| |
|
  |
 Connolley indef'd |
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ottava |
|
Ãœber Pokemon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined:
Member No.: 7,328
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 19th August 2010, 4:57pm)  Out go the liberal scientists to make way for the social libertarians (the only descriptive that can lump the porn freaks with the sexual deviants - pedos, animal people, etc) as the new ruling "ugh". But on the other hand, I have to sympathize with WMC on the fact that he is an expert (even though I don't consider his field as completely legitimate -see the email fraud-, he is the most qualified to discussing it as a system in and of itself). Wikipedia hates experts. Well, the experts tend to hate Wikipedia (hence edit warring, feuding, and the rest). That is probably why those that cater just to "experts" fell apart so badly - anyone claiming their self an expert is normally an egotistical, maniacal douchebag (and you can call me that, I don't mind). I do wonder if, upon reading this, Moulton just wet himself in excitement as another one of his frenemies is gone. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 19th August 2010, 5:34pm)
I do wonder if, upon reading this, Moulton just wet himself in excitement as another one of his frenemies is gone.
Hey, you're the one standing in a puddle of wiki-piddle. But Moulton's more likely flushed blue with x-citement that WC will now show up here. He's just that perverse. Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 19th August 2010, 2:38pm) QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 19th August 2010, 5:34pm)
I do wonder if, upon reading this, Moulton just wet himself in excitement as another one of his frenemies is gone.
Hey, you're the one standing in a puddle of wiki-piddle. But Moulton's more likely flushed blue with x-citement that WC will now show up here. He's just that perverse. Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) So am I! Head in the WR WC is just the beginning. WMC is in for some bothering, baiting, annoying, pestering, hectoring, an e-wedgie, and some internet Indian burns. WMC, we wouldn't enjoy seeing you take it nearly so much, had we not seen how you can dish it out. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 19th August 2010, 4:48pm) WMC, we wouldn't enjoy seeing you take it nearly so much, had we not seen how you can dish it out. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) I realize Connolley isn't super-popular around here, but this is one of the silliest block pretexts I've ever seen. Essentially, he inserted a parenthetical statement into some admin's warning on his talk page not to "edit comments made by other editors," "per the outcome of a recent enforcement request" against him, so now he's indefinitely blocked. Only he wasn't changing the comment at all - he clearly labeled it as his own insertion, with his initials. What's more, his argument that the restriction (which led to the 'enforcement request") is invalid and shouldn't apply to his own talk page appears fairly solid to me. In effect, he was blocked indefinitely for harmlessly thumbing his nose at somebody. I guess you could say this is a form of "incivility," which Connolley is famous for at this point, and that technically this particular block (which isn't likely to last, I expect) could be more of a "body of work" kinda thang. Still, it's a shame they have to keep coming up with these pretexts - they make it fairly easy for less-involved "drive-by" critics to bash WP for being arbitrary, silly, and rules-obsessed - and there are likely to be a lot of drive-by critics in this case, given Connolley's history. (Assuming the block lasts for more than a couple of days, at least.) |
|
|
|
|
|
| victim of censorship |
|
Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,166
Joined:
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 19th August 2010, 5:14pm) QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 19th August 2010, 4:48pm) WMC, we wouldn't enjoy seeing you take it nearly so much, had we not seen how you can dish it out. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) I realize Connolley isn't super-popular around here, but this is one of the silliest block pretexts I've ever seen. Essentially, he inserted a parenthetical statement into some admin's warning on his talk page not to "edit comments made by other editors," "per the outcome of a recent enforcement request" against him, so now he's indefinitely blocked. Only he wasn't changing the comment at all - he clearly labeled it as his own insertion, with his initials. What's more, his argument that the restriction (which led to the 'enforcement request") is invalid and shouldn't apply to his own talk page appears fairly solid to me. In effect, he was blocked indefinitely for harmlessly thumbing his nose at somebody. I guess you could say this is a form of "incivility," which Connolley is famous for at this point, and that technically this particular block (which isn't likely to last, I expect) could be more of a "body of work" kinda thang. Still, it's a shame they have to keep coming up with these pretexts - they make it fairly easy for less-involved "drive-by" critics to bash WP for being arbitrary, silly, and rules-obsessed - and there are likely to be a lot of drive-by critics in this case, given Connolley's history. (Assuming the block lasts for more than a couple of days, at least.) More proof that Wikipedia is fundamentally evil. |
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE You missed my note, but I'll repost it now: Since WMC has rejected the terms, and indeed decided to increase his volume of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I have blocked him indefinitely. Please note, this is not an "indefinite as in forever" block, this is an "indefinite until he puts down the stick and backs away from the horse" block. He knew (or at least should have known) that his behavior was deemed disruptive, and he was offered a path forward (to have the community or the Arbitration Committee review the sanction, and have it lifted should consensus deem it necessary). He's rejected that, and continued onwards. If someone can get through to him and get him to agree to cut it out, go ahead and unblock him at that time. SirFozzie (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC) (IMG: http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/metasonix/BeatDeadHorse.gif) I haven't seen much of this Stephan Schulz (T-C-L-K-R-D)
character before. (Although I notice that his talkpage is full of top-grade douchebaggery. Just a WMC whore.) There's another asshole for your "amusement", Lar. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) This post has been edited by EricBarbour: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
It has long been a customary (if appalling and reprehensible) practice for officious admins in WMF-sponsored projects to act as plaintiff, arresting office, bailiff, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner in these anachronistic reprisals of the hoary old Bill of Attainder — a corrupt, foolish, and abusive tool of governance which modern governments wisely eschewed and abandoned over two centuries ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pietkuip |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 81
Joined:
Member No.: 12,524
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 20th August 2010, 12:14am) ... this is one of the silliest block pretexts I've ever seen. Essentially, he inserted a parenthetical statement into some admin's warning on his talk page not to "edit comments made by other editors," "per the outcome of a recent enforcement request" against him, so now he's indefinitely blocked. Only he wasn't changing the comment at all - he clearly labeled it as his own insertion, with his initials. What's more, his argument that the restriction (which led to the 'enforcement request") is invalid and shouldn't apply to his own talk page appears fairly solid to me. In effect, he was blocked indefinitely for harmlessly thumbing his nose at somebody. Thumbed his nose at admins! That is not harmless, that is disruption! Something like Lèse majesté or even blasphemy. |
|
|
|
|
|
| taiwopanfob |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 643
Joined:
Member No.: 214
|
QUOTE(pietkuip @ Fri 20th August 2010, 7:28am) QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 20th August 2010, 12:14am)
In effect, he was blocked indefinitely for harmlessly thumbing his nose at somebody.
Thumbed his nose at admins! That is not harmless, that is disruption! Something like Lèse majesté or even blasphemy. Not sure if even the admins think of themselves like that. Perhaps if you insulted Jimbo himself? I think a closer analogy you are looking for is contempt of cop. Which is indeed a serious offense in the minds of the constabulary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
