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!

[EricBarbour]

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?

That's why I classed Ms. Wyss as an "evil patroller". She's done bullshit like this so many times,
I've given up counting them. The blocking of good content contributors for phony reasons is a principal
part of the definition of "evil patroller".

If you think Heidi's crazy, have a look at Ryulong's blocks. Or Georgewilliamherbert's blocks, or Rodhullandemu's blocks.

[mbz1]

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?

That's why I classed Ms. Wyss as an "evil patroller". She's done bullshit like this so many times,
I've given up counting them. The blocking of good content contributors for phony reasons is a principal
part of the definition of "evil patroller".

If you think Heidi's crazy, have a look at Ryulong's blocks. Or Georgewilliamherbert's blocks, or Rodhullandemu's blocks.

Well, Rodhullandemu is banned (it took way too long to ban him, but he is now), but Gwen is running free.
I cannot understand why she's like that. What is the purpose in blocking good faith editors?
In this situation she blocked a user for user name although I've no idea what is wrong with his user name, and when the user did exactly as he was advised to do in such situation by the template added to his talk by Gwen, the very same Gwen declined his unblock.
I do not believe I have ever seen a blocking admin declining unblock request. Have you?

Wrongfully imprisoned man awarded $25 million in damages Could wrongly blocked users at least get unblocked? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Fusion]

Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

That is an exceedingly good question. Where, indeed?

[mbz1]

Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

That is an exceedingly good question. Where, indeed?

Well, one guy asked Gwen about this block] and she responded she emailed to him.

Hi!

I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Funguy06#blocked but after looking through the edits, it seems like the user did make attempts to create encyclopedic edits. While it seems like the user had issues with image copvio warnings, it doesn't seem to match the block message. Some of the articles the user started are still there.

Would you mind if I unblock the user? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey! I've sent you an email. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Gwen the bully, why not to respond in an open. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) It is a very simple question about a very simple situation. What are you afraid of?
In a meantime I posted question to Jimbo's Commons talk page
There was no response there.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Tarc]

Comment removed, per request.

Oh, Greg, don't let Mila get under your skin. She can't open her mouth on the WR without mentioning Gwen Gale 20 times, don't be afraid to say it loud n' proud.

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[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?

[mbz1]

Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

That is an exceedingly good question. Where, indeed?

Well, one guy asked Gwen about this block] and she responded she emailed to him.

Hi!

I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Funguy06#blocked but after looking through the edits, it seems like the user did make attempts to create encyclopedic edits. While it seems like the user had issues with image copvio warnings, it doesn't seem to match the block message. Some of the articles the user started are still there.

Would you mind if I unblock the user? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey! I've sent you an email. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Gwen the bully, why not to respond in an open. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) It is a very simple question about a very simple situation. What are you afraid of?
In a meantime I posted question to Jimbo's Commons talk page
There was no response there.

And The user is unblocked! Of course it is too late and too little, but still. As usually Gwen was dishonest. She emailed to WhisperToMe, and told him she blocked the editor because of "image uploading issues, copyvios" at least it is what WhisperToMe wrote in their unblock edit summary, but here's the deal: first Gwen protected the article because of "excessive vandalism", then
she reverted an encyclopedic edit and in the very next minute she blocked the editor who made this encyclopedic edit with the edit summary "(Vandalism-only account: no meaningfully encyclopedic edits)". The editor was blocked not because of "copyvios" but because Gwen decided that an encyclopedic edit added to the article is "vandalism", and did not bother to check it neither before nor even after the block.

And now imagine yourself making not only a good faith edit, but an encyclopedic edit as well and getting blocked as "(Vandalism-only account: no meaningfully encyclopedic edits)" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[chrisoff]

Horrible!

I think such blocks are the single greatest reason wp loses editors.

[Malleus]

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?

That's why I classed Ms. Wyss as an "evil patroller". She's done bullshit like this so many times,
I've given up counting them. The blocking of good content contributors for phony reasons is a principal
part of the definition of "evil patroller".

If you think Heidi's crazy, have a look at Ryulong's blocks. Or Georgewilliamherbert's blocks, or Rodhullandemu's blocks.

I've been blocked by three out of four of them, only Ryulong left to go until I get a full house.

Horrible!

I think such blocks are the single greatest reason wp loses editors.

That's perhaps something we can agree on.

[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.

[TungstenCarbide]

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.

thanks for clearing that up

[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:

[Abd]

Beyond clueless.

Meta RfC/Gwen Gale filed by ...

mbz1.

Speaks in first person, but hasn't signed it. Wrong venue, i.e., meta has no jurisdiction over the issues raised. Might as well file it here. Ottava tried this one. Ottava has nine lives. mbz1 probably doesn't.

Waste of time.

I ran process on meta when meta actions were in order, such as the removal of the blacklisting of lenr-canr.org, or reviewing *meta* blocks, or global bans through the SUL lock facility accessed at meta.

Emergency desysoppings can be done at meta, but stewards will want to see either true emergency (or the claim of one, as SBJ did in asking for my Wikiversity admin bit to be lifted. He lied, bottom line) or a local consensus on the affected wiki. I.e., mbz1, you'd have to show a *Wikipedia consensus*. You can't possibly get that at meta, even if you could get enough interested editors to support whatever you want, which is about impossible itself.

At one time there were serious discussions at meta and dissent was handled as a necessary part of the process. That's changed, meta is now *worse* than Wikipedia. The heavy hitters, the truly good guys, like Lar, are gone. There are a few good stewards, but they've been notably ineffectual against the oozing slime.