I must say, I find your indefinite block one of the stranger things I've seen. It strikes me that you were blocked, essentially, for talking much as you do here, in a manner which some might find tedious, but often insightful as well, and certainly not malevolent.
When I look at this RfC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...comment/Moulton
Something "odd" leaps out at me.
If User:B's allegations were correct (I've been told that they're not, but we can revisit this evidence from another angle,) the process was compromised even according to its own (very low) standards.
When I look at this RfC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...comment/Moulton
Something "odd" leaps out at me.
If User:B's allegations were correct (I've been told that they're not, but we can revisit this evidence from another angle,) the process was compromised even according to its own (very low) standards.
I can cop to being tedious at times, but that's hardly a valid cause of action for an indefinite block. Nor was it the official reason given.
You reference User:B above, but I cannot identify who you are referencing or what allegations of User:B you are referencing. Please point me to the User:B material.
QUOTE
So, I'd be interested in revisiting this matter of your indefinite block, both the substance of it, and approaching with an open mind the question of whether your RfC wasn't adminsocked.
I'd be most grateful for another set of eyes and brains took a closer look at my case, and figure out why it was handled in such an odd way.
Do you have a theory as to what really was going on behind the scenes in my RfC? Note that there has since surfaced credible evidence that Paul Mitchell controlled both User:FeloniousMonk and User:OddNature (as well as 'Skip' on Google Blogger).
There is also the mystery of User:Baegis who materialized out of thin air to troll and bait me on my own talk page in the wake of the RfC. I had the vague impression that Dave Souza knew who User:Baegis really was, but declined to arrest him.
