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:

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...3APieter_Kuiper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ttempted_outing

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=472192643

Pieter Kuiper was blocked for revealing other user's use of anonymity to influence a BPL.

Now it appears as if Fae and his friends are preparing to have Pieter Kuiper infinitely blocked from both enwiki and Commons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r:Pieter_Kuiper

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...r:Pieter_Kuiper

This is what happened to you become an enemy of someone such as Fae.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[mbz1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...3APieter_Kuiper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ttempted_outing

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=472192643

Pieter Kuiper was blocked for revealing other user's use of anonymity to influence a BPL.

Now it appears as if Fae and his friends are preparing to have Pieter Kuiper infinitely blocked from both enwiki and Commons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r:Pieter_Kuiper

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...r:Pieter_Kuiper

This is what happened to you become an enemy of someone such as Fae.

Well, it could be a bad block, yes, but I do not believe this block rises to the level of "unbelievable" blocks. Besides it was brought to AN/I and is being discussed. The example I started this thread with is an "unbelievable" block because an established user was blocked indefinitely as a "vandalism only" account for making a good faith, encyclopedic edit, and nobody said anything in his defense. It is worse than the block of !! (T-C-L-K-R-D) ]

BTW it would be interesting to see, if any of admins and/or members of arbcom who read this post would unblock the user, and mention this block to gwen gale. Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)
Of course the user is gone, but he still should be unblocked.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Vigilant]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...3APieter_Kuiper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ttempted_outing

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=472192643

Pieter Kuiper was blocked for revealing other user's use of anonymity to influence a BPL.

Now it appears as if Fae and his friends are preparing to have Pieter Kuiper infinitely blocked from both enwiki and Commons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r:Pieter_Kuiper

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...r:Pieter_Kuiper

This is what happened to you become an enemy of someone such as Fae.

Well, it could be a bad block, yes, but I do not believe this block rises to the level of "unbelievable" blocks. Besides it was brought to AN/I and is being discussed. The example I started this thread with is an "unbelievable" block because an established user was blocked indefinitely as a "vandalism only" account for making a good faith, encyclopedic edit, and nobody said anything in his defense. It is worse than the block of !! (T-C-L-K-R-D) ]

BTW it would be interesting to see, if any of admins and/or members of arbcom who read this post would unblock the user, and mention this block to gwen gale. Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)
Of course the user is gone, but he still should be unblocked.

AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA

From Here

Spank-o-licious!

[Encyclopedist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...3APieter_Kuiper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ttempted_outing

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=472192643

Pieter Kuiper was blocked for revealing other user's use of anonymity to influence a BPL.

Now it appears as if Fae and his friends are preparing to have Pieter Kuiper infinitely blocked from both enwiki and Commons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r:Pieter_Kuiper

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...r:Pieter_Kuiper

This is what happened to you become an enemy of someone such as Fae.

Well, it could be a bad block, yes, but I do not believe this block rises to the level of "unbelievable" blocks. Besides it was brought to AN/I and is being discussed. The example I started this thread with is an "unbelievable" block because an established user was blocked indefinitely as a "vandalism only" account for making a good faith, encyclopedic edit, and nobody said anything in his defense. It is worse than the block of !! (T-C-L-K-R-D) ]

BTW it would be interesting to see, if any of admins and/or members of arbcom who read this post would unblock the user, and mention this block to gwen gale. Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)
Of course the user is gone, but he still should be unblocked.

AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA

From Here

Spank-o-licious!

So which of my blocks do you take issue with? ArbCom had trouble finding any that were against policy, so I'd be glad to hear *your* take on that.

[mbz1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...3APieter_Kuiper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ttempted_outing

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=472192643

Pieter Kuiper was blocked for revealing other user's use of anonymity to influence a BPL.

Now it appears as if Fae and his friends are preparing to have Pieter Kuiper infinitely blocked from both enwiki and Commons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r:Pieter_Kuiper

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...r:Pieter_Kuiper

This is what happened to you become an enemy of someone such as Fae.

Well, it could be a bad block, yes, but I do not believe this block rises to the level of "unbelievable" blocks. Besides it was brought to AN/I and is being discussed. The example I started this thread with is an "unbelievable" block because an established user was blocked indefinitely as a "vandalism only" account for making a good faith, encyclopedic edit, and nobody said anything in his defense. It is worse than the block of !! (T-C-L-K-R-D) ]

BTW it would be interesting to see, if any of admins and/or members of arbcom who read this post would unblock the user, and mention this block to gwen gale. Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)
Of course the user is gone, but he still should be unblocked.

AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA

From Here

Spank-o-licious!

So which of my blocks do you take issue with? ArbCom had trouble finding any that were against policy, so I'd be glad to hear *your* take on that.

Could you link to your blocks?

[The Joy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...3APieter_Kuiper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ttempted_outing

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=472192643

Pieter Kuiper was blocked for revealing other user's use of anonymity to influence a BPL.

Now it appears as if Fae and his friends are preparing to have Pieter Kuiper infinitely blocked from both enwiki and Commons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r:Pieter_Kuiper

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...r:Pieter_Kuiper

This is what happened to you become an enemy of someone such as Fae.

Well, it could be a bad block, yes, but I do not believe this block rises to the level of "unbelievable" blocks. Besides it was brought to AN/I and is being discussed. The example I started this thread with is an "unbelievable" block because an established user was blocked indefinitely as a "vandalism only" account for making a good faith, encyclopedic edit, and nobody said anything in his defense. It is worse than the block of !! (T-C-L-K-R-D) ]

BTW it would be interesting to see, if any of admins and/or members of arbcom who read this post would unblock the user, and mention this block to gwen gale. Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)
Of course the user is gone, but he still should be unblocked.

AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA

From Here

Spank-o-licious!

So which of my blocks do you take issue with? ArbCom had trouble finding any that were against policy, so I'd be glad to hear *your* take on that.

Could you link to your blocks?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...de_review_log=1

[mbz1]

I am sorry but I am lost. You want to say that Encyclopedist is Rodhullandemu (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) If not, why the link to the blocks made by Rodhullandemu?

[The Joy]

I am sorry but I am lost. You want to say that Encyclopedist is Rodhullandemu (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) If not, why the link to the blocks made by Rodhullandemu?

Encyclopedist is Rodhullandemu.

[mbz1]

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)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Encyclopedist]

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.

[Web Fred]

...and I stand by each and every one of my blocks...

You blocked me once or twice.

[Malleus]

...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.

[Encyclopedist]

...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.

[Web Fred]

...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.

LMAO, hey Mal, this southern Nancy thinks he can take you.

(IMG:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MeSmokies.jpg)