User:Timmy12/from Admininistors Notice Board Incident

Puppetmaster Mattisse repeatedly removing puppetmaster tag
I've put it back 3 times, she has reverted 4. 3RR? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 23:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked accounts are allowed to edit their userpage at will. It's only the indef-blocked accounts that get the tags about being "sock masters" or whatever. Which begs the question: is this a good circumstance to indef-block? I think it might be. -- Cyde Weys 23:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was considering a block, but I opted not to. I reverted back, and left a note on the user talk page. If the user continues to remove the notice from their userpage, then the user can be blocked. However, I do not believe a indef block should really be applied in this case. The user does make some positive contributions to the community. Nish kid  64  23:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that as soon as Nishkid reverted, Matisse reverted, again: "removed harassment for fifth time byUser: Nishkid64 with User:Ekajati" Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm against any sort of block on this account. Mattisse is a good contributor, who has felt very got at by this whole process. A civil discussion is the way to resolve this. --Salix alba (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm considering just protecting the page so that it can only be edited by administrators for the time-being. The user has reverted too many times, and some other admin is bound to go crazy and block her/him for a while for repeatedly removing of the sockpuppetry messages. Protecting the page is the best option in my opinion. Nish kid  64  23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Salix, the problem with this user is that they won't talk. They're not discussing the matter in a civil fashion. I'm protecting the page to save Mattisse. Nish kid  64  23:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, we don't use the sockmaster template as a scarlet A to brand editors who have made mistakes in the past. Per the comments above, we only use such templates on the user pages of permanently or indefinitely banned editors.  I would strongly object to blocking Mattisse for removing a tag from his own user page when that tag shouldn't be there in the first place.  In general, it's considered bad form to edit war over the contents of a user page belonging to an editor in good standing.  I think it would be best to consider this a lesson learned for Ekajati and Nishkid64, and move on.
 * Obviously if Mattisse engages in disruptive behaviour (creating new sockpuppets, for example) it would be appropriate to consider a block. It's really not fair to block him for removing a template that shouldn't have been placed in the first place.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. On top of that, the template was removed for over a month and during all that time, the admin who originally placed it did not complain. If Ekajati has a problem with Mattisse removing this on his own page, he should IMHO take it to User:Hanuman Das directly. Regards, Asterion talk 00:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that Nishkid64 has seen fit to revert to a version of the user page with the tag and protect that page with the template in place. I'd appreciate further review here, if only to know if I'm totally out in left field here.  I don't want to go unprotecting and removing the tag as the first shot in a wheel war, but it troubles me that a couple of non-admins (Ekajati and Ryulong) were edit warring with another editor over something like this.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess the whole situation was a misunderstanding. I did not know when exactly to put a sockpuppeteer tag on a user page, and I frankly didn't think it was that big of a deal before you brought it up. If you believe that my actions were unjust, then by all means go ahead and remove the tag. Nish kid  64  00:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding a block of this user: IMO not yet, but the user must be warned about the words they choose (see Ryulong's example of such an edit summary above). They may feel harassed, but this is becoming uncivil on their part as well. – Chacor 00:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see how an editor might be a bit peeved when other editors keep erroneously – albeit with the best of intentions – replacing a sockpuppeteer template front-and-centre on that editor's user page. I note that Mattisse removed the template twice without comment, including once after a bordering-on-snide edit summary from Ekajati ("puppetmaster template may not be removed, you made the bed...").
 * I'm normally a stickler for civility, but I really would hate to see this issue further escalated when a user is upset because we admins happen to have made an error. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Put me down as someone who thinks this problem would go away if the admins who like to play cops and robbers would stop worrying about whether or not someone removes a warning from their talk page. Ξxtreme Unction  00:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Per Nishkid's comment above, I have unprotected the talk page, and informed Mattisse that he can do as he sees fit with it. I will emphasize my earlier advice to him to avoid incivil remarks and sockpuppets. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have am extra complaint.
When my user page was reverted: User:Mattisse‎; 18:53. . contribs) (Revert to revision 73364465 dated 2006-09-02 07:33:12 by Netsnipe using popups) it was reverted to a point before the sockpuppet label was put on again, revealing personal information that I don't wish to be available for personal reasons and that I had removed long ago. So now I can't remove my own personal information that User:Ekajati chose to reveal. I was told that it was an administrator that was doing it (which I did not think an administrator would do without due process) so I did not believe that part. Nonetheless, what I want private is now there against my will and there is nothing I can do about it. Mattisse(talk) 00:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC) May I please be allowed to remove the part that wasn't there to begin with when User:Ekajati started this? Mattisse(talk) 01:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Unprotected. Per the discussion above, Nishkid64 is okay with removing the template.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)