Guido's Meta Block Options

[Ottava]

I don't remember seeing anything here on it, but Guido den Broeder was blocked on Meta for opposing a user at an RfA. I found out recently and complained.

I also questioned the Steward wannabe. I see WizardOfOz in the IRC all the time and it looks like someone trying to silence what they deem as "harm" of another Steward to build support for their own election.

I could be wrong, but yeah. 3 months? For an oppose? Tossing out terms like troll and the rest? I know that admin at en.wiki wish they could do that, but it seems like many of the foreign language projects get away with it quite often, and this user hands out blocks like candy.

[Kwork]

I don't remember seeing anything here on it, but Guido den Broeder was blocked on Meta for opposing a user at an RfA. I found out recently and complained.

I also questioned the Steward wannabe. I see WizardOfOz in the IRC all the time and it looks like someone trying to silence what they deem as "harm" of another Steward to build support for their own election.

I could be wrong, but yeah. 3 months? For an oppose? Tossing out terms like troll and the rest? I know that admin at en.wiki wish they could do that, but it seems like many of the foreign language projects get away with it quite often, and this user hands out blocks like candy.

On Wikipedia administrators need to at least pretend that they care about rules, and that they are acting according to rules. But I have found through experience that on Commons administrators can, and do, give long blocks for anything they happen not to like, or agree with. That is why I stopped contributing to Commons. It seems that the situation on Meta is like on Commons.

Probably Guido made the right decision when he withdrew. Why should he, or anyone, give halfwit administrators the satisfaction of thinking that they have the power to take away something that you care about? The truth is that there is nothing in Wikipedia, Wiki Commons or Meta that is worth caring about. It is all an irretrievable mess, and a total loss.

[Guido den Broeder]

You might want to check the admin's blog at http://wizardofoz-wikipedia.blogspot.com.

And that is applying for stewardship.

[Malleus]

There's an increasing trend to prohibit any opposition at RfA, often on the flimsiest of pretexts.

[Ottava]

You might want to check the admin's blog at http://wizardofoz-wikipedia.blogspot.com.

And that is applying for stewardship.

Odd. He complains about Muslims being unfairly treated after a post defending porn at Commons. Does he not know that Muslims more often than not would be opposed to what is at Commons (not necessarily -some porn-, but the excessiveness and such as amplifiers)? I'm sure he would say that Islamic nations are awful for prohibiting porn and should be ignored as many of the people on Commons started doing.

Meh.

[Enric_Naval]

(...) 3 months? For an oppose? Tossing out terms like troll and the rest? I know that admin at en.wiki wish they could do that, but it seems like many of the foreign language projects get away with it quite often, and this user hands out blocks like candy.

For example, admins at Spanish wikipedia can hand out and will hand out blocks for vandalism without dropping a single warning in the IP talk page. In comparison with enwiki admins, they are incredibly trigger-happy.

[Kwork]

(...) 3 months? For an oppose? Tossing out terms like troll and the rest? I know that admin at en.wiki wish they could do that, but it seems like many of the foreign language projects get away with it quite often, and this user hands out blocks like candy.

For example, admins at Spanish wikipedia can hand out and will hand out blocks for vandalism without dropping a single warning in the IP talk page. In comparison with enwiki admins, they are incredibly trigger-happy.

It seems to me that some of Lawrence Britt's Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism, may describe much behavior in Wikipedia and its fiefdoms. http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm Some of the characteristics do not apply because Wikipedia is only a wiki-nation, but many characteristics do seem to apply. As they say in Wikiland, "Wikipedia is not a democracy."

In the case of this block of Guido, particularly characteristics 12, 13, and 14 apparently apply, and may be factors in the block.

In one of his books, Martin Luther King Jr quoted the the lyrics of this well known song with approval (the title of the book escapes me at the moment). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKlgL4SkkqA
If acting ethically results in such a small thing as wiki-exile, no one should be deterred.

[Abd]

Ottava managed to browbeat WizardOfOz into unblocking Guido, just as Herbythyme had been trying to negotiate unblock and Guido had blown him off.

However, Ottava was then blocked by WizardOfOz. When M7, up for confirmation as a Steward, tried to negotiate unblock with Ottava, Ottava attacked him, and his minions appeared to vote against M7. (Ktr101 -- see his contributions on Wikiversity, this is a leading soldier in the Ottavan Empire, and ... Guido, of course.)

M7 is now being questioned for technical bullshit about the block. M7 reduced the block from "infinite" to "indefinite," which may seem like a small difference, but there is one. An indef block implies "until resolution of the problem," whereas "infinite" really means, "until Hell freezes over and a day." M7 was probably insuring that an admin considering unblock would consult with him, as a steward, rather than the outgunned WizardOfOz, who seems to have a language problem in English and probably did not understand the nuances of the discussion over his block of Guido

WizardOfOz definitely should not have unblocked Guido, because he did not believe that Guido would be a positive contributor, but would continue to be negative and disruptive. Criticism of a block is not a reason to lift it unless a true community consensus has been shown, and several people noting the technical severity of Guido's block is not enough. WOO could simply stand aside and let another admin assess the situation. In fact, WOO was right. Guido was Trouble. By unblocking, WOO interfered with the efforts of Herbythyme.

Ottava is Bad News.

[Kwork]

Ottava managed to browbeat WizardOfOz into unblocking Guido, just as Herbythyme had been trying to negotiate unblock and Guido had blown him off.

However, Ottava was then blocked by WizardOfOz. When M7, up for confirmation as a Steward, tried to negotiate unblock with Ottava, Ottava attacked him, and his minions appeared to vote against M7. (Ktr101 -- see his contributions on Wikiversity, this is a leading soldier in the Ottavan Empire, and ... Guido, of course.)

M7 is now being questioned for technical bullshit about the block. M7 reduced the block from "infinite" to "indefinite," which may seem like a small difference, but there is one. An indef block implies "until resolution of the problem," whereas "infinite" really means, "until Hell freezes over and a day." M7 was probably insuring that an admin considering unblock would consult with him, as a steward, rather than the outgunned WizardOfOz, who seems to have a language problem in English and probably did not understand the nuances of the discussion over his block of Guido

WizardOfOz definitely should not have unblocked Guido, because he did not believe that Guido would be a positive contributor, but would continue to be negative and disruptive. Criticism of a block is not a reason to lift it unless a true community consensus has been shown, and several people noting the technical severity of Guido's block is not enough. WOO could simply stand aside and let another admin assess the situation. In fact, WOO was right. Guido was Trouble. By unblocking, WOO interfered with the efforts of Herbythyme.

Ottava is Bad News.

You seem to be saying that Ottava did something unethical, but I do not see how you arrived at that.

[thekohser]

Ottava managed to browbeat WizardOfOz into unblocking Guido, just as Herbythyme had been trying to negotiate unblock and Guido had blown him off.

However, Ottava was then blocked by WizardOfOz. When M7, up for confirmation as a Steward, tried to negotiate unblock with Ottava, Ottava attacked him, and his minions appeared to vote against M7. (Ktr101 -- see his contributions on Wikiversity, this is a leading soldier in the Ottavan Empire, and ... Guido, of course.)

M7 is now being questioned for technical bullshit about the block. M7 reduced the block from "infinite" to "indefinite," which may seem like a small difference, but there is one. An indef block implies "until resolution of the problem," whereas "infinite" really means, "until Hell freezes over and a day." M7 was probably insuring that an admin considering unblock would consult with him, as a steward, rather than the outgunned WizardOfOz, who seems to have a language problem in English and probably did not understand the nuances of the discussion over his block of Guido

WizardOfOz definitely should not have unblocked Guido, because he did not believe that Guido would be a positive contributor, but would continue to be negative and disruptive. Criticism of a block is not a reason to lift it unless a true community consensus has been shown, and several people noting the technical severity of Guido's block is not enough. WOO could simply stand aside and let another admin assess the situation. In fact, WOO was right. Guido was Trouble. By unblocking, WOO interfered with the efforts of Herbythyme.

Ottava is Bad News.

Could you put this into a flowchart form, for us to understand?

[Ottava]

You seem to be saying that Ottava did something unethical, but I do not see how you arrived at that.

I led to him being desysoped twice because I didn't like how the power got to his head. So, everything else is evil because I am evil.

[Abd]

You seem to be saying that Ottava did something unethical, but I do not see how you arrived at that.]

What you do not see proves nothing but what you do not see. If you want to see, try looking at the meta RfC on Ottava. Then again, it's longer than three words, so it might be difficult for you to read. Sorry.

Run, Spot, Run.

I led to him being desysoped twice because I didn't like how the power got to his head. So, everything else is evil because I am evil.

Right. Exactly.

[Abd]

Ottava is Bad News.

Could you put this into a flowchart form, for us to understand?

Wicked Witch -> Dead.

Well, almost dead. Still has Talk page access, using it to attack the steward M7. Clever, eh?

[SB_Johnny]

You seem to be saying that Ottava did something unethical, but I do not see how you arrived at that.]

What you do not see proves nothing but what you do not see. If you want to see, try looking at the meta RfC on Ottava. Then again, it's longer than three words, so it might be difficult for you to read. Sorry.

Shhhh! He's twying to wecwuit Ottava. Hehehehehe.

[Abd]

You seem to be saying that Ottava did something unethical, but I do not see how you arrived at that.

A little more analysis.

Ottava complained about WizardOfOz's "bad block" of Guido, which was, indeed, excessive on the face. But WOO, I think, also intuited something about Guido. Ottava then put pressure on WOO, and WOO caved, even though HerbyThyme was in the middle of negotiating unblock with Guido. Probably was concluding that it would be Bad News to unblock. WOO unblocked. But, seeing his stewardship candidacy in flames from Ottava's disruption -- partly -- he then responded predictably with Ottava, blocking his ass. Infinite.

When you leave people with nothing to lose, what do they do? Brilliant move, Ottava. It was like your effort, just before your desysopping discussion, on WV, to dump all the inactive 'crats and custodians. It pulled them in so they could see what was going on with you. Offend people right when you'd need them.

Ottava attempted to manipulate everything behind the scenes with IRC. He believes what he reads on IRC. But, Ottava, people aren't responsible for what they say there. They are responsible for what they do on-wiki.

You threatened me that two custodians were going to block me for disruption, just as soon as they "came on." Well? They were also going to block SBJ, Jtneill, and Mikeu. What happened? I think that you might have been given some vague conditional promise to look at the situation and do what was needed.

So a real steward, M7, drops by to advise Ottava how to be unblocked by the end of the month. Ottava, of course, is incensed. Moi? Month? And I've been soooo civil and polite? The problem is all those other awful people. Like Abd, SBJ, and a list of stewards and meta admin. Right. Get them all angry.

See, I think it worked for a while. Ottava would piss off admins and they, taking a deep breath, would walk away. Recuse. But that builds up. Sooner or later someone won't care, you'll have pissed them off enough. And then, this is something that Ottava never understood, with his oh-so-fancy wikilawyering.

"Bad block," i.e., "biased admin" is never a reason to unblock. Not if a reviewing admin knows the ropes. I was astonished that SBJ didn't get that, when he lifted my block of Ottava. He had the right to do it, but that was far from making it wise. So Ottava dodged a bullet again. Every time he did that, it increased his confidence in his invulnerability.

Given the meta RfC, if Ottava is unblocked, the admin who does it is probably in hot water. Not because of the elections. It only takes an admin, and admins aren't up for election. Just stewards.

Doesn't Ottava get it that if the only people who would help him are afraid of the community, that he's dead meat? He has claimed, again and again, that he is backed by the community. Well? Where are they? By canvassing, he was able to get a handful of people to vote n a couple of CRs on WV, all of which failed but one, the one that desysopped me, and that one succeeded because SBJ wanted me gone anyway.

Some Seriously Bad Politics here. If I cared much, I'd be much pissed. As it is, I'm sorry only for the elementary school kids I'm trying to protect on Wikiversity, against people like Ottava, whose only response to really young users is block and delete. A bunch of accounts just got globally locked, for practically nothing, courtesy of TCNSV and a steward who wasn't careful. Probably about seven years old. Welcome to Wikiversity, Ottava was fond of that template.

[EricBarbour]

Welcome to Wikimedia Bitchfest!
Where you can scream at your wiki-ponent without getting blocked!

(Some of) this thread belongs in the Annex, maybe, please.

[Guido den Broeder]

As usual, this is all just Abd's fantasy, vengence, and misunderstanding of policy.

And bad faith in people's intentions all around, I should add.

[Abd]

As usual, this is all just Abd's fantasy, vengence, and misunderstanding of policy.

And bad faith in people's intentions all around, I should add.

I have no idea about Guido's intentions, I'm concerned about what he does. As to fantasy, Ottava is not really blocked, that's just my fantasy. He can edit meta any time he wants, he's just voluntarily confining himself to ranting and raving on his Talk page.

[Milton Roe]

Ottava is Bad News.

Could you put this into a flowchart form, for us to understand?

Wicked Witch -> Dead.

Well, almost dead. Still has Talk page access, using it to attack the steward M7. Clever, eh?

I think I've seen this one.

[Kwork]

You seem to be saying that Ottava did something unethical, but I do not see how you arrived at that.]

What you do not see proves nothing but what you do not see. If you want to see, try looking at the meta RfC on Ottava. Then again, it's longer than three words, so it might be difficult for you to read. Sorry.

You did not answer my question. A link to an RfC is not an answer. Moreover, RfC's involve violations, or supposed violations, or not, of wiki-rules which have nothing at all to do with ethics. In fact, that is one of the more deplorable failings common on WP; the implication that violation of wiki-rules imply moral depravity. That inference is self-serving wiki-bullshit.