Unbelievabale blocks Options

[mbz1]

There are many bad block imposed every day, but between these there are some unbelievable blocks. Maybe we could use this thread to discuss such blocks.


On 26 April 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Funguy06 with the edit summary "(Vandalism-only account: no meaningfully encyclopedic edits)"
The user who started contributing to wikipedia in 2006 was blocked over this 2009 edit as being "vandalism only" account. Really?

But see the article now. Heidi Montag (T-H-L-K-D) and compare it the edit in question(the last edit of the user)
Funguy06 was right! He vandalized nothing. Not only he made a good faith edit, it was an encyclopedic edit as well.This block is not just a bad block. This block is unbelievable. The user is gone. He did not even bother to write an unblock request.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[mbz1]

Encyclopedist, I would like to ask you, if, when you supported Gwen's RFA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...hip/Gwen_Gale_2 were you aware about these statements of her made by one of her other accounts Wyss (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?

I'd also suggest that the wanton enabling of trolls and fools on Wikipedia gives the petty cyber-castle builders endless excuses to waste time on them with RfArs, RfCs, mentor committees, IRC watchlist feeds, loopy talk page discussions/scoldings, insincere civility patrols and other process-oriented, attention-getting stuff they think will help them get elected to roles in the bureaucracy... anything to avoid true volunteer work, the writing of an encyclopedia founded on scholarly principles. Wyss 18:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the notion of wading through a cyber-waste dump of coddled trolls, fools and mob-think police to edit the 1% of articles most Wikipedians don't care about. Wyss 07:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

However, ridding WP of fools and trolls would eliminate (in my humble opinion) about 80% of the site's active user base along with at least half of its admins. I think Wales has known this for years and has his own reasons for not doing it. So what is Wikipedia truly efficient at?

If Wikipedia is so inefficient at generating quality content (hundreds, sometimes thousands of person-hours will wontedly result in a mediocre, unscholarly article), what is Wikipedia efficient at? Traffic is the name of the game, as is fame. Encyclopedia writing is not a mass market hook

Scholastically inclinced reference projects, while perhaps exciting to weird (grin) people like me, are in truth boring to most but without selectivity as to participating editors, WP's content will be driven by mob tyranny. Face it, half of all people are of below average cleverness, and many of the other half are either indifferent to volunteering their time to an academic project or shouldn't be trusted if they do express interest, since maybe half of them would come only as articulate hucksters. Worse, qualified people tend not to have a lot of spare time, so online projects like this risk attracting more than their share of tossers and impaired outcasts, even into its bureaucracy (or dominant clique) who themselves have not a clue how or why they are being used in the furtherance of non-encyclopedic goals. How's that for stark talking? Wyss 15:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Once you've read Wikiruth, it's hard to think of Wikipedia as anything other than an autistic care ...

I mean, I understand people change, but the above was said not by a teenaged girl. It was written by 30 years old woman(no outting, info is taken from her bio written by herself on Wiki).
Her performance as an admin demonstrated she did not change.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[jd turk]

Encyclopedist, I would like to ask you, if, when you supported Gwen's RFA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...hip/Gwen_Gale_2 were you aware about these statements of her made by one of her other accounts Wyss (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?

I've been gone from here for weeks now, and I return to find Mbz1 still swinging at Gwen Gale, using 6+ year old diffs as evidence. It actually makes me feel good, there's at least something in my life that's consistent.

As for bad blocks, they're not just exclusive to Gwen or any of the other couple of admins brought up in this thread. What bothers me the most about bad blocks is when an admin issues one, then vanishes. The recent (probably 3 months, maybe?) example that comes to mind involved an admin swooping in and leveling a block on a good faith editor with over a thousand edits, and no warning. When the confusion happened, the admin just split. The block was rightfully overturned, the admin waited out the anger, then came back and all was calmer and forgiven.

There's no accountability for the bad blocks. There should be a permanent record for admins, like there is at the long-term abuse page for the blocked.

[Encyclopedist]

Encyclopedist, I would like to ask you, if, when you supported Gwen's RFA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...hip/Gwen_Gale_2 were you aware about these statements of her made by one of her other accounts Wyss (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?

I've been gone from here for weeks now, and I return to find Mbz1 still swinging at Gwen Gale, using 6+ year old diffs as evidence. It actually makes me feel good, there's at least something in my life that's consistent.

As for bad blocks, they're not just exclusive to Gwen or any of the other couple of admins brought up in this thread. What bothers me the most about bad blocks is when an admin issues one, then vanishes. The recent (probably 3 months, maybe?) example that comes to mind involved an admin swooping in and leveling a block on a good faith editor with over a thousand edits, and no warning. When the confusion happened, the admin just split. The block was rightfully overturned, the admin waited out the anger, then came back and all was calmer and forgiven.

There's no accountability for the bad blocks. There should be a permanent record for admins, like there is at the long-term abuse page for the blocked.

Going by what I had seen of Gwen Gale's record, I saw no reason to oppose her RFA. I had other stuff to do than conduct a deep witch hunt, and on the face of it, I see that others have perhaps done that. "Due diligence" has little meaning on WP, and if an editor votes in favour or against is rarely accompanied by a fully-detailed rationale, more likely is it a distillation of impressions gained from experience. It's not up to me to say whether that is a correct approach. HTH

[Web Fred]

Encyclopedist, I would like to ask you, if, when you supported Gwen's RFA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...hip/Gwen_Gale_2 were you aware about these statements of her made by one of her other accounts Wyss (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?

I've been gone from here for weeks now, and I return to find Mbz1 still swinging at Gwen Gale, using 6+ year old diffs as evidence. It actually makes me feel good, there's at least something in my life that's consistent.

As for bad blocks, they're not just exclusive to Gwen or any of the other couple of admins brought up in this thread. What bothers me the most about bad blocks is when an admin issues one, then vanishes. The recent (probably 3 months, maybe?) example that comes to mind involved an admin swooping in and leveling a block on a good faith editor with over a thousand edits, and no warning. When the confusion happened, the admin just split. The block was rightfully overturned, the admin waited out the anger, then came back and all was calmer and forgiven.

There's no accountability for the bad blocks. There should be a permanent record for admins, like there is at the long-term abuse page for the blocked.

Going by what I had seen of Gwen Gale's record, I saw no reason to oppose her RFA. I had other stuff to do than conduct a deep witch hunt, and on the face of it, I see that others have perhaps done that. "Due diligence" has little meaning on WP, and if an editor votes in favour or against is rarely accompanied by a fully-detailed rationale, more likely is it a distillation of impressions gained from experience. It's not up to me to say whether that is a correct approach. HTH

Not any more it isn't anyway.