User talk:Nedlington9

If you wish to make complaints about people, use your regular account, don't make a single purpose one. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect the complaint was about an aggressive user harassing fellow editors. I have no wish for my regular account to be harassed by this individual. This is exactly one of the legitimate reasons to create an SPA. You should not remove valid comments supported by diffs from ANI. Nedlington9 19:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

archived from ANI.

Harassment and personal attacks by user:Netscott

Netscott recently started harassing other users by making personal attacks:[1], shortly after he was seriously warned by an administrator for divulging sensitive private information [2]. I think he should be blocked for a short time as to discourage him for further harassing his fellow editors. Nedlington9 18:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That first diff seems to fall just short of a personal attack, and the other issue seems to be dealt with already. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a trolling single purpose account see Special:Contributions/Nedlington9. I'd remove this thread myself but it would be a conflict of interest. (→Netscott) 19:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also this is the same individual whose User:HEWatch account was indefinitely blocked. (→Netscott) 19:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cat's out of the bag now. (→Netscott) 19:17, 8 April 2007 (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).

Nedlington9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Contesting this block on the grounds that avoiding harassment is not a blockable offense.

Decline reason:

Sockpuppetry to do so is, however, even when assuming that your analysis of "harassment" is right. — ²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:53, 8 April 2007 (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.

I would ask reviewing admin to restore the above deleted complaint to ANI. It's exactly that a small complaint, not trolling. If that user will be a little nicer to other editors that would be great that's all. Nedlington9 19:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK is pretty clear about "avoiding scrutiny of fellow editors". I have half a mind to tag this account with a puppet tag indicating the puppeteering acccount. If you are truly keen to keep your privacy in tact why do you continue to edit the areas you previously did and why do you continue to do the things you previously did (like defending those who engage in reprehensible wiki hate mongering)? If my privacy was such an issue I wouldn't continue to be active in the areas that I was previously and I wouldn't continue in the behavior that I was engaged in previously like you are. This is not what the "right to vanish" is about. The right to vanish is about an editor deciding to leave and not leave traces of his or her previous involvement so that a clean break can be made between the past and the future... by your continued involvement in your old patterns it is clear you are not attempting to make this clean break. (→Netscott) 19:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]