The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Unbelievabale blocks
mbz1
post Sat 28th January 2012, 11:35pm
Post #21


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 28th January 2012, 10:36pm) *


Waste of time.


I was sure nothing will come out of this, but I strongly believe that administrative abuse should be documented. If I wrote the same request on Wiki it would have probably be deleted. At meta it stays.
The more people are to read it the better.At least the dishonest bully Gwen Gale will think twice before issuing another bad block.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Sun 29th January 2012, 12:08am
Post #22


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 28th January 2012, 6:35pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 28th January 2012, 10:36pm) *
Waste of time.
I was sure nothing will come out of this, but I strongly believe that administrative abuse should be documented. If I wrote the same request on Wiki it would have probably be deleted. At meta it stays.
The more people are to read it the better.At least the dishonest bully Gwen Gale will think twice before issuing another bad block.
You're dreaming, mbz1. I doubt the RfC will have any effect at all on Gwen Gale, whether she is honest or dishonest, whether her blocks are good or bad. The RfC was such a farrago of charges, incompetently presented, that I didn't read any of it with care. The first problem, which most readers will have, is that it's in a completely wrong place, meta. Meta is not for airing grudges. It's for cross-wiki coordination.

Bad blocks are common on Wikipedia. Good administrators sometimes issue bad blocks. A sysop may have many bad blocks and actually still be a good administrator. It's a question of balance.

Further, one administrator is still only one administrator. The real problem isn't bad administrators, as individuals. The real problem is dysfunctional structure, such that review and appeal processes are broken and stacked against a complainant. Making it worse is the general lack of good counseling for those blocked. I used to do this, and was sometimes successful in assisting blocked editors to handle the situation in a way that would get them and leave them unblocked. That was stopped by ArbComm with its "MYOB" sanction, even though there was *no* evidence even presented, no allegation that my "interventions" had been doing harm. The MYOB sanction was a blunt instrument, affecting a large body of work, as a device to address what was, for ArbComm, the real problem: that I'd intervened *when neutral* with an administrator, JzG, one of their pets.

(That was about JzG's unilateral blacklisting of lenr-canr.org, the cold fusion "library," and it started before I had a clue about cold fusion, other than knowing some of the history from 1989, when I was aware of the announcement and the later rejection -- and thought that cold fusion was probably bogus. But the blacklisting was beyond the pale, as ArbComm later concluded. They wanted to spank me then, the hacked emails revealed, but had no excuse yet.)

It was truly ironic: as written, the sanction allowed me to go to bat for a cause where I was involved, not where I wasn't. In other words, neutrality was to be punished. I thought it was completely brilliant as a demonstration of just how idiotic ArbComm had become. However, the sanction was interpreted more and more mindlessly and literally, with definitions shifting, until almost every edit became a "violation."

Just my story, there are a million stories in the wiki-city. I lasted an amazingly long time, given how much of a challenge to the oligarchy I was (as perceived by them).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tarc
post Sun 29th January 2012, 3:39am
Post #23


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined: Fri 7th Mar 2008, 3:38am
Member No.: 5,309

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I'll say it again; Mila has a bug up her ass about Gwen Gale because Gwen had the gall to block her over a year ago. Anything that comes out of this asshole's (Mila's) mouth is at this point pretty much worthless.

We're at the same point with her and Gwen that were were with Victim of Censorship and what'shisname, Gothean? Even if he was the worst admin the Wikipedia has ever known, VoC's irreparably damaged reputation precludes us from taking pretty much anything he had to say seriously.

Dear Mila's in the same boat. Just ignore her,.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Sun 29th January 2012, 4:01am
Post #24


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



For these of you here who are really interested in ending administrative abuse and stupidity I recommend reading this All's Wool blog post, which is only one of a quite a few blogs concerning Gwen Gale. Please make sure to read comments. The blog is from 2008. At that time I had no "pleasure" hrmph.gif of knowing Gwen Gale.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Sun 29th January 2012, 4:03am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tarc
post Sun 29th January 2012, 4:05am
Post #25


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined: Fri 7th Mar 2008, 3:38am
Member No.: 5,309

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 28th January 2012, 11:01pm) *

For these of you here who are really interested in ending administrative abuse and stupidity I recommend reading All's Wool blog, which is one of a quite a few blogs concerning Gwen Gale. Please make sure to read comments. The blog is from 2008. At that time I had no "pleasure" hrmph.gif of knowing Gwen Gale.


Its funny, a bit of googling shows no less than 3 blogspot-based websites regarding Gwen Gale, all from ~2008. Coordinated bitching at its finest.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Sun 29th January 2012, 4:20am
Post #26


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



And if you'd like to read more about Gwen, here are some, but not all. (Disclosure: In some situations described in these blogs Gwen did the right thing IMO)

http://wikibrutewar.blogspot.com/2009/10/b...-gwen-gale.html Brutal
http://wackepediaheidichronicles.blogspot....edia-fable.html
http://gwen-gale-heidi-wyss-tinpot-auteur.blogspot.com/ Gwen Gale -Tinpot Wikipedia Tyrant/Auteur
http://wackepediaheidichronicles.blogspot....a-fable_09.html
http://gwen-gale-heidi-wyss-tinpot-auteur....ith-review.html Gwen Gale/Heidi
http://gwengalerevealed.blogspot.com/
http://english.sxu.edu/sites/kirstein/archives/1443
http://english.sxu.edu/sites/kirstein/archives/1445
http://english.sxu.edu/sites/kirstein/archives/1437


But once again I did not start the thread to discuss Gwen. I started it to discuss not just bad blocks, but unbelievable blocks made by any admin. As a result of this thread the block I started it with was reverted! It is too little and too late. The user is gone, but I am sure Gwen, who happened to impose that block will think twice before blocking like that ever again.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Sun 29th January 2012, 5:30am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Encyclopedist
post Mon 30th January 2012, 2:58am
Post #27


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu 13th Nov 2008, 12:11am
Member No.: 8,944



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 27th January 2012, 11:03pm) *

QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 27th January 2012, 9:07pm) *



Encyclopedist is Rodhullandemu.


Well, in this case, if Encyclopedist insists, I'd be happy to point out some bad blocks he imposed, although I believe his blocks although bad enough were mostly not as bad as the ones imposed by Gwen Gale.
Rodhullandemu also blocked editors with whom he was edit-warring , but at least I do not believe he has ever said the block was for vandalism. Gwen Gale did, which means she's not just a bully but a dishonest bully as well.

This thread is about yet another bad block imposed by Gwen Gale . She blocked this user while involved with him (edit warring on the same article). The user was blocked at 15:04, 28 June 2008 for so called "vandalism" . In a few places Gwen Gale lied she edited the article only after the block. She edited this article a lot before and after the block. Actually Gwen Gale wrote this article, when she still edited as Wyss , but let's see June 28,2008:

Gwen Gale was edit warring with the very same editor she later blocked . The user was not vandalizing the article. It was clearly good faith edits.

Interestingly enough after blocking the user while so heavily involved, and being told and agreeing she should not have done it , Gwen Gale blocked him again just two days later on 22:38, 30 June 2008 in spite of being

"not happy with having been the blocking admin".

And after that she edit-warred with another user and blocked him for spamming, and then edit-warred with another user and blocked him for BLP where there was none, and so on.

Oh, well, it looks like Gwen Gale has many more dishonest friends in govcom than Rodhullandemu does(did)


What a fucking disgrace. To begin with, it's common knowledge here that Encyclopedist=Rodhullandemu=me. Apart from that, it doesn't take much effort to find that out. Otherwise, I stand apart from Gwen Gale, and I stand by each and every one of my blocks, and thanks to whoever linked to them above. Maybe some were dubious, according to some, but in my view necessary to protect Wikipedia from being wrong or incomplete - a view of the article history of Cilla Black will show that, and I was perfectly prepared to discuss the policy issues involved in that, and other cases. However, being an admin isn't guaranteed to make you friends, or get you laid, but is a job that needs to be done. But I've found that since I've not been an Admin, that I really, really do not care that much about Wikipedia any more if its government does not recognise good faith by volunteers. In short, WP has become dysfunctional, it's strusctural government is just wrong, and in such circumstances is doomed to fall apart, and quite rapidly. I have no friends in ArbCom, dishonest or otherwise, and to be honest, I wouldn't want any. The 2010 elected tranche seemed to be directed towards improving the processes, but they have failed to address the basic problem that in a community-based, decentralsied project, government is somehow irrelevant, and accordingly, the exercise of their powers is both irrelevant and, in my own case, abusive. There's a real person behind this keyboard, and that basically, is the major point missed by all levels of WP governance.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Mon 30th January 2012, 4:16am
Post #28


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Mon 30th January 2012, 2:58am) *
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 27th January 2012, 11:03pm) *
QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 27th January 2012, 9:07pm) *
Encyclopedist is Rodhullandemu.
Well, in this case, if Encyclopedist insists, I'd be happy to point out some bad blocks he imposed, although I believe his blocks although bad enough were mostly not as bad as the ones imposed by Gwen Gale.
Rodhullandemu also blocked editors with whom he was edit-warring , but at least I do not believe he has ever said the block was for vandalism. Gwen Gale did, which means she's not just a bully but a dishonest bully as well.

This thread is about yet another bad block imposed by Gwen Gale . She blocked this user while involved with him (edit warring on the same article). The user was blocked at 15:04, 28 June 2008 for so called "vandalism" . In a few places Gwen Gale lied she edited the article only after the block. She edited this article a lot before and after the block. Actually Gwen Gale wrote this article, when she still edited as Wyss , but let's see June 28,2008:

Gwen Gale was edit warring with the very same editor she later blocked . The user was not vandalizing the article. It was clearly good faith edits.

Interestingly enough after blocking the user while so heavily involved, and being told and agreeing she should not have done it , Gwen Gale blocked him again just two days later on 22:38, 30 June 2008 in spite of being

"not happy with having been the blocking admin".

And after that she edit-warred with another user and blocked him for spamming, and then edit-warred with another user and blocked him for BLP where there was none, and so on.

Oh, well, it looks like Gwen Gale has many more dishonest friends in govcom than Rodhullandemu does(did)


What a fucking disgrace. To begin with, it's common knowledge here that Encyclopedist=Rodhullandemu=me. Apart from that, it doesn't take much effort to find that out. Otherwise, I stand apart from Gwen Gale, and I stand by each and every one of my blocks, and thanks to whoever linked to them above. Maybe some were dubious, according to some, but in my view necessary to protect Wikipedia from being wrong or incomplete - a view of the article history of Cilla Black will show that, and I was perfectly prepared to discuss the policy issues involved in that, and other cases. However, being an admin isn't guaranteed to make you friends, or get you laid, but is a job that needs to be done. But I've found that since I've not been an Admin, that I really, really do not care that much about Wikipedia any more if its government does not recognise good faith by volunteers. In short, WP has become dysfunctional, it's strusctural government is just wrong, and in such circumstances is doomed to fall apart, and quite rapidly. I have no friends in ArbCom, dishonest or otherwise, and to be honest, I wouldn't want any. The 2010 elected tranche seemed to be directed towards improving the processes, but they have failed to address the basic problem that in a community-based, decentralsied project, government is somehow irrelevant, and accordingly, the exercise of their powers is both irrelevant and, in my own case, abusive. There's a real person behind this keyboard, and that basically, is the major point missed by all levels of WP governance.

Hmm. You stand by all your blocks?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Mon 30th January 2012, 4:34am
Post #29


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



I also have question to Encyclopedist. It is a general question.
Do you agree that no block ever should be imposed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INV...Involved_admins ?
For my understanding of involved admin you could read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_fo...s_when_involved and if you'd like to, I'd interested to hear your opinion on the blocks described in this section.

This post has been edited by gomi: Tue 31st January 2012, 6:28am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zoloft
post Mon 30th January 2012, 6:21am
Post #30


May we all find solace in our dreams.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined: Fri 15th Jan 2010, 11:08pm
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621



"Do you think that's air you're breathing now?"
--Morpheus
The Matrix (1999)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Mon 30th January 2012, 3:29pm
Post #31


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 29th January 2012, 11:34pm) *
I also have question to Encyclopedist. It is a general question.
Do you agree that no block ever should be imposed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INV...Involved_admins ?
For my understanding of involved admin you could read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_fo...s_when_involved and if you'd like to, I'd interested to hear your opinion on the blocks described in this section.
I'll answer this. No, I don't agree, and I wrote extensively on this on Wikiversity, mostly to no effect.

The question, properly, is not involvement, but appearance of involvement, and this has been poorly understood. Whenever there is a reasonable appearance of involvement, an administrator should *routinely* recuse. Recusal would mean that the administrator, instead of directly acting, would request action, as if they were not an administrator.

I claimed that it would be enough for a user to *claim* bias to create a recusal requirement. However, a general claim that all administrators are biased would be of no effect. Rather, it would be specific. A user should not be able to make themselves unblockable by claiming bias on the part of all administrators, or all available administrators.

I wrote similarly on ArbComm pages, in RfAr/Abd and William M. Connolley, and the cabal claimed that this would be wikilawyered by editors to no end. False claim. In practice, it would simply mean that an administrator could not unilaterally maintain a block against a complaining editor. One administrator, and then another, or at most a defined list, which would be a small fraction of the total administrative corps. By the time an editor had been blocked a few times, they'd be indeffed, if they really were committing offenses and not responding to warnings.

Because of the existence of factions, who do back each other up, almost knee-jerk, this policy would still not be quite enough, but there are other measures that would identify factions and interdict collaborative blocking. ArbComm was utterly uninterested in proposals that would actually implement policy. They have long been far more interested in protecting those whom they see as the core volunteers, i.e., people like them. Administrators.

In any case, I also laid out procedures for emergency action in the presence of a recusal requirement. Basically, any administrator could declare an "emergency," a situation where delay in action could reasonably be asserted as causing harm. The administrator, in this situation, would block to prevent harm, but would immediately recuse and would further notify the administrative corps, in a neutral way, that they had blocked and recused. They would be inviting review, and would be obligated to avoid wheel-warring, and undoing their block would not be considered wheel-warring, itself. It would be an independent judgment, for which the new blocking administrator would be responsible.

Absent guidelines like this, administrators are at sea, without a compass. Development of such guidelines has been restricted, for obvious reasons. People don't like to be restricted, and often don't understand that restrictions bring a different kind of freedom. Sane recusal policy would avoid a great deal of unnecessary conflict.

But the Wikipediots aren't sane. They are obsessed with their own power, and don't understand how true community power would operate. The "community" they "enjoy" is one of independent actors who only coordinate accidentally, for the most part, each serving his or her own purpose. They imagine, many of them, that they have a common purpose, which vanishes when one leans on it.

Humans are designed to form functional communities, face to face, it's instinctive. Text can weakly imitate that, but only where the missing communication -- which is mostly non-verbal, and high-bandwidth -- is supplied by imagination. It works, sort of, where the imaginations are sufficiently coincidental. The rapport generated is imaginary, though, and easily corrupted.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Mon 30th January 2012, 4:38pm
Post #32


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Mon 30th January 2012, 2:58am) *
...and I stand by each and every one of my blocks...


You blocked me once or twice.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Mon 30th January 2012, 6:36pm
Post #33


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 30th January 2012, 4:38pm) *

QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Mon 30th January 2012, 2:58am) *
...and I stand by each and every one of my blocks...


You blocked me once or twice.

Cunt.

And also a liar, according to an email I received from him.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Mon 30th January 2012, 7:15pm
Post #34


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009, 1:54pm
Member No.: 9,985



QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 30th January 2012, 11:38am) *

Cunt.


evilgrin.gif

QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Sun 29th January 2012, 9:58pm) *
...a view of the article history of Cilla Black will show that, and I was perfectly prepared to discuss the policy issues involved in that, and other cases.


Yes, but will you be willing to admit that Dionne Warwick's interpretation of Burt Bacharach's tunes was superior to Cilla Black's? ermm.gif

QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 30th January 2012, 10:29am) *

Humans are designed to form functional communities, face to face, it's instinctive.


Except when you have the urge to do it doggy-style. wacko.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Mon 30th January 2012, 9:08pm
Post #35


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 30th January 2012, 2:15pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 30th January 2012, 10:29am) *
Humans are designed to form functional communities, face to face, it's instinctive.
Except when you have the urge to do it doggy-style. wacko.gif
If there is no face-to-face, but only that style, it might be fun, but isn't likely to form a real community. Isn't from the rear how Wikipedia admins treat regular editors?

Something about the eyes is powerful. That admins don't see those whom they block (and are not seen) is an important element in the dysfunction, and truly functional structure would probably create lots of local groups that would meet face-to-face. They would be everywhere. And members of them would protect each other, generally.

Thinking of cabals, we might think that a Bad Thing. It wouldn't be, for with the protection would also come community restraint. The cabals we've seen on Wikipedia are only a little based on face-to-face meetings, which are relatively rare and shallow, compared to what I have in mind. They are mostly based on common interests, creating short-term collaboration.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Mon 30th January 2012, 9:56pm
Post #36


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Zoloft @ Sun 29th January 2012, 10:21pm) *

"Do you think that's air you're breathing now?"
--Morpheus

In The Matrix, interesting things happened. Does WebHamster calling RH&E a "cunt" really have to substitute for Neo fighting with Agent Smith? If so, I want my money back!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Mon 30th January 2012, 10:02pm
Post #37


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 30th January 2012, 9:56pm) *

QUOTE(Zoloft @ Sun 29th January 2012, 10:21pm) *

"Do you think that's air you're breathing now?"
--Morpheus

In The Matrix, interesting things happened. Does WebHamster calling RH&E a "cunt" really have to substitute for Neo fighting with Agent Smith? If so, I want my money back!


It's all in the delivery.

Not that you would know that of course.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Encyclopedist
post Tue 31st January 2012, 1:25am
Post #38


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu 13th Nov 2008, 12:11am
Member No.: 8,944



QUOTE(Malleus @ Mon 30th January 2012, 4:16am) *
Hmm. You stand by all your blocks?

Not necessarily; being human, I am bound to make mistakes. But at the time I made those blocks, I sincerely believed they were necessary to protect Wikipedia from "clear and present danger", and that's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned. Editing WP should be denied to those who do not subscribe to its principles, and as far as I'm concerned, those who I blocked failed to subscribe, and accept the rules of the game. Of course, they were free to challenge my blocks by requesting unblocking, and I'd say that about 1 in 100 did so. However, only 1 in 10 of those were successful, and some of them I revisited myself and changed my opinion- and TBH, few Admins in my experience have ever been prepared to do that.


QUOTE(mbz1 @ Mon 30th January 2012, 4:34am) *
I also have question to Encyclopedist. It is a general question.
Do you agree that no block ever should be imposed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INV...Involved_admins ?
For my understanding of involved admin you could read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_fo...s_when_involved and if you'd like to, I'd interested to hear your opinion on the blocks described in this section.


See above.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Encyclopedist
post Tue 31st January 2012, 1:29am
Post #39


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu 13th Nov 2008, 12:11am
Member No.: 8,944



QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 30th January 2012, 4:38pm) *

QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Mon 30th January 2012, 2:58am) *
...and I stand by each and every one of my blocks...


You blocked me once or twice.

Cunt.


Link to the blocks and I'll see if they were justified, as I saw it at the time. Otherwise, I don't think I *am* a cunt, because if I were, I wouldn't give a toss about you. Clearly, I give a toss about my reputation, but not with those who call me a cunt with no apparent reason. Up to you.

This post has been edited by Encyclopedist: Tue 31st January 2012, 1:30am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Encyclopedist
post Tue 31st January 2012, 1:39am
Post #40


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu 13th Nov 2008, 12:11am
Member No.: 8,944



QUOTE(Malleus @ Mon 30th January 2012, 6:36pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 30th January 2012, 4:38pm) *

QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Mon 30th January 2012, 2:58am) *
...and I stand by each and every one of my blocks...


You blocked me once or twice.

Cunt.

And also a liar, according to an email I received from him.


Please elucidate, but take great care before doing so. Bear in mind I know not only who you are, but also exactly where you live. Not that I would take advantage of that myself, of course, but others might, and I wouldn't want you to come to any harm, particularly since ArbCom seem to have it in for you, if I read between the lines of the discussions that they still lovingly think are secret. To quote Willie Nelson "they ain't". Otherwise, happy birthday for a coupla weeks ago, and keep on furtling those ferrets. Best wishes, Eric, but you need to know who your allies are, and don't piss them off.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd 5 17, 9:17pm