UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/Block Request - User:Elliot

Block Request - 

First of all, I am aware that this is quite late but bear in mind I was very busy with exams and was therefore unable to post anything till now. I am asking to once again block Elliot, and this time for a month. Below is an email I received on June 18th from Elliot's uesp email, I'm guessing in response to this comment.

:"Do not involve yourself in matters that concern me you little prick.

:-- 
:This e-mail was sent by Elliot to SerCenKing by the "E-mail user" function at UESPWiki."

This is a clear violation of WP:HARASS, but not only that: Elliot had been blocked  for exactly this kind of behaviour. It appears as if he has yet again not learnt a lesson from his week long block and I therefore ask for a month-long block in the hope that it will help him understand that this behaviour is unacceptable here at UESP. --SerCenKing   18:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:It might not be my place, but I support disciplinary action against Elliot. I'm sorry you were harassed like that SerCenKing Corvus 18:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
::His block has expired and he has not returned to the site afterward. Some of you may know I was subject to the same thing earlier, but even so, I am going to remain neutral because he has shown no interest in returning.--             18:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Core, yes he has. See here. The email was sent after his block had expired. --SerCenKing   18:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
::::Done.  Ideally, I would have preferred to only block Elliot from using the wiki's email features, given that the immediate cause of the block is solely related to email.  However, after looking at the wiki code it doesn't seem possible to do an email block without also blocking the user.  Furthermore, I didn't think it was worth wasting my time  on finding/creating a way to do an email-only block.  In particular, there is no evidence that Elliot plans to make constructive wiki contributions (and in fact he has made statements specifically saying the opposite).  --Nephele  19:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Thanks Neph :) --SerCenKing   22:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC) 
::::::I'm not sure if Krusty got my e-mail about this same issue, but since posting the text above isn't a violation of the privacy policy, I received this e-mail from Elliot on June 17: 


Are you a fucking baby?

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! He told me to stay off of his page! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Nephele do something! I am too stupid and incompetent to even comprehend rules! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH He hurt my feelings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.

Grow up you fucking idiot. A retaliatory move like this shows your incompetence on a new level. Just leave the site. You are too retarded to contribute positively to it.

Leave before you make a further ass out of yourself you worthless pile.

-- 
This e-mail was sent by Elliot to TheAlbinoOrc by the "E-mail user" function at UESPWiki. 


I'd like to request that if there is any further continuation of this behavior Elliot be blocked permanently. This was presumably received in response to my change of vote and my comment on Nephele's talk page (which I would have clarified and expanded upon but I didn't feel like dealing with it at the time).--  
     23:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:In light of the recent email sent to TheAlbinoOrc I suggest that we extend Elliot's block to something like 6 months, maybe even block him indefinitely. It's behaviour like this that led him to his patroller status being stripped from him and another sad thing is that he appears to be continuing his childish behaviour even after Nephele blocked him not that long ago. So yeah, I suggest we extend Elliot's block by a considerable amount. --       16:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about being late in to the discussion, but I brought this issue up in May, but GK prevented me from taking action. Elliot is clearly unable to handle the responsibility of the wiki's Email function. --Michaeldsuarez   15:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC) 

:Yeah I saw that whole thing unfold, sorry your thing was invalidated because of the privacy policy. At least now what people should do is clear though: Try to contact the Admins and then if they don't respond (or they tell you to bring it up on-wiki) do what was done here.--       19:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

::I don't know if this is grounds for an extension of the block. But Elliot, has just dismissed me as well as several other editors when he has been warned about doing that already. So if it okay with the wiki admins, I am requesting his block to be extended by another month. --         10:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Elliot has the right to remove content from his talk page if he wants to, although saying "Go away" in the edit summary is definitely not helpful. rpeh  13:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Yeah it was the "go away" that I was referring to with my comment. --         14:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: Has Elliot attempted any kind of apology for this kind of behaviour, and entered some form of undertaking that he will not engage in such behaviour in future? Jadrax 19:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

:If you've looked at his   recently, you'll see that I encouraged him in that direction, but he ignored it. If he has done something along these lines, he hasn't done so publicly.  ‒ Robin Hood    21:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

::In that case, as the purpose of a block is to prevent abusive behaviour, it would only seem logical to extend the block in cases were the subject shows no understanding of why their behaviour is unacceptable. I would suggest extending the block until at the very least an apology is received. Jadrax 21:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC) 

:::I can see your point- but I know that if I had done nothing further wrong after being blocked, and received an extension of the block simply because I hadn't apologized I'd be ready to tear someone's head off (not literally of course). Besides repeated warnings/blocks have had no effect. Why should an apology?--       06:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

::::He's also just deleted the entire discussion on his talk page claimed it to be "gang warfare." --         15:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::So??? As already pointed out, it's his talk page and he is free to remove content (other than official messages) from his talk page.  It's also not exactly surprising that he's upset, so just let him be.  There's no point in paying attention to the actions of a blocked user that have no impact on the rest of the site. --Nephele  15:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)