Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ The Wikipedia Annex _ Rlevse returned

Posted by: chrisoff

Seems that Rlevse has returned as PumpkinSky SPECIFICALLY to poison the well at FAC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raul654&diff=prev&oldid=474456777


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amalthea&diff=prev&oldid=474450727


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=474463448

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&diff=474466910&oldid=474466357

Wait! She forgot to mention Wehwalt. (This should distract them all from Malleus's cunt problem at the Civility Arbcom)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raul654&curid=3763210&diff=474468610&oldid=474468176

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&oldid=472146740#Mattisse_must_be_climbing_the_walls

Posted by: Abd

From User talk:Raul654:

QUOTE
OK, now that he's been confirmed as a sockpuppet, I'll help break out the pitchforks. I've just about had it with him and the trouble he's caused. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654#top|talk]]) 20:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Raul loves to break out the pitchforks. Someone should stick a fork in him, he's stuck them in so many others, there are only a few Wikipedians who have done more damage than him.

Posted by: chrisoff

Well, he hasn't been "confirmed as a sockpuppet" as Raul654 claims.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&diff=prev&oldid=474466357

The bloody nerve! So Raul654 and SandyGeorgia et al are going to pick them off one by one. All the other FAC slaves kowtowed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&diff=prev&oldid=474466357

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=474494505&oldid=474493594


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=474494796

No wonder wp is dying! Drive off the productive editors!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=474492105&oldid=474491037

Posted by: mbz1

It is interesting they tagged the account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PumpkinSky
The tag claims he's blocked, but he is not, and hopefully will not be.
After all Prioryman  (T-C-L-K-R-D) AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vanished_user_03 AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Archive_10#Questions_for_ArbCom_regarding_Prioryman also came back and is allowed to stay.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 1st February 2012, 8:23pm) *

It is interesting they tagged the account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PumpkinSky
The tag claims he's blocked, but he is not, and hopefully will not be.
After all Prioryman  (T-C-L-K-R-D) AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vanished_user_03 AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Archive_10#Questions_for_ArbCom_regarding_Prioryman also came back and is allowed to stay.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3APumpkinSky

PumpkinSky has been blocked since 00:00, 2 February 2012 UTC.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 1:26am) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 1st February 2012, 8:23pm) *

It is interesting they tagged the account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PumpkinSky
The tag claims he's blocked, but he is not, and hopefully will not be.
After all Prioryman  (T-C-L-K-R-D) AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vanished_user_03 AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Archive_10#Questions_for_ArbCom_regarding_Prioryman also came back and is allowed to stay.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3APumpkinSky

PumpkinSky has been blocked since 00:00, 2 February 2012 UTC.

Oh well... But how he abuses multiple accounts? His other accounts are blocked, and he was not banned or something. Why ChriO was treated differently?

Posted by: chrisoff

There hasn't been a CU; it is merely vested admin's Moni3's abuse of admin tools (once again) . There's no proof that I'm aware of.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(chrisoff @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 1:36am) *

There hasn't been a CU; it is merely vested admin's Moni3's abuse of admin tools (once again) . There's no proof that I'm aware of.


Rlevse was accused of plagiarism, while ChrisO/Prioryman merely engaged in abusing BLPs, edit warring, and POV editing. I guess there is a difference in severity.

Posted by: chrisoff

Accused (by SandyGeorgia) but not proved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&diff=474501125&oldid=474500178

Where is the CU, or is this another instance of SandyGeorgia manipulating Arbcom and everyone else to block a constructive editor because of one of her peeves?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&oldid=474504253

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 1:38am) *

QUOTE(chrisoff @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 1:36am) *

There hasn't been a CU; it is merely vested admin's Moni3's abuse of admin tools (once again) . There's no proof that I'm aware of.


Rlevse was accused of plagiarism, while ChrisO/Prioryman merely engaged in abusing BLPs, edit warring, and POV editing. I guess there is a difference in severity.

But what is more severe?

And what this https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User:PumknPi&diff=next&oldid=474489625 is about? Is TungstenCarbide is also Rlevse wtf.gif
Ah, I see, wikipidiots believed that PumknPi (T-C-L-K-R-D) is PumpkinSky (T-C-L-K-R-D) because their user names are alike, but now they confirmed PumknPi (T-C-L-K-R-D) is not PumpkinSky (T-C-L-K-R-D) , which means PumknPi (T-C-L-K-R-D) is not Rlevse, but then it means that PumpkinSky (T-C-L-K-R-D) whoever he is was not abusing multiple accounts, and should be unblocked.

Posted by: chrisoff

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 1st February 2012, 9:08pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 1:38am) *

QUOTE(chrisoff @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 1:36am) *

There hasn't been a CU; it is merely vested admin's Moni3's abuse of admin tools (once again) . There's no proof that I'm aware of.


Rlevse was accused of plagiarism, while ChrisO/Prioryman merely engaged in abusing BLPs, edit warring, and POV editing. I guess there is a difference in severity.

But what is more severe?


Accused is not the same as proven. PumpkinSky was accused by SandyGeorgia. But so far the checks on his edits have not revealed massive copyvio. When SandyGeorgia blanked one of his DYKs on the main page, the evidence of copyvio was borderline - something any of us could have mistakenly done.

Posted by: iii

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 1st February 2012, 8:38pm) *

Rlevse was accused of plagiarism, while ChrisO/Prioryman merely engaged in abusing BLPs, edit warring, and POV editing. I guess there is a difference in severity.


I can't let this slide. Everyone outside of the Wikipedia-world knows what plagiarism is. No one outside of the Wikipedia world will know what any of the these "abusing BLPs, edit warring, and POV editing" buzzwords are supposed to mean. Couldn't you have said, "defamation, arguing, and inserting personal bias"?

Posted by: trenton

Poor guy.... goes to show you that Randy's wiki-addiction is stronger than any principles he claimed to have, as he was an arbitrator who came down particularly hard on returning "vanished" users.

Randy's problem is that he's not particularly smart (witness the whole Randy in Boise situation, and not knowing what plagiarism is). That the guy feels that he must write "Featured Articles" is a symptom of Wikipedia's perverse system of climbing the ladder.

As for Mr. Raul:

QUOTE(Raul654)
For the record, this is absolutely not the first time Rlevse has come back after his RTV. About a week after he left, he created another account. A firestorm ensued, and he left after a day or two. I am wracking my brain but I cannot remember the name of that account. (Someone help me here) Raul654 (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Well you can't remember because this is another one of your fantasies.... (we can ask Everyking about Raul's "recollections"). To set the chain of events straight, Rlevse said he'd quit, then started editing again a few days later, then "vanished".

Posted by: iii

QUOTE(trenton @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 2:12am) *

Poor guy.... goes to show you that Randy's wiki-addiction is stronger than any principles he claimed to have, as he was an arbitrator who came down particularly hard on returning "vanished" users.


Funny that. Wikipedia's principle that discourages "vanished" or "banned" or "blocked" from editing is so weirdly moralistic. It's not like it's some minor little corner of the internet that's easy to ignore. Especially not so if the person trying to do the ignoring has dedicated a significant amount of time in the past to learning the way editing the website works.

Posted by: alan323

QUOTE(iii @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 7:03am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 1st February 2012, 8:38pm) *

Rlevse was accused of plagiarism, while ChrisO/Prioryman merely engaged in abusing BLPs, edit warring, and POV editing. I guess there is a difference in severity.


I can't let this slide. Everyone outside of the Wikipedia-world knows what plagiarism is. No one outside of the Wikipedia world will know what any of the these "abusing BLPs, edit warring, and POV editing" buzzwords are supposed to mean. Couldn't you have said, "defamation, arguing, and inserting personal bias"?

Or simply 'disagreeing with Cla68'.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 1st February 2012, 9:08pm) *

Ah, I see, wikipidiots believed that PumknPi (T-C-L-K-R-D) is PumpkinSky (T-C-L-K-R-D) because their user names are alike, but now they confirmed PumknPi (T-C-L-K-R-D) is not PumpkinSky (T-C-L-K-R-D) , which means PumknPi (T-C-L-K-R-D) is not Rlevse, but then it means that PumpkinSky (T-C-L-K-R-D) whoever he is was not abusing multiple accounts, and should be unblocked.


It's the Great Pumpkin, Jimmy Wales! smile.gif

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 1:49pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 1st February 2012, 9:08pm) *

Ah, I see, wikipidiots believed that PumknPi (T-C-L-K-R-D) is PumpkinSky (T-C-L-K-R-D) because their user names are alike, but now they confirmed PumknPi (T-C-L-K-R-D) is not PumpkinSky (T-C-L-K-R-D) , which means PumknPi (T-C-L-K-R-D) is not Rlevse, but then it means that PumpkinSky (T-C-L-K-R-D) whoever he is was not abusing multiple accounts, and should be unblocked.


It's the Great Pumpkin, Jimmy Wales! smile.gif

It looks that rather sooner than later they will have to stop blocking socks of banned editors simply because most "new" editors will be socks of old, banned ones. smile.gif

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 2:08am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 1:38am) *

QUOTE(chrisoff @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 1:36am) *

There hasn't been a CU; it is merely vested admin's Moni3's abuse of admin tools (once again) . There's no proof that I'm aware of.


Rlevse was accused of plagiarism, while ChrisO/Prioryman merely engaged in abusing BLPs, edit warring, and POV editing. I guess there is a difference in severity.

But what is more severe?

And what this https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User:PumknPi&diff=next&oldid=474489625 is about? Is TungstenCarbide is also Rlevse wtf.gif
Ah, I see, wikipidiots believed that PumknPi (T-C-L-K-R-D) is PumpkinSky (T-C-L-K-R-D) because their user names are alike, but now they confirmed PumknPi (T-C-L-K-R-D) is not PumpkinSky (T-C-L-K-R-D) , which means PumknPi (T-C-L-K-R-D) is not Rlevse, but then it means that PumpkinSky (T-C-L-K-R-D) whoever he is was not abusing multiple accounts, and should be unblocked.


just a coinkidink - although I'm tempted to have some fun with this. There are a whole bunch of variations on that account name and only one of them is me - just goes to show how gullible and idiotic some of these blocking admins are.

Oh, and by the way, Tnxman307 is a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3APumknPi. He made me reboot my modem and get a new account - I want those 45 seconds of my life back, dammit.

Posted by: chrisoff

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PumpkinSky&action=history

This is totally corrupt!

I wonder how many editors have been blocked/banned without any kind of due process but merely out of whim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&curid=4095360&diff=474601314&oldid=474595947

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(chrisoff @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 5:12pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PumpkinSky&action=history

This is totally corrupt!

I wonder how many editors have been blocked/banned without any kind of due process but merely out of whim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&curid=4095360&diff=474601314&oldid=474595947

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=474494576

Posted by: chrisoff

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BarkingMoon&diff=474608025&oldid=468746027

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 8:26am) *

Oh, and by the way, Tnxman307 is a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3APumknPi. He made me reboot my modem and get a new account - I want those 45 seconds of my life back, dammit.

Tnxman is another "evil patroller". Blocking people forever seems to make his little pee-pee hard.

This thread is veering toward Annex material. You folks are talking about Raul and SandyGeorgia as if they were "celebrities". Not recommended.

Posted by: chrisoff

Not as celebrities, but as chronic abusers of power and purveyors of corruption that serve to drive other editors away and contribute to the nasty atmosphere at wp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PumpkinSky&action=history

Rlevse has been an enormous positive contributor to wp, whatever his human faults. Treating him this way diminishes wp.

And as someone said above, at this point many/most new editors that are able to stick it out are socks anyway, this is an exercise in vindictiveness.

This ganging up on particular editors is unseemly, merely because of a personal grudge.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(chrisoff @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 8:54pm) *

Rlevse has been an enormous positive contributor to wp


How exactly? You mean the 'Awesome Wikipedian' awards?

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 12:58pm) *

QUOTE(chrisoff @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 8:54pm) *

Rlevse has been an enormous positive contributor to wp
How exactly? You mean the 'Awesome Wikipedian' awards?

evilgrin.gif

Posted by: chrisoff

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 4:04pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 12:58pm) *

QUOTE(chrisoff @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 8:54pm) *

Rlevse has been an enormous positive contributor to wp
How exactly? You mean the 'Awesome Wikipedian' awards?

evilgrin.gif


Well, ok, I received an "Awesome Wikipedian Award".

But also, just look at the kerfufle that SandyGeorgia kicked up about copyvio:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/PumpkinSky

Look at the huge number of edits PumpkinSky made (whether or not it is Relvse). Nothing so far has been found to be a major problem. Just because PumpkinSky disagreed with Raul and SandyGeorgia. Really? It's for the good of the 'pedia?

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(chrisoff @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 5:59pm) *

Well, ok, I received an "Awesome Wikipedian Award

Good for you. Thread annexed, per [[WR:ANNEX]]. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Cla68

Why were http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PumpkinSky&action=history oversighted?

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 5:57pm) *

Why were http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PumpkinSky&action=history oversighted?

They weren't, but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User+talk%3APumpkinSky

Posted by: mbz1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#Rlevse.27s_actions_as_bureaucrat

Posted by: Cla68

In the email exchange, Will Beback threatens Rlevse that if he doesn't leave the project, Will will publicly release details he dug up about Wikipedia editing by Rlevse's wife. Rlevse, understandably angered by the threat, then curses at Will Beback.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 10:37pm) *

In the email exchange, Will Beback threatens Rlevse that if he doesn't leave the project, Will will publicly release details he dug up about Wikipedia editing by Rlevse's wife. Rlevse, understandably angered by the threat, then curses at Will Beback.


This is unnerving. I'm actually starting to feel bad for Rlevse, or at least his wife. And I certainly don't like him, and I especially didn't like him when he was on ArbCom running around yelling about "banned means banned" and being a generally abusive asshole. Now that he's down on the ground though... yeah, I feel a little bad for him - some kind of boyscout code or someting. Especially since I'm not too keen on some of the other players on the other side of this equation and how they've acted. And no, I don't mean Sandy... oh ok, lemme say it, I mean Will Beback. And then I don't really like Cla's opportunistic questions to Will either which have more to do with grudges (however well deserved) than what this is really about... gee, I guess I just don't like anybody on there.

A plague on all six houses, and someone should probably point out to Rlevse personally that it's about time he made it official, made a real account here and started spilling the goodies under his Wikipedia name.

Posted by: Cla68

Here is the email exchange which was revdeleted:

Rlevse:
Will Beback sent this to me and I refuse to condone blackmail. Note I have twice in this thread asked him to leave me alone and yet he persists. The full thread is presented below with personal email redacted. Since he refuses to wait for Arbcom to handle this, which is what I wanted, I feel I have no other recourse other than to post here since he's clearly stated he will make the alleged posts without waiting for arbcom. He also appears to be ignoring an AN thread about me being banned where not banning is the clear consensus. Does this mean Will alone decides who edits and doesn't edit wiki and under only his conditions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



· Thanks for admitting you were in shanigans behind my back! And AC was in on it!

You are now blocked from my email account. So don't bother sending me things again.

R



· ---- Will Beback <will's email> wrote:

The ArbCom is already aware of these allegations, which we all agreed need > not be aired publicly so long as Rlevse did not return, and which > NewYorkBrad told me would be dealt with if Rlevse should return. > > There is no question that Rlevse has returned, although the current account > has been blocked. > > Despite my request, Rlevse has not committed to not returning again. > Therefore these issues should be dealt with publicly to prevent a repeat. > > -Will >

Rlevse: I readily admitted I am PSKY so what's the news? I am not BM as you and others claim. > >You haven't violated anything? HA. Try blackmail of me. Hounding and stalking of >others, etc. >Now that your blackmail backfired, go for it. But be careful, it could and >should backfire on you. >AC--you have full notice of this. >Will--leave me alone, no, don't leave me alone, it'll be more proof of how you >hound and stalk other editors. >R

· ---- Will Beback <will's email> wrote:
> Ah, so it is you. > > I haven't engaged in any "shenanigans". I haven't violated any Wikipedia > policies, in letter or spirit. > > Since you do not seem to care about the issue, I will post a full account > of your work as a bureaucrat and the participation of JoJo. > > See also: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Rename_un-vani shed_editor > > >

Rlevse: Will: Proof I called your bluf and sent this to arbcom and am not afraid of you. > > > > Now you leave me alone. > > > > R


· > > ---- r's email wrote:
> > > Just so you guys know...do or not do what you want. All I ask for is a > > receipt that this was received and read. > > > > > > R > > >


· > > > > Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 18:35:10 -0500

> > > > From: <r's email> > > > > To: will's email > > > > Subject: Re: Wikipedia Rlevse > > > > > > > > And OBTW, I've sent this attempt at blackmail to arbcom. > > > > > > > >


· > > > > ---- r's email wrote:

> > > > > You are so full of shit and the biggest hypocrit ever. Your threats > > don't scare me. The good thing this every day more and more people become > > aware of your shenanigans. You can kiss my ass. > > > > > > > > > >


· > > > > > ---- Will Beback <Will's email> wrote:

> > > > > > After your original departure, I participated in the clean-up > > effort to address your many problem edits. As part of that effort I came > > across your history of closing AFDs as a bureaucrat, in particular those in > > which user:JoJo participated. I have not discussed this matter publicly, as > > I thought that there was no point in dragging your name through the mud if > > you'd left the project. But if you keep returning then the whole "RTV" > > thing was just a deception too and I will air it publicly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since you've returned once, and possibly twice, without > > transparency I am now looking for an assurance from you that you will not > > do so again. Please reply at your earliest convenience. Otherwise I'll > > assume this is part of an ongoing pattern which is likely to be repeated, > > and act accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Will > > > > > >

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(radek @ Fri 3rd February 2012, 5:10am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 10:37pm) *

In the email exchange, Will Beback threatens Rlevse that if he doesn't leave the project, Will will publicly release details he dug up about Wikipedia editing by Rlevse's wife. Rlevse, understandably angered by the threat, then curses at Will Beback.


This is unnerving. I'm actually starting to feel bad for Rlevse, or at least his wife. And I certainly don't like him, and I especially didn't like him when he was on ArbCom running around yelling about "banned means banned" and being a generally abusive asshole. Now that he's down on the ground though... yeah, I feel a little bad for him - some kind of boyscout code or someting. Especially since I'm not too keen on some of the other players on the other side of this equation and how they've acted. And no, I don't mean Sandy... oh ok, lemme say it, I mean Will Beback. And then I don't really like Cla's opportunistic questions to Will either which have more to do with grudges (however well deserved) than what this is really about... gee, I guess I just don't like anybody on there.

A plague on all six houses, and someone should probably point out to Rlevse personally that it's about time he made it official, made a real account here and started spilling the goodies under his Wikipedia name.


I suspect that Rlevse would like to return to editing WP without being forced to grovel as Raul654 and others would probably require him to do otherwise, and is the usual procedure with indef blocked or RTV editors.

Posted by: Vigilant

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 3rd February 2012, 5:30am) *

Here is the email exchange which was revdeleted:

Rlevse:
Will Beback sent this to me and I refuse to condone blackmail. Note I have twice in this thread asked him to leave me alone and yet he persists. The full thread is presented below with personal email redacted. Since he refuses to wait for Arbcom to handle this, which is what I wanted, I feel I have no other recourse other than to post here since he's clearly stated he will make the alleged posts without waiting for arbcom. He also appears to be ignoring an AN thread about me being banned where not banning is the clear consensus. Does this mean Will alone decides who edits and doesn't edit wiki and under only his conditions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



· Thanks for admitting you were in shanigans behind my back! And AC was in on it!

You are now blocked from my email account. So don't bother sending me things again.

R



· ---- Will Beback <will's email> wrote:

The ArbCom is already aware of these allegations, which we all agreed need > not be aired publicly so long as Rlevse did not return, and which > NewYorkBrad told me would be dealt with if Rlevse should return. > > There is no question that Rlevse has returned, although the current account > has been blocked. > > Despite my request, Rlevse has not committed to not returning again. > Therefore these issues should be dealt with publicly to prevent a repeat. > > -Will >

Rlevse: I readily admitted I am PSKY so what's the news? I am not BM as you and others claim. > >You haven't violated anything? HA. Try blackmail of me. Hounding and stalking of >others, etc. >Now that your blackmail backfired, go for it. But be careful, it could and >should backfire on you. >AC--you have full notice of this. >Will--leave me alone, no, don't leave me alone, it'll be more proof of how you >hound and stalk other editors. >R

· ---- Will Beback <will's email> wrote:
> Ah, so it is you. > > I haven't engaged in any "shenanigans". I haven't violated any Wikipedia > policies, in letter or spirit. > > Since you do not seem to care about the issue, I will post a full account > of your work as a bureaucrat and the participation of JoJo. > > See also: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Rename_un-vani shed_editor > > >

Rlevse: Will: Proof I called your bluf and sent this to arbcom and am not afraid of you. > > > > Now you leave me alone. > > > > R


· > > ---- r's email wrote:
> > > Just so you guys know...do or not do what you want. All I ask for is a > > receipt that this was received and read. > > > > > > R > > >


· > > > > Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 18:35:10 -0500

> > > > From: <r's email> > > > > To: will's email > > > > Subject: Re: Wikipedia Rlevse > > > > > > > > And OBTW, I've sent this attempt at blackmail to arbcom. > > > > > > > >


· > > > > ---- r's email wrote:

> > > > > You are so full of shit and the biggest hypocrit ever. Your threats > > don't scare me. The good thing this every day more and more people become > > aware of your shenanigans. You can kiss my ass. > > > > > > > > > >


· > > > > > ---- Will Beback <Will's email> wrote:

> > > > > > After your original departure, I participated in the clean-up > > effort to address your many problem edits. As part of that effort I came > > across your history of closing AFDs as a bureaucrat, in particular those in > > which user:JoJo participated. I have not discussed this matter publicly, as > > I thought that there was no point in dragging your name through the mud if > > you'd left the project. But if you keep returning then the whole "RTV" > > thing was just a deception too and I will air it publicly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since you've returned once, and possibly twice, without > > transparency I am now looking for an assurance from you that you will not > > do so again. Please reply at your earliest convenience. Otherwise I'll > > assume this is part of an ongoing pattern which is likely to be repeated, > > and act accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Will > > > > > >


Vaguely reminiscent of the FT2 blackmail thing.

So, wikistalking and blackmail...

Nothing's too shitty for the regulars.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 11:52pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Fri 3rd February 2012, 5:10am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 10:37pm) *

In the email exchange, Will Beback threatens Rlevse that if he doesn't leave the project, Will will publicly release details he dug up about Wikipedia editing by Rlevse's wife. Rlevse, understandably angered by the threat, then curses at Will Beback.


This is unnerving. I'm actually starting to feel bad for Rlevse, or at least his wife. And I certainly don't like him, and I especially didn't like him when he was on ArbCom running around yelling about "banned means banned" and being a generally abusive asshole. Now that he's down on the ground though... yeah, I feel a little bad for him - some kind of boyscout code or someting. Especially since I'm not too keen on some of the other players on the other side of this equation and how they've acted. And no, I don't mean Sandy... oh ok, lemme say it, I mean Will Beback. And then I don't really like Cla's opportunistic questions to Will either which have more to do with grudges (however well deserved) than what this is really about... gee, I guess I just don't like anybody on there.

A plague on all six houses, and someone should probably point out to Rlevse personally that it's about time he made it official, made a real account here and started spilling the goodies under his Wikipedia name.


I suspect that Rlevse would like to return to editing WP without being forced to grovel as Raul654 and others would probably require him to do otherwise, and is the usual procedure with indef blocked editors.


Yup. But in the big scheme of things he's not exactly the kind of former Wiki editor one can muster much sympathy for. Sort of like Rodhullandemu but different issues. I dunno, it's just a faction fight among the inner circle. I'm not sure why we should give a shit. Probably just annex it.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(radek @ Fri 3rd February 2012, 6:04am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 11:52pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Fri 3rd February 2012, 5:10am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 10:37pm) *

In the email exchange, Will Beback threatens Rlevse that if he doesn't leave the project, Will will publicly release details he dug up about Wikipedia editing by Rlevse's wife. Rlevse, understandably angered by the threat, then curses at Will Beback.


This is unnerving. I'm actually starting to feel bad for Rlevse, or at least his wife. And I certainly don't like him, and I especially didn't like him when he was on ArbCom running around yelling about "banned means banned" and being a generally abusive asshole. Now that he's down on the ground though... yeah, I feel a little bad for him - some kind of boyscout code or someting. Especially since I'm not too keen on some of the other players on the other side of this equation and how they've acted. And no, I don't mean Sandy... oh ok, lemme say it, I mean Will Beback. And then I don't really like Cla's opportunistic questions to Will either which have more to do with grudges (however well deserved) than what this is really about... gee, I guess I just don't like anybody on there.

A plague on all six houses, and someone should probably point out to Rlevse personally that it's about time he made it official, made a real account here and started spilling the goodies under his Wikipedia name.


I suspect that Rlevse would like to return to editing WP without being forced to grovel as Raul654 and others would probably require him to do otherwise, and is the usual procedure with indef blocked editors.


Yup. But in the big scheme of things he's not exactly the kind of former Wiki editor one can muster much sympathy for. Sort of like Rodhullandemu but different issues. I dunno, it's just a faction fight among the inner circle. I'm not sure why we should give a shit. Probably just annex it.


About the Will Beback stuff. Will Beback says he notified the Committee about the Jojo stuff and they (specifically NewYorkBrad) said they would address it if Rlevse returned. Rlevse returned. Will neglected to remember that ArbCom had said they would handle it (if, in fact, they really said or meant that) and jumped right into it, utilizing WP's old school methods of intimidation, coercion, and threats of wiki-humiliation, with which he appears to be familiar.

You have to understand it from Will's perspective. It was his information. He found it! It belonged to him to utilize it as he saw fit. It fits in with what Kelly Martin has said in this forum about Wikipedians using and trading information for their personal agendas.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE

This is a risk we have in permitting husbands and wives to edit, other couples, Lar/Josette, Balloonman/Ginko, J.delanoy/Thingg (brothers) all come to mind. I would be interested to see the close calls Will mentions above, not with an eye towards going back and changing the outcome, but with the goal of learning how we can better identify groups of !voters and attempt to find a way to discount groups we can clearly see are meatpuppets of each other. MBisanz talk 02:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


You could extend this principle in all sorts of ways, even into real life. You could say e.g. that when different people belong to the same political party, and clearly vote not because of specific issues but simply because they trust the party they are voting for, then this is 'meatpuppeting'. It violates the 'crowdsourcing' principle that every actor in the game must act on the basis of issues and content alone, and not other things like trust, personal relationships, geography etc. This way we could ban all political parties whatsoever.

Ideally, there would just be one party, the Wikipedia party, and any vote against that party is punishable by banning, execution, imprisonment, forcible dismemberment and disembowelling. The possibilities are endless and interesting, as well as entertaining. Let's have some more of this please.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 3rd February 2012, 1:54am) *

About the Will Beback stuff. Will Beback says he notified the Committee about the Jojo stuff and they (specifically NewYorkBrad) said they would address it if Rlevse returned. Rlevse returned. Will neglected to remember that ArbCom had said they would handle it (if, in fact, they really said or meant that) and jumped right into it, utilizing WP's old school methods of intimidation, coercion, and threats of wiki-humiliation, with which he appears to be familiar.

You have to understand it from Will's perspective. It was his information. He found it! It belonged to him to utilize it as he saw fit. It fits in with what Kelly Martin has said in this forum about Wikipedians using and trading information for their personal agendas.

Meanwhile, it seems that at least one of the arbitrators http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal/Workshop#Conduct_unbecoming_an_administrator. I was just starting to wonder why we hadn't heard about the Timidguy/Beback thing, but apparently there was more evidence coming in.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 11:37pm) *

In the email exchange, Will Beback threatens Rlevse that if he doesn't leave the project, Will will publicly release details he dug up about Wikipedia editing by Rlevse's wife. Rlevse, understandably angered by the threat, then curses at Will Beback.


Let's cut to the chase: anyone got some bikini photos of Rlevse's wife? evilgrin.gif

Posted by: everyking

Wikipedia would be a much nicer place if it gave the boot to its veteran bullies and blackmailers, instead of their victims. I hope Rlevse is able to find a way to continue contributing to the project.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 3rd February 2012, 2:43pm) *

Wikipedia would be a much nicer place if it gave the boot to its veteran bullies and blackmailers, instead of their victims.

Don't hold your breath on this. As one of my friends said :"Of course, Wikipedia needs its bullies — it does not pay salaries, but there is the psychic pleasures of bullying. Obviously not everyone is a bully. There are some good-hearted admins. But the patterns of the social dynamics of Wikipedia are almost designed to cultivate a collection of bullies to do the work, and provide structural support for that bullying "

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 3rd February 2012, 9:43am) *
Wikipedia would be a much nicer place if it gave the boot to its veteran bullies and blackmailers, instead of their victims. I hope Rlevse is able to find a way to continue contributing to the project.
Every enduring Wikipedia problem results from lack of a reliable, efficient, fair decision-making process.

Lot's of people know this, few understand how to do it differently, and fewer still will actually do what would be necessary: set up such process, demonstrate it, and use it to beneficial effect. Instead, it's much easier to just complain about what *they* do.


QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 3rd February 2012, 10:19am) *
QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 3rd February 2012, 2:43pm) *
Wikipedia would be a much nicer place if it gave the boot to its veteran bullies and blackmailers, instead of their victims.
Don't hold your breath on this. As one of my friends said :"Of course, Wikipedia needs its bullies — it does not pay salaries, but there is the psychic pleasures of bullying. Obviously not everyone is a bully. There are some good-hearted admins. But the patterns of the social dynamics of Wikipedia are almost designed to cultivate a collection of bullies to do the work, and provide structural support for that bullying "
That's fairly accurate.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE

This is a risk we have in permitting husbands and wives to edit, other couples, Lar/Josette, Balloonman/Ginko, J.delanoy/Thingg (brothers) all come to mind. MBisanz talk 02:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


Funny, but the Delanoy Brothers' connection came out here on WR - straight from the Horsey's mouth, too! smile.gif

Have they actually outed themselves on WP? Or is MBisanz just repeating what he read here?


Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 3rd February 2012, 11:22am) *

Meanwhile, it seems that at least one of the arbitrators http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal/Workshop#Conduct_unbecoming_an_administrator. I was just starting to wonder why we hadn't heard about the Timidguy/Beback thing, but apparently there was more evidence coming in.

That looks pretty serious. Is Davies an Arb? I guess he must be.

Posted by: chrisoff

Well I'd like to know how PumpkinSky (apparently Rlevse) visited all sorts of HELL on FAC as SandyGeorgia claims and destroyed the moral at FAC and the "collegial" atmosphere. Is someone just questioning the fossilized procedures of FAC or daring to vote against Raul's "Director for Life" RFC enough to decimate the place?

SandyGeorgia is blaming Sue Gardner, Elen of the Roads, Risker, an arbitration in 2009 (or 2010, she can't remember which) as well as Rlevse, Rlevse's wife, BarkingMoon, PumpkinSky, Wehwalt, TCO, Alarbus‎, Matisse, Arbcom, Ched (am I forgetting someone?) Oh, yeah, various arbs.- all these for the current malaise at FAC.

If SandyGeorgia had just shut her mouth and not posted everywhere about all of this, there won't be any fuss or demoralization at FAC.

Maybe she's (successfully) distracting the Arbcom and wasting their energy, so they'll never get it together to post a decision on Malleus's cunt arbitration. All the trouble she causes makes Malleus look like an angel!

He doesn't try to viciously destroy "enemies" as she does. He just spouts off a little.




Posted by: iii

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 3rd February 2012, 9:43am) *

Wikipedia would be a much nicer place if it gave the boot to its veteran bullies and blackmailers, instead of their victims.


Wikipedia is pretty efficient at turning bullies/blackmailers into victims and vice-versa. Rlevse may be a prime example of this having bullied plenty of people himself while he occupied the upper-echelons of the star chamber.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(iii @ Fri 3rd February 2012, 4:56pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 3rd February 2012, 9:43am) *

Wikipedia would be a much nicer place if it gave the boot to its veteran bullies and blackmailers, instead of their victims.


Wikipedia is pretty efficient at turning bullies/blackmailers into victims and vice-versa. Rlevse may be a prime example of this having bullied plenty of people himself while he occupied the upper-echelons of the star chamber.


+14334534

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(chrisoff @ Fri 3rd February 2012, 2:14pm) *

SandyGeorgia is blaming Sue Gardner, Elen of the Roads, Risker, an arbitration in 2009 (or 2010, she can't remember which) as well as Rlevse, Rlevse's wife, BarkingMoon, PumpkinSky, Wehwalt, TCO, Alarbus‎, Matisse.....

You're one to talk......

I would have talked about the TimidGuy case, but I'm not ADHD enough to understand it. confused.gif

DO NOT feel sorry for Randy Everette. He has abused process many, many times in the past.
This is what happens to a dysfunctional organization--it becomes more dysfunctional, not less.
The trolls and bullies force out the honest people, and then they fight among themselves.

I would dare to predict that, if they can't deal with Will decisively, the whole thing will start to decay.
Any little shreds of "civility" on AN will disappear, and the POVers and patrollers will start battling in earnest.
And away will go the remaining content-writers.

Posted by: The Joy

When Daniel Brandt "outs" Wikipedians for a good cause, he gets banned.

When Will Beback "outs" Wikipedians out of pure spite, he gets praised.

I don't get it, Big Dan.

Image

Posted by: melloden

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 3rd February 2012, 6:04pm) *

QUOTE

This is a risk we have in permitting husbands and wives to edit, other couples, Lar/Josette, Balloonman/Ginko, J.delanoy/Thingg (brothers) all come to mind. MBisanz talk 02:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


Funny, but the Delanoy Brothers' connection came out here on WR - straight from the Horsey's mouth, too! smile.gif

Have they actually outed themselves on WP? Or is MBisanz just repeating what he read here?

Interesting question.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 8:36pm) *
QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 8:26am) *
Oh, and by the way, Tnxman307 is a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3APumknPi. He made me reboot my modem and get a new account - I want those 45 seconds of my life back, dammit.
Tnxman is another "evil patroller". Blocking people forever seems to make his little pee-pee hard.

from his admin stats; Users blocked -- 13216

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sat 4th February 2012, 1:01am) *
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 8:36pm) *
QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 8:26am) *
Oh, and by the way, Tnxman307 is a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3APumknPi. He made me reboot my modem and get a new account - I want those 45 seconds of my life back, dammit.
Tnxman is another "evil patroller". Blocking people forever seems to make his little pee-pee hard.
from his admin stats; Users blocked -- 13216
Okay, now something good about Tnxman307. He actually engaged in an on-wiki discussion with me after I'd been indeffed. My edit to his Talk page had been reverted by Kww, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tnxman307&diff=next&oldid=428151263, then http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tnxman307&diff=next&oldid=428151856 That was fair enough. There was, out of this sequence, review of RevDel policy, there had been creeping use of it to remove edits by banned editors from all public view, and while that wasn't totally ruled out, it was discouraged.

There is a substantial contingent of administrators who want to use RevDel to completely hide edits by banned editors, because it, they think, will discourage them from editing. Maybe. More likely, it will simply increase public distrust of the administrative corps.

Revision deletion is increasingly being used with vandalism, mentioned here. That's proper under certain circumstances, and this should be spelled out in policy, not left to discretion, because the tool is dangerous to open governance. Indeed, edits of the form "So-and-So is gay," where So-and-so appears to be a real name, or may be an identifiable person, I'd agree, should be Rev-Del'd, and I think I did that some on Wikiversity. I'd never use RevDel to hide a good faith edit that doesn't violate privacy policy or break, say, copyright laws. History is public, and true copyvio in history is still copyvio, if it's publicly available through a link.

I'd stopped using self-reversion because of the escalating sanctions. The implications of this have never been examined by the community. Self-reversion by a banned editor was originally suggested for use with ScienceApologist, was explicitly approved by an arbitrator, was formally proposed on WP talk:Ban, with little negative comment. It was only rejected when I used it for a harmless edit, rejected by editors who were searching for anything to throw at me.... It's been proven to work, elsewhere, to benefit the project and sometimes to pave the way for unban. That's exactly what the abusive administrators don't want. They want "a ban is a ban is a ban." And they absolutely don't want to look back.

(An explanation of self-reversion as it was originally recommended by me, used by several editors, and then as actually practiced by me: Editor who is banned or topic-banned makes edit and adds to summary "will self-revert per ban." (or block) If they are blocked and are editing IP, they add "of [blocked username]." Then they promptly self-revert. The proposal was that self-reverted edits which were not positively harmful in themselves would be considered non-abusive and would not lead to the sanctions that would be normal for block or ban evasion. If an editor abused this, the escalating sanctions could still apply. Example of abuse: a self-reverted edit that was grossly uncivil, or seriously misleading, as with lying about what's in a source -- intentional deception, not merely some error --, or other major violations of trust. I was never accused of any of these things, by the way. It's been claimed that topic-banned editors could make suggestions to other editors, who would then make the edits on being personally satisfied of their value. However, that's highly inefficient for both parties. Originally, self-reversion was suggested for spelling corrections -- ScienceApologist was making them in an attempt to troll admins into blocking him for a harmless edit. They weren't taking the bait. I suggested a way that, if he actually wanted to make corrections without complicating enforcement, he could self-revert as suggested. Since his goal was, in fact, to complicate enforcement, he rejected the suggestion, rather strongly. His friends thought I was harassing him.... No. I was just offering an option.)

Since an editor using self-reversion is wasting his time if no active editor reverts the edit back in (or otherwise incorporates what they approve of, from the material), self-reversion sets up conditions where a banned editor may develop cooperation with editors "on the other side," and I saw it work that way, with PJHaseldine. See my coverage of http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Abd/Wikipedia/List_of_self-reverted_edits. At least as long as those pages stand!

To complete this discussion, I did not actually stop editing because of the escalating sanctions. I simply evaded them. Once IP editing with disclosure that I was Abd was interdicted, by the edit filter, and when Range blocks were raised, I then created a normal sock, and did not disclose identity, and freely violated my abusive bans. To the benefit of the project, always. From my point of view, my obligation to respect community process ceased once I was banned, when due process had been exhausted. That sock was detected when an arb used checkuser, apparently on his own initiative, though he may have been prompted privately. I hadn't taken evasive action. With that sock, anyway!

I know enough, as do many banned editors, to be able to create undetectable socks. Whether it's worth the trouble or not is another story. Mostly, Wikipedia isn't worth it, it's a dying project. Its bones may still be useful, though.... People like Scibaby don't bother with "undetectability," because they really don't care if they are detected, they like the fuss that's made. This is *created* by the banning practices.....

Wikipedia utterly failed to value editor labor. Any idea how much time has been wasted finding and dealing with over a thousand Scibaby socks? Thank Raul654! The "community" is still dealing with the consequences of that, one of the "defacto bans" that were created by the cabal. Scibaby failed to cooperate, eh? He certainly wasn't invited to, the message was simply "Go Away! You are Bad!" Funny, that doesn't seem to inspire cooperation in people. Who'd a thunk it?

Posted by: chrisoff

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&diff=prev&oldid=475068801

This case was never resolved: BarkingMoon was not found to be a sockpuppet of anyone.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 3rd February 2012, 6:22am) *

Meanwhile, it seems that at least one of the arbitrators http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal/Workshop#Conduct_unbecoming_an_administrator. I was just starting to wonder why we hadn't heard about the Timidguy/Beback thing, but apparently there was more evidence coming in.
Look, it's open and shut, Will Beback is blameless, we have it on the authority of the Featured Article Coordinator:
QUOTE
Will's actions were entirely appropriate and above board. Thank you Will, for your yeoman's work. Raul654 (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I remember Raul saying stuff like that about William M. Connolley.

Good work, Cla68, I think you've nailed him. Be careful, of course, your goal should be to back off and let the rest of the community chew him up. Just a nudge here and there, if you are breaking a sweat, you are working too hard. I worked way too hard, I wanted to present clear evidence, and realized only too late that ArbComm Didn't Need Any Stinkin' Evidence. The trick is to lure the abusive administrator into demonstrating it so even a Compleat Idiot can see it. This filing on Rlevse's wife was beyond the pale. There was no legitimate cause for that, no Need to Know, except Rlevse's refusal to cave to his blackmail. Which, of course, isn't legitimate.

Looking at the AN discussion, what an incredible waste of time, over something of practically no importance, i.e., whether or not Rlevse is Barking Moon. That's only of interest for highly technical reasons, and the whole purpose of identifying socks has been lost if you have to argue about it. The purpose is efficiency! I.e., if someone is a sock of someone whom the community, at great expense with silly monstrous discussions like this has been found to be a problem, if you show that a new account is the same person, done. No discussion needed. If you have to have another monster discussion, what's the point?

I am so glad, I want to thank the abusive administrators for blocking me. I used to be in the middle of this crap!

Rlevse I found to be a helpful arbitrator, as I recall, but not deeply so. No comment on the rest. He's obviously pissed.

Posted by: mbz1

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=477103760#PumpkinSky_return_request And rejected. Sometimes the community could be so cruel. He was down, he offered a repeated apologies, he offered a humiliating unblock conditions, but everything was rejected. I feel sorry for him, and I wish him well. smile.gif

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 15th February 2012, 9:29pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=477103760#PumpkinSky_return_request And rejected. Sometimes the community could be so cruel. He was down, he offered a repeated apologies, he offered a humiliating unblock conditions, but everything was rejected. I feel sorry for him, and I wish him well. smile.gif

frustrated.gif letsgetdrunk.gif obliterate.gif

Posted by: chrisoff

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 15th February 2012, 11:01pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 15th February 2012, 9:29pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=477103760#PumpkinSky_return_request And rejected. Sometimes the community could be so cruel. He was down, he offered a repeated apologies, he offered a humiliating unblock conditions, but everything was rejected. I feel sorry for him, and I wish him well. smile.gif

frustrated.gif letsgetdrunk.gif obliterate.gif


Really, everyone will be banned sooner or later. Returning as a sock is the only option if the community won't allow a "controlled return" i.e. under supervision. The banned/blocked indefinitely response is just not realistic. So wiki get bundles of new editors who leave shortly after. It's only the vested editors like Rlevrse who actually "care", hang around and keep trying.