using that name to indicate he is a troll[2].
- A perusal of RT's contributions reveals RT's edits that, at most, RT appeared to make "a mixture of disruptive and useful edits"[3].
- RT has stated that the monitoring of RickK and other users was in good faith[4].
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
- Snowspinner disagrees that the block violated blocking policy, as evidenced by Snowspinner's comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~~~~)
- User:Rad Racer
- Netoholic @ 17:11, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
- Mark Richards 17:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Other users who endorse this statement
(sign with ~~~~)
Response
This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.