User talk:HRCC

Source added. Cooper did work for the CIA, not a joke edit.HRCC (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In general, i trust the judgment of my fellow admins, and i this case, i'm unwilling to say that [name of admin] was wrong to disable the autoblock on this editor's IP. On the other hand, this user is tendentious in their response on Talk:Tim Russert/Archives/2015#Page protection to the courtesies extended to them, well beyond their right to fork their content, and their right to go away, and is blocked for 24 hours.
  --Jerzy•t 02:32, 14 June & 19:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)br>[reply]
  • What i said above, i also said a few minutes earlier, below your msg of 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC) which i was citing, and which reads (except for my two deletions):

    Page protection is also wrong because I can't edit it. I am not a newbie. However, [admin name deleted by Jerzy] didn't like my name and blocked it. He asked me to create a new name and disabled autoblock. I did but the computer thinks I am a newbie and won't let me edit. Thanks a lot, [same admin name deleted again by Jerzy].

You responded on my talk page, some hours ago, under the heading "abuse":

I thought I was blocked for a month but, on second look, now see it was shorter.
You blocked me for "Tendentious response to follow up of previous block". I have looked up WP:BLOCK. Your reason is not a reason for blocking. It is abuse of power. Please do a defacto block of yourself by not editing Wikipedia for 24 hours.
Making a comment of how carelessness can cause hardship beyond what was intended is an appropriate comment. That's what I did but what you blocked me for.
Saying sorry is potentially only lip service. Please respond here that you have read this and then cease editing or using any type of editing, moving, or other function for 24 hours. By taking responsibility for your actions, you will become a better administrator.
HRCC (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find your self-serving description of why your comment about the blocking admin should be seen as "appropriate" to be, well, tendentious. I think your ironic "Thank you" to them should be construed as sarcastic, and that inclusion of their name makes it a personal attack -- a mild one, but one nevertheless. I found, and continue to find that to be seriously tone-deaf, which is how i also find -- especially in a so-close-to-BLP situation, and so soon after being blocked -- your citing your temporary inability to edit as making protection of the article "wrong". And it seemed to me that you almost certainly had not lived up to the blocking admin's presumably reasonable estimate that you would take away whatever lesson you were supposed to from the block. I continue to think a brief block -- just long enuf to get you to "marvelously focus your attention" on the previous one -- was a good response to the totality of the situation, which in my experience is intended to count for much more than the kind of technical analysis of these circumstances that you've attempted, and than my wasting attention citing chapter and verse to you would.
I hope, BTW, that you will take notice of how much criticism my unusually public admin action has elicited, in the last 30 days, directly below my msg on the article talk page.
(Your more recent choice of the words "carelessness" and "hardship" in their contexts, your gratuitous rejection of unoffered sorrow, and your attempt to become what i'll call a de-facto meta-admin, all seem to me much in the same vein. And whether for your benefit or mine, i think your remark makes it appropriate that i say for the record that this is no apology, i'm not sorry for or about anything, and i assume i made no error.)
In case you remain dissatisfied with my response: i may well decline from responding further, should you directly press me further. Your formally specified recourse is via

WP:ANI

, but -- having admin'd for four years now -- i feel safe in advising you that the most favorable disposition you can reasonably expect for such a filing would be no response. Frankly, i think the best step you could take at this point is to hope the preceding admin who blocked you has enough continuing interest to give you their perspective on the whole matter, and for you to point them to this record for that purpose.
On another tangent, i haven't looked to see whether anyone mentioned to you that you have the option of requesting re-attribution of your previous edits to your current username, which, it sounds like, would un-newbify you. I think it requires action by a bureaucrat; it may be quite routine by now -- unless the requirements for verifying your exclusive access for any IP edits you would want to include are in practice onerous.
While i've been devoting major effort to responding to you in the way that hopefully will serve WP's best interests, enjoying some TV while my love needed the system, interrupting the effort periodically for the sake of perspective, and sleeping, you've chattered on, adding the phrase (in what you doubtlessly didn't realize was a stealth revision and technically a forgery)

, worthy of admiration

and then a new message

You may be worthy of admiration because after you edited my statement above, you did a reply to someone else and stopped editing (this is not quite the same as being blocked because when you are blocked, you can't even finish up a few edits like you did). Whether you are busy or not doesn't matter. You are not editing. Keep this up for another half day and my opinion of you will change.
HRCC (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad that you are telling yourself these stories, perhaps especially since it reflects your apparent ignorance of how experienced editors, including admins, approach this project. I've made no effort to comply with your -- (uh, let me refer back to them and be accurate) -- requests to please you, nor to defy them. I have rather, for the good of this inherantly massively inefficient project, been making a substantial effort to see that you have a decent chance to become a good colleague. My only interest in your opinion of me is whether it enhances or degrades that chance (but that probably has a low correlation with the direction of the opinion). Sometimes that works. "If not, it can't be helped."
--Jerzy•t 19:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage says you had a prior account. Which one was that? Jehochman ^Talk 20:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is User:Hillary Rodham Clinton constituent (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) the only other account you have operated? [1] Jehochman ^Talk 20:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your remarks on my talk page [2] have lead me to look closely at your editing history. I see a lot of posting that is confrontational and designed to elicit emotional responses. This looks a lot like

Thank you for your partial support. You can judge from my reply whether you guessed correctly - now would be the appropriate time to change your vote, if needed (which I hope not). Regards,  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks a lot for your texts! It really is a comfort to know that there are still editors outthere (beyond my 20 or so friends who are also risking being banned) who believe in freedom of information (or so I interpret your posts). Could you please activate your e-mail? I'd prefer to talk in private (these people dug up messages I posted to friends from two years ago, took them out of context, and used them to villify me before the ArbCom).  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC) xiutwel at gmail dot com[reply]