This email got rejected from the moderation queue because of some sort of corruption (or an ill-advised use of Gmail's text formatting features instead of plain text). The user has kindly re-sent the email in plain text:
~Mark Ryan
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Itake tchakolli@gmail.com Date: 23-Jan-2006 22:53 Subject: Re: Your email to WikiEN-l about your "ban" To: Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com
Ok, I don't know what "garbled" text is, was is that I used the gmail text formatting features? Anyways, here it is again:
Username: Itake IP: 213.67.50.30.
I was banned by the user "FeloniousMonk" because he felt I violated wikipedia's civility code even though I was warned several times. Not only is this untrue, but it is clear that the user in question has a bias against me because he and I are involved in an ongoing AfD dispute.
First off, I'd like to say that I did indeed violate the rules in question. At that time, I wasn't aware that there even existed rules for civil conduct on wikipedia. I was warned that my behavior was against the rules. I replied to the warnings on my talk page. I didn't even edit the AfD disputes any further, or violate the civil conduct rules again, but then suddenly I was banned. So user FeloniousMonk is lying. I wasn't warned several times, I was told I violated it one time and continious violations would lead to my ban. I didn't continue to violate it, yet I was banned.
Further, I belive the user FeloniousMonk should have his admin powers removed. He is quite clearly abusing them. I direct your attention first to examples of uncivil conduct found on the wikipedia page about it:
rudeness judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling," "snipped rambling crap") belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..." calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute. More serious examples include:
Taunting personal attacks racial, ethnic, and religious slurs profanity directed at another contributor lies defacing user pages calling for bans and blocks First off, the users Feloniousmonk is grouping with fit in on several of these criteries. Yet he didn't ban them. For example:
From my user talk page: ::Both of you need an objectivity lesson. And Itake needs a civility lesson. [[User:Daycd|David D.]] [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 17:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
::: What's the matter, Daycd? Can't you just feel that "Christian" love? - [[User:WarriorScribe|WarriorScribe]] 19:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
That's it, you've pushed it too far [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J.... this time]. Continue violating [[WP:CIVIL|the civility guidelines]] and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]</font> 04:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
::::: Interesting. So you interpret Matthew 5:39 as not applying to you, then? - [[User:WarriorScribe|WarriorScribe]] 01:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete pity we can't delete the author. — Dunc| ☺ 22:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
(last one was from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice)
Secondly, the admin himself violated several of these principles in a very serious way. As can be shown by his comments on the AfD in question, he does not only have a serious bias that no doubt played a role in my ban, but he also does some uncivil conduct himself:
Delete Neither diploma mills nor their presidents warrant articles. Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of articles on non-notables, Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 22:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of non-notable bios, Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 22:08, 20
Your campaign here to promote your diploma mill is its most notable aspect. Who knows, maybe they'll name a "hall" in your honor... FeloniousMonk 22:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Another tool off the diploma mill assemblyline. FeloniousMonk 22:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Though I was impressed with the fact that "he regularly reads academic papers at Oxford University." But since I regularly read the Pixley Press and the ingredients on the back of cereal boxes and I don't get an article here, why should he? FeloniousMonk 03:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The admin in question is quite clearly being rude, he's throwing around accusations, he's doing blatant lying, he is taunting and he is being judgemental. In my opinion, he has violated more of these criterias then I have. But because of his admin powers, not only does he escape justice but all the users who favor his side of the argument and violate these criterias seem to escape being banned aswell.
I feel the entire AfD dispute around the Louisiana Baptist University articles is being handled very poorly, and it gets even worse when admins like FeloniousMonk comes along to abuse their powers. I hope this dispute, FeloniousMonk's status as an admin, and my ban all gets the attention it deserves.
Yours sincerely,
Itake.
(ps. I didn't quite get the procedure for these kinds of things. There was something about a mailing list, but I think that signing up to it wasn't necessary? If my inquiries are going to the wrong place or so, please tell me so I know who to send them to .ds)
On 1/23/06, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
An email was received to the WikiEN-l (English Wikipedia) mailing list from your email address with a subject concerning your ban. However, the contents of your email were garbled text. If this was a genuine, non-spam email message, please re-send the email in text-only format.
~Mark Ryan WikiEN-l mailing list administrator