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.

[Malleus]

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?

[Encyclopedist]

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.

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.

[mbz1]

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.

Do you then believe then that admins who banned yourself "sincerely believed it was necessary to protect Wikipedia from "clear and present danger""?
Another point to make is this: Do you understand that a single mistake could make a good faith contributor to leave. Remember !! (T-C-L-K-R-D) ]. The mistake was fixed, the admin who blocked him was desypoed but the user is gone.
Besides how many users you blocked appealed the block proves absolutely nothing. See the beginning of this topic. Gwen Gale blocked an established editor, who just made a good faith, encyclopedic edit as vandalism only account, and he has never asked to be unblocked.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Encyclopedist]

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.

Do you then believe then that admins who banned yourself "sincerely believed it was necessary to protect Wikipedia from "clear and present danger""?
Another point to make is this: Do you understand that a single mistake could make a good faith contributor to leave. Remember !! (T-C-L-K-R-D) ]. The mistake was fixed, the admin who blocked him was desypoed but the user is gone.
Besides how many users you blocked appealed the block proves absolutely nothing. See the beginning of this topic. Gwen Gale blocked an established editor, who just made a good faith, encyclopedic edit as vandalism only account, and he has never asked to be unblocked.

I was not banned by Admins; I was banned by ArbCom, who quite plainly were looking for an excuse to do so, and who managed to find a vague, unsubstantiated pretext for doing so. As for "clear and present danger", that's a non-starter since it is apparent from their deliberations on my adminship that they thought I had been a poor Admin for a long time, although (a) nothing had been done about that, either formally or informally until the Malleus thing blew up, giving them a reason for acting, regardless of the merits, and (b) having being forced into the position of acting, they took any opportunity they could to not only desysop me, but also ban me. Well, on reflection, that isn't my loss: it's Wikipedia's and I am currently doing what I can at Commons. But there are still vandalised pages on my watchlist that remain vandalised, and there's nothing I can do about that except when the time is right to forward the list of them I've collected and forward it to Cade Metz at The Register under the banner "This is what happens to Wikipedia when you ban people who know what they're doing". As for Gwen Gale, and her blocks, it's nothing to do with me. I've repeatedly asked for examples of blocks I've made that didn't benefit the encyclopedia, and ArbCom didn;t provide them and I suspect neither will anyone else. Meanwhile, best wishes to all at UK postcode M32 8DR.

Evenin' all!

This post has been edited by Encyclopedist:

[mbz1]

I was not banned by Admins; I was banned by ArbCom, who quite plainly were looking for an excuse to do so, and who managed to find a vague, unsubstantiated pretext for doing so.

But why would they desysop a prominent, good faith admin?
Are you suggesting that members of govcom together with Jimbo (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) conspired against you with no good reason? Are you suggesting that there was not a singly decent and honest member of govcom to stop this unwarranted persecution? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/scream.gif)

[Encyclopedist]

I was not banned by Admins; I was banned by ArbCom, who quite plainly were looking for an excuse to do so, and who managed to find a vague, unsubstantiated pretext for doing so.

But why would they desysop a prominent, good faith admin?
Are you suggesting that members of govcom together with Jimbo (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) conspired against you with no good reason? Are you suggesting that there was not a singly decent and honest member of govcom to stop this unwarranted persecution? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/scream.gif)

Look at the evidence presented by Elen of the Roads in my ArbCom case; there's nothing there that couldn't have been dealt with *at the time it arose* and, if there appeared to be a problem, sorted before it even hit ArbCom. I was open to negotiation, except that nobody ever negotiated with me, and the background involves Roger Davies's apparent hatred of me since the Cilla Black incident; you'd have to go way back in the history to see that, but he was a prime mover in my desysopping, behind the scenes, perhaps, and for that alone, he should be shot- slowly. Elen was given a poisoned chalice to deliver- and managed it with some aplomb, not that my case hadn't been predetermined by those who hated me. So much for that; there are many good-natured people who've been pushed beyond natural limits by those who just don't get it, and I am only one.

As for the collective decisions of ArbCom, they are just that- collective and their discussions are- or were- secret, and they don't give dissenting viewpoints on their decisions, and I have never received any communication from an Arb that said that he/she disagreed with the decision- that's collective responsibility to the point of being a ducks arse, and although it has some benefits politically, it ain't human. Likewise my appeal to Jimbo; his starting point was my ArbCom, and that must have coloured his opinion. Not once did he ask me for clarification of anyathing he found. But it's worse than that- he's so far out of it that his stated default stance is to back up ArbCom without question, which he has consistently done in the last couple of years or so. That, sadly, only supports the contention that he really would prefer to be somewhere else and not take on that role. OK. Let him pass it back to the WP community; meanwhile, ubergod he is not, he's become just some media hack who goes round the world on expenses selling an unrealistic and impractical dream.

Apart from that, like most active Admins, I'd attracted some criticism, most of it factional in nature, but that's just par for the course. I wasn't going to ignore WP policies just because some people didn't approve of my way of applying them- if this had been a general issue for me, there would have been an RFC/Admin long before my ArbCom case- but there wasn't. If anyone cares, go through my Talk page archives- ignore the death threats because although upsetting, they are meaningless in real terms- and contrast the balance of praise/criticism and enquiry & advice/other discussion.

That's all for now. I have to sort out my stuff to move house in a couple of weeks, so I'll be busy.

This post has been edited by Encyclopedist: