|
Unbelievabale blocks |
|
|
|
|
Replies
mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 25th January 2012, 6:54pm) 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 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 307
Joined:
Member No.: 8,684
|
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 8:31pm) QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 25th January 2012, 6:54pm) 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. AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAFrom HereSpank-o-licious!
|
|
|
|
Encyclopedist |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined:
Member No.: 8,944
|
QUOTE(Vigilant @ Wed 25th January 2012, 9:33pm) QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 8:31pm) QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 25th January 2012, 6:54pm) 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. AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAFrom HereSpank-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 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Fri 27th January 2012, 2:01am) QUOTE(Vigilant @ Wed 25th January 2012, 9:33pm) QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 8:31pm) QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 25th January 2012, 6:54pm) 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. AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAFrom HereSpank-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 |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 26th January 2012, 9:09pm) QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Fri 27th January 2012, 2:01am) QUOTE(Vigilant @ Wed 25th January 2012, 9:33pm) QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 8:31pm) QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 25th January 2012, 6:54pm) 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. AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAFrom HereSpank-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 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
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) This post has been edited by mbz1:
|
|
|
|
Encyclopedist |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined:
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.
|
|
|
|
Malleus |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined:
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716
|
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?
|
|
|
|
Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Posts in this topic
mbz1 Unbelievabale blocks TungstenCarbide I am sorry but I am lost. You want to say that Enc... Encyclopedist Hmm. You stand by all your blocks?
Not necessarily... mbz1
[quote name='Malleus' post='295769' date='Mon 30t... Encyclopedist
[quote name='Malleus' post='295769' date='Mon 30... mbz1
I was not banned by Admins; I was banned by ArbC... Encyclopedist
I was not banned by Admins; I was banned by Arb... Cunningly Linguistic ...and I stand by each and every one of my blocks.... Malleus
...and I stand by each and every one of my blocks... Encyclopedist
[quote name='Cunningly Linguistic' post='295820' ... Cunningly Linguistic
[quote name='Malleus' post='295842' date='Mon 30t... Vigilant
[quote name='Malleus' post='295842' date='Mon 30t... A Horse With No Name
Cunt.
:grin:
...a view of the article history... Abd Humans are designed to form functional communities... Encyclopedist
Cunt.
:grin:
...a view of the article histor... Encyclopedist
...and I stand by each and every one of my blocks... Cunningly Linguistic
[quote name='Cunningly Linguistic' post='295820' ... Encyclopedist
[quote name='Cunningly Linguistic' post='295820'... Cunningly Linguistic ... you might just want to grow up a little.
Man... Encyclopedist
... you might just want to grow up a little.
Ma... EricBarbour
Myself, I'm no longer 14. Cheers.
Some man-ch... Cunningly Linguistic
[quote name='Encyclopedist' post='295940' date='... Encyclopedist
[quote name='Encyclopedist' post='295949' date='T... Cunningly Linguistic
Thanks for convincing me that you're a waste... Fusion
Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? :wtf: ... mbz1
[quote name='mbz1' post='295015' date='Wed 25th J... mbz1
[quote name='Fusion' post='295081' date='Thu 26th... EricBarbour
On 26 April 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Funguy06 ... mbz1
[quote name='mbz1' post='294998' date='Wed 25th J... Malleus
[quote name='mbz1' post='294998' date='Wed 25th J... chrisoff Horrible!
I think such blocks are the single... Abd Beyond clueless.
Meta RfC/Gwen Gale filed by ...
... mbz1
Waste of time.
I was sure nothing will come ou... Abd Waste of time.I was sure nothing will come out of ... Tarc I'll say it again; Mila has a bug up her ass a... mbz1 For these of you here who are really interested in... Tarc
For these of you here who are really interested i... mbz1 And if you'd like to read more about Gwen, her... Zoloft "Do you think that's air you're breat... EricBarbour
"Do you think that's air you're brea... Cunningly Linguistic
"Do you think that's air you're bre... Encyclopedist
"Do you think that's air you're bre... Zoloft *sigh*
Another really subtle fart joke wasted. Cunningly Linguistic
*sigh*
Another really subtle fart joke wasted.
... mbz1 Encyclopedist, I would like to ask you, if, when y... jd turk
Encyclopedist, I would like to ask you, if, when ... Encyclopedist
[quote name='mbz1' post='296293' date='Wed 1st Fe... Cunningly Linguistic
[quote name='mbz1' post='296293' date='Wed 1st F...
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |