I just got my first block, Bet you can't guess why Options

Just look at the unblock request I have on my talk page and the sections I've linked (particularly the link to the section at the bottom of my talk page) it will tell you everything you need to know.

This post has been edited by Pussy Galore: Sun 4th May 2008, 6:20am

I'm happy to hear a good reason to have that article recreated, if you'd like to provide one.

Seriously, I am.

I'm happy to hear a good reason to have that article recreated, if you'd like to provide one.

Seriously, I am.

Cut and pasted from the deletion review that Sceptre closed:

First we will address the idea that the site is not notable. "Encyclopedia Dramatica" (with quotes get 152,000 Google hits. Without quotes, it gets 286,000. This contrasts with "Essjay", on which we have the article "Essjay controversy", which only gets 128,000 Google hits. "Essjay controversy" only gets 10,600. "Encyclopedia Dramatica" also ranked above "Encyclopedia Britannica" on CustomizeGoogle (a Firefox add-on) searches until it was removed from the list of searches. So notability is not a concern. The outcome of this review will be based on whether or not the sources which cite Encyclopedia Dramatica are reliable or not. If consensus says that they're not, then there will be no reason to propose a recreation of this article unless it is mentioned in reliable sources in the future. Period. If consensus says that the sources are reliable then the article will be recreated. What it boils down to is whether or not the sources are reliable. A link to a draft of the article with all of the sources can be found [[here]]. And also, I ask editors to remember that Wikipedia is not censored and to only vote against recreation if they truly believe that the sources are unreliable, not simply because of personal feelings they have toward the site. Pretending that something doesn't exist just because one hates it is juvenile. So are the sources reliable or not?

I would link you to my draft that contains the sources but I'm afraid you'll nom it for deletion. And also, I'd like to know how you determine whether or not my intent in proposing a recreation of that article was to "make a fuss" in your own words. With that reasoning I guess any nomination of any sort can be arbitrarily shut down by any non-admin on the grounds that the user's intent was to "make a fuss".

This post has been edited by Pussy Galore: Sun 4th May 2008, 2:48am

The outcome of this review will be based on whether or not the sources which cite Encyclopedia Dramatica are reliable or not. If consensus says that they're not, then there will be no reason to propose a recreation of this article unless it is mentioned in reliable sources in the future. Period.

That's where the state of play was already, before you started a DRV. That and loathing of ED from some influential users.

the end result is I get blocked without a straight answer ever being given for my block, while Sceptre's actions are ignored and he isn't even warned let alone blocked

Even to suggest such a thing makes a person appear to be an ED user in some people's opinion, and existing just to cause trouble on wiki. They said they don't see how your recent edits are constructive. They think you've gone to the dark side.

The outcome of this review will be based on whether or not the sources which cite Encyclopedia Dramatica are reliable or not. If consensus says that they're not, then there will be no reason to propose a recreation of this article unless it is mentioned in reliable sources in the future. Period.

That's where the state of play was already, before you started a DRV. That and loathing of ED from some influential users.

the end result is I get blocked without a straight answer ever being given for my block, while Sceptre's actions are ignored and he isn't even warned let alone blocked

Even to suggest such a thing makes a person appear to be an ED user in some people's opinion, and existing just to cause trouble on wiki. They said they don't see how your recent edits are constructive. They think you've gone to the dark side.

Well if you want to get technical, I am an ED user. But I've thought the site has deserved an article for a while. Even if I completely hated the site (which I don't, as beneath its many grotesque shock images there is a margin of humor to be found) I wouldn't try to pretend that something doesn't exist just because I hate it. That's just juvenile. And in order to justify my block, they have to have substantial evidence that my behavior was disruptive. They can't just block me on a whim that I may have done something without good intention (well I guess they can, but they can't justify it).

This post has been edited by Pussy Galore: Sun 4th May 2008, 7:19am

And in order to justify my block, they have to have substantial evidence that my behavior was disruptive.

In their minds, opening a deletion review about ED is disruptive.

In their minds, opening a deletion review about ED is disruptive.

Oh, please, let's not be facetious (that's their schtick). Creating an ED article is baiting them to ban you (or block you, or whatever).

Most "lifer" Wikipedians hate that place. And fair enough. Much of it is offensive. To their sensibilities.

Ergo, writing an ED article (and insisting that it stay) is basically sticking your tongue out at them and placing them in a position of admitting that there isn't perfect free speech on the machine. Which is fair. They hate it.

I don't condone their tag-team, hypocritical, rule-avoidant approach to content control, but at the end of the day, it's their site, and it's a pretty clear majority that hates ED. Hands down losing proposition.

Writing a WR article would be more sanguine, since most WP-ers read this site religiously, and many respect the content. Still, they wouldn't allow a WR article, out of wounded pride. They hate to admit much of what WR says is right on the money. And even so, they'd kill anyone who wrote a WR article faster than an ED article. For the reason I said: WR is far too often right on the money, and no one likes being "called on their stuff". Esp. in public.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Sun 4th May 2008, 1:42pm