The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Unbelievabale blocks
mbz1
post Wed 25th January 2012, 6:39pm
Post #1


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



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: Wed 25th January 2012, 8:52pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Michaeldsuarez
post Wed 25th January 2012, 6:54pm
Post #2


Über Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon 9th Aug 2010, 7:51pm
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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: Wed 25th January 2012, 6:57pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Wed 25th January 2012, 8:31pm
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 25th January 2012, 6:54pm) *

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? wtf.gif
Of course the user is gone, but he still should be unblocked.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Wed 25th January 2012, 8:56pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Vigilant
post Wed 25th January 2012, 9:33pm
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri 24th Oct 2008, 2:04am
Member No.: 8,684

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 8:31pm) *

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 25th January 2012, 6:54pm) *

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? wtf.gif
Of course the user is gone, but he still should be unblocked.

AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA

From Here

Spank-o-licious!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Wed 25th January 2012, 10:34pm
Post #5


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 10:39am) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Wed 25th January 2012, 10:54pm
Post #6


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 25th January 2012, 10:34pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 10:39am) *

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? biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by mbz1: Wed 25th January 2012, 11:24pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fusion
post Thu 26th January 2012, 12:40pm
Post #7


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 29th Nov 2011, 12:40pm
Member No.: 71,526



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 8:31pm) *

Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? wtf.gif

That is an exceedingly good question. Where, indeed?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Thu 26th January 2012, 9:51pm
Post #8


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(Fusion @ Thu 26th January 2012, 12:40pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 8:31pm) *

Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? 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.
QUOTE
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. 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: Thu 26th January 2012, 9:56pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tarc
post Thu 26th January 2012, 11:10pm
Post #9


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined: Fri 7th Mar 2008, 3:38am
Member No.: 5,309

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 25th January 2012, 1:43pm) *

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: Thu 26th January 2012, 11:10pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Encyclopedist
post Fri 27th January 2012, 2:01am
Post #10


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu 13th Nov 2008, 12:11am
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) *

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? 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.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Fri 27th January 2012, 2:09am
Post #11


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
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) *

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? 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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Fri 27th January 2012, 2:33am
Post #12


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
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) *

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? 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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Fri 27th January 2012, 2:41am
Post #13


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791




I am sorry but I am lost. You want to say that Encyclopedist is Rodhullandemu confused.gif If not, why the link to the blocks made by Rodhullandemu?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Fri 27th January 2012, 2:59am
Post #14


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 26th January 2012, 9:51pm) *

QUOTE(Fusion @ Thu 26th January 2012, 12:40pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 8:31pm) *

Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? 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.
QUOTE
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. 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)" evilgrin.gif

This post has been edited by mbz1: Fri 27th January 2012, 3:22am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisoff
post Fri 27th January 2012, 3:55am
Post #15


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu 18th Feb 2010, 11:20pm
Member No.: 17,248



Horrible!

I think such blocks are the single greatest reason wp loses editors.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Fri 27th January 2012, 4:42pm
Post #16


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 25th January 2012, 10:34pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 10:39am) *

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.

QUOTE(chrisoff @ Fri 27th January 2012, 3:55am) *

Horrible!

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

That's perhaps something we can agree on.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Fri 27th January 2012, 9:07pm
Post #17


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 26th January 2012, 9:41pm) *
I am sorry but I am lost. You want to say that Encyclopedist is Rodhullandemu confused.gif If not, why the link to the blocks made by Rodhullandemu?


Encyclopedist is Rodhullandemu.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TungstenCarbide
post Fri 27th January 2012, 9:13pm
Post #18


Allegedly shot down by stray Ukrainian missile
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,405
Joined: Sat 14th Mar 2009, 6:12am
Member No.: 10,787

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 27th January 2012, 9:07pm) *
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 26th January 2012, 9:41pm) *
I am sorry but I am lost. You want to say that Encyclopedist is Rodhullandemu confused.gif If not, why the link to the blocks made by Rodhullandemu?
Encyclopedist is Rodhullandemu.

thanks for clearing that up
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Fri 27th January 2012, 11:03pm
Post #19


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
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: Sat 28th January 2012, 3:51am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Sat 28th January 2012, 10:36pm
Post #20


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd 9 17, 9:54am