User talk:Kurt-the-parrot-hamster

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kurt-the-parrot-hamster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i made an edit to the article on guy fawkes which was supported by a UK.gov reference. That edit was removed without reason by somebody calling himself kurt adkins using his various socks. How can one comment result in a block when the same person uses incivility, swearing and bigotry at anyone who tries to correct his mistakesKurt-the-parrot-hamster (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Account obviously created for harassment. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kurt-the-parrot-hamster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

how can you "harrass" somebody with one comment when by definition it means repeated or systematic efforts to annoy - i made one remark - Moreover the one edit i made was supported by an offical government site.Kurt-the-parrot-hamster (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per the discussion below, I think it is likely that this account was created with the intention to disrupt Wikipedia. Sandstein 21:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This request makes no sense. There is no one named 'Kurt Adkins' in the editing history of that article, and also no incivility, swearing, or bigotry. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how on earth can you "harrass" somebody with one comment when by definition it means to fatigue or to tire with repeated and exhausting efforts or to annoy endlessly or systematically - i made one remark!! I picked up the name Kurt Adkins somewhere in wickopedia but i cannot remember where - but who cares - if i am wrong in a discussion then no harm and certainly no harrassment had been caused -unless there are larger issues that you cannot disclose.Kurt-the-parrot-hamster (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the unblock request on hold because the block makes no sense to me. i see no harrassment in the contributions of this editor, at least not prior to their block. I'm asking the blocking admin to explain this block. Sandstein 20:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's inexplicable comments make me think that the block is probably related to some sort of sockpuppet harassment, since the comments are not in any way related to this user's experience at Wikipedia with this account. I'm sure OrangeMike will be able to clarify. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i find it inexplicable that i tried to edit an article on guy fawkes when originally i only intended to use wikipedia on finding some information on polycarbonate roofing - how the hell i ended up at Guy Fawkes is beyond me. I guess i became curious as to who it was that was striking out a true fact and thats when i started reading various sources about parrot-of-doom, nev1 and webhamster all of whom somehwere i read where in fact one person whose name i recall was kurt adkins. As i said dont ask me why or how i got there but i did - i think it was displacement behaviour when in reality i should have been researching polycarbonate roofing however its is not the most exciting subject in the world hence why i was easily distracted. For the record i had to create an account in order to rectify the mistake in the guy fawkes article and write something about polycarbonate roofing (as the subject is not in wikipedia) the name that i choose was a composite of the names that had previously cropped in my research in wikipedia.Kurt-the-parrot-hamster (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The block was placed because Kurt-the-'s username, edit summaries and/or posts indicated (as do his remarks above this one) that his real goal was "outing" the editor Parrot of Doom as being this Kurt person, based on "something he read somewhere". To my considerable confusion and distress, I am not finding the remarks that first led me to this conclusion: I don't know whether they were oversighted, made while logged out, or what. I invite the feedback of my fellow admins as to where we should be going from here. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What brought it to my attention, as I reconstruct things, was a report at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention by User:Richerman. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Webhamster ensured his his account was closed some time ago (It's a long story but it happened in 2009) as he was being threatened in real life by an online stalker. Somewhere I read that his real name was Kurt Adkins - I can't remember where as it was a long time ago. It seems very strange that this user should create new section on the Guy Fawkes Night talk page called 'Kurt Adkins' for no apparent reason and then make some comment about Malleus, Nev1, PoD and Webhamster being one and the same. As Webhamster has had no involvement with this article why did that name crop up? Because of this I made the request for the account to be closed as it appeared to be something to do with the original stalking. BTW, PoD actually gives his real name on his user page, if you care to look and as he regularly chats with Malleus and sometimes Nev1 these three people are obviously not the same person. The comment has been deleted from the Talk:Guy Fawkes Night page by Blueboy96 but you will see where it has been removed in the history and I'm sure as admins you can see what the comment was. At the very least, this editor is accusing three current editors of being sockpuppets without good reason. Richerman (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather incomprehensible to me. I thought that WebHamster was a good editor who sometimes became a little too involved, but who doesn't. As for me, Parrot of Doom, and Nev1 being the same person I can only laugh at the naivety of anyone who might believe that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Just as an FYI, those comments were removed by oversight, they're unviewable to most admins.) -- Atama頭 00:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a sock of WebHamster? lmao. Check the early talk history of Dark Side of the Moon, when I started to rework it. You'll soon see how likely that is. Parrot of Doom 06:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the section you're talking about. Boy, if you're talking to yourself there, you really need some psychiatric care. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well he could be schizophrenic - but I'm in two minds about that :) But to get back to the point of the discussion, you can see why I asked for this account to be blocked if you read from "Blocked" onwards here. This user created an account using other user names to make a point about them being sockpuppets and then, his/her second or third contribution (it's hard to tell as it's been deleted from their contribution list) was to make accusations against these editors and also give an editor's real name (a big no-no) because of "something he/she read". As far as I'm concerned the account should stay blocked. If this person is as innocent as he/she makes out (I'm still not totally convinvced - how come a new account holder uses terms like "socks"?) and wants to carry on editing, they need to create a new user name and realise that you don't start off by attacking other editors with unsubstantiated claims. Richerman (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request taken off hold and declined. Thanks for the input, Sandstein 21:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]