Sonya1985
August 2009 edit
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Nev1 (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Sonya1985 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
i am trying to bring to an admins attention the fact that Like many children in their school holidays they come to Wikipedia and search for Disney’s 'webhamster' and whilst there is an article on the correct subject (dancing hamsters for children) some are directed by Google to webhamsters homepage which has a disgusting picture unsuitable for children and contains a litany of language most foul. All this is achievable with the safesearch filter switched on. My daughter uses wikipedia - not me - and she has helped me put all this in the correct places - should i use her account instead?Sonya1985 (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
So you registered for an account specifically to harass this longstanding user? Considering you're still ranting about him in your unblock request, I'm going to decline. Smashvilletalk 16:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
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.
Sonya1985 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
yes i did register an account because i thought it was the only way to register a complaint. Even with the strict filters children can still access Missionary_style or Cumfac or Cumfart - WHAT KIND OF REPONSIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA allows what effectively is a child-sex honeypot luring young boys into websites that link off this editors homepage? do you want me to go straight to the press instead? along with the links off the hamsters site to child porn sites!!!?? - your call
Decline reason:
Please see WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. If you find this content objectionable, don't go looking for it. If you don't want your daughter to see it, monitor what sites she's using. We are an encyclopedia, not a day care service. And nothing you've said here convinces me that you intend to usefully contribute to the project. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
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.
- So if you admit that the sole purpose of registering an account was to harass another user, why on earth would anyone unblock you? Wikipedia is not censored. --Smashvilletalk 16:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- there was no intention to harass - that is your word - not mine - i came here to to bring to an admins attention the fact that kids wanting to find out more on disneys webhamster end up in a seedy hole full of disgusting language, foul images and vile weblinks. Since this is what you want then i am clearly wasting my time and i have taken the complaint elsewhere.Sonya1985 (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Type "pedophile webhamster" into google and the snippet in the top result says "About 2 weeks ago i reported at least 30 pedophile images being used by ... (for example look at the editor known as 'webhamster' and the ..." So i learn that this has been a problem with him a long time before i came here - anyway i followed googles link and reported the illegal content on the hamsters site. Thanks all for the speedy response and the e-mails of encouragement.Sonya1985 (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC) BTW thanks for cleaning up some of his page (although the links are still there) in particular thank you for removing his offensive comment:- Oh the poor little children, how forever scarred they will be by seeing four-letter words. Fuck e'm I say. It won't be long before they're using them themselves. As for "reputation"? Do you think I give a shit what people who I'll never know think of me. Your ego may be that shallow, mine isn't. --WebHamster 16:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Harass"? I don't see any obvious intention to harass, here. What ever happened to gently educating people about site policy? What was so urgent about this case that needed an instant block without any apparent warnings or discussion? Concerned parents should be talked to, not blasted in the face with a shotgun first thing. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Inquired with the blocking admin at User talk:Nev1#User talk:Sonya1985 -- their reply looks to be relevant, here. Normally this would be the point where I start checkusering around a bit more, but I don't have time at the moment. I will try to check back, but for now I'll leave this to other capable hands. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Following up edit
Now that I'm back from my weekend trip, I've had some time to take a closer look at this account's behavior. The same user also created the following accounts:
- Hugh-Jamptom2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Hugh-Jamptom (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Edits from one of the accounts above, and anon edits, make it clear to me that this user was socking abusively, and that their intent was malicious. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)