On 12/12/06, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. I've had some private email exchanges with the user, and I've finally managed to calm him down, a bit. By preliminary looks through page histories, it looks like he *was* being pretty disruptive and edit warring, with a persistent failure to use talk pages -- but then, he wasn't the only one doing so. The full protection of the page seems more or less appropriate, as a means of forcing discussion.
RuinedChozo absolutely must back off or cool down on his personal attacks and accusations -- if some of those complaints about lying and cabalism are legitimate, let such be revealed through an RfC or brought before Arbcom for consideration. On that count, I don't think I'm going to bend.
I am disappointed, however, that the admins involved didn't put more effort into discussing things with this user. It's true that he's got a long block log, but I notice that most of the blocks come from the same "group," -- in situations where I have trouble getting through to someone, I'd say it's better to try and find a neutral third party to talk things over, with the person.
There really should have been more discussion from all sides. In heated disputes, repeating the same superficial arguments ad nauseam usually doesn't work -- why not explain in detail why you feel a particular edit was or wasn't sourced, unsourced, original research, neutral in tone, or such? Why wasn't more effort put into this, especially by experienced admins?
I'm still looking, but as of this moment, it's not yet clear to me where the alleged block evasion took place. Anybody see something I'm missing?
-Luna
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com Date: Dec 12, 2006 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Completely unreasonable block and behavior by admin friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute To: Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
On 12/12/06, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
- I'm not the list moderator. I'm merely reporting, so that we don't
have 10 people asking "please moderate him" 2. He should maybe get a bit more calm... Words as "dick" and "bullshit" simply don't help your cause. michael
No, they don't. But the utterly dismissive attack rhetoric that's been heaped on him, both here and on wikipedia? The fact that I'm the only person it seems who's even bothered to check the merits of his complaint?
I can see where someone would start to get really angry, and throwing oil onto fire doesn't help.
Parker _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
As far as I can see, it's entirely over his editing of his talk page, removing unblock request refusals and re-unblock-requesting, plus arguing with people there.
As a personal opinion - lengthening blocks due to ongoing argument ONLY on a blockee's talk page is among the worst abuses that a pack of administrators can commit, ganging up on someone.
RunedChozo came into the argument with a bunch of abuses he'd committed counting against him, and certainly was being disruptive on several levels. He did have one point that I see - Itaquallah did use inappropriate edit summaries and remove material with source info claiming it's unsourced. There was a two-sided abusive edit war going on; Itaquallah was not an innocent party there, and should have been warned against that.
It's hard to see this and not wonder if RunedChozo is too disruptive to be a Wikipedia participant, but a bunch of admins have gone and collectively beaten up on someone in a way which is not called for or appropriate. If someone can't stop being a dick on their talk page while they're blocked, admins need to just walk away and let them cool down.
Bad day.