Message: 1 Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 22:46:24 +1000 From: Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] 7. Re: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false
G'day Margie,
Erik Moeller said: RfC, ArbCom, mediation, etc. - makes it all work.
I'm just wondering. I am an editor, who. while never accused of lousy writing, has been blocked indefinitely from editing on Wikipedia and never had any RfC, ArbCom, mediation, or any dispute resolution at all. Never. Just wondering why this was. And also wondering why my unblock request was removed, and why my last blocker BunchofGrapes blocked my email so that I
Mark Gallagher Re: your long uninformed rant.
All you just proved was your unwillingness to see anything but what the group of nasty admins and others like the depraved SwatJester. I don't have to listen to your insults any more than you have to listen to mine. The difference between you and me is that I would never advocate punitive actions to soothe my wounded feelings. You would and do. Also editors are terrified to speak their mind, the ones that would defend me for fear of the axe coming down on them next. Corbin Simpson did speak up for me. He was lucky they didn't block him. Please see the rfa oppose section on Swatjester's rfc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Swatjester Either that or you are just another example of one who is susceptible to groupthink which is no thought at all. BTW is it okay for admins to refer to kids as turds?
Bishonen told me my remarks to an editor John Kinney were obscene, the (beginning or our personal and mutual dislike.) Here is Geogre calling children turds (to Bishonen) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen/Archive_14#Haymarket.2C_etc.
+:Oh, and for comparison, see the history tab on Attalus I. It has been vandalized even more than yours was. I think, when it's an interesting story, the turds vandalize it less. The 11 year olds ''clearly'' don't like Attalus I. ("You must be this tall to ride the Wikipedia.") [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 21:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I could go on and on here , but rather than waste my time.. How about this atfq if you would just answer the fucking question(s).
Erik Moeller said: RfC, ArbCom, mediation, etc. - makes it all work.
I'm stillt wondering. I am an editor, who has been blocked indefinitely from editing on Wikipedia and never had any RfC, ArbCom, mediation, or any dispute resolution at all. Never. Just wondering why this was. And also wondering why my unblock request was removed. Will you please just answer these questions. Your answer to unblock request move and the entire process didn't cut it I'm afraid. Policy is being broken. I Never had Any Mediation or Any dispute Resolution. Every single thing the admins did was done in direct violation of Wikipedia Policy
On May 17, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Earthhope Action Network wrote:
I'm stillt wondering. I am an editor, who has been blocked indefinitely from editing on Wikipedia and never had any RfC, ArbCom, mediation, or any dispute resolution at all. Never. Just wondering why this was. And also wondering why my unblock request was removed. Will you please just answer these questions. Your answer to unblock request move and the entire process didn't cut it I'm afraid. Policy is being broken. I Never had Any Mediation or Any dispute Resolution. Every single thing the admins did was done in direct violation of Wikipedia Policy
I've been here for two years. So have many of the people on this list. I think we know Wikipedia policy better than you.
On Wed, 17 May 2006 21:33:30 -0400, you wrote:
All you just proved was your unwillingness to see anything but what the group of nasty admins and others like the depraved SwatJester. I don't have to listen to your insults any more than you have to listen to mine.
You have been told how to fix the problem (take it to the article's discussion page) and you have been told that trading insults is a great way to get - and stay - blocked. You are free to ignore this advice, but be aware that if you do, you will likely be blocked again. Which is better, debating the merits of being blocked with a group of people who clearly support the action, or actually fixing what you see as a pressing problem with content? Because if you want to do the latter it is pretty clear that civil debate on the article's Talk page is the way to go. It's not like this has never happened before.
Guy (JzG)
G'day Margie,
Mark Gallagher Re: your long uninformed rant.
All you just proved was your unwillingness to see anything but what the group of nasty admins and others like the depraved SwatJester. I don't have to listen to your insults any more than you have to listen to mine. The difference between you and me is that I would never advocate punitive actions to soothe my wounded feelings. You would and do. Also editors are
Your contributions don't lie. I posted diffs in the message to which you're replying; the diffs show what *you* did, what *you* said. They aren't a case of Swatjester's word against yours; they're a case of an accurate computer record that proves that the accusations against you are true.
terrified to speak their mind, the ones that would defend me for fear of the axe coming down on them next. Corbin Simpson did speak up for me. He was lucky they didn't block him. Please see the rfa oppose section on
Nonsense. Nobody is blocked for holding opinions; it is only when those opinions lead to inappropriate behaviour that they become a problem. You weren't blocked for your political views; you were blocked for deliberately editing in an inappropriate manner to push those views. Likewise, Corbin would not be blocked merely for saying "I support Margie", but if he were to behave as you did (an unlikely prospect) he would most assuredly be blocked, and quickly.
<snip/>
Bishonen told me my remarks to an editor John Kinney were obscene, the (beginning or our personal and mutual dislike.) Here is Geogre calling children turds (to Bishonen) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen/Archive_14#Haymarket.2C_etc.
+:Oh, and for comparison, see the history tab on Attalus I. It has been vandalized even more than yours was. I think, when it's an interesting story, the turds vandalize it less. The 11 year olds ''clearly'' don't like Attalus I. ("You must be this tall to ride the Wikipedia.") [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 21:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it *is* appropriate to refer to children (even vandals) as "turds". Next time I see Geogre I shall bring the subject up with him. I don't think it excuses your behaviour, either, so don't try to change the subject.
I could go on and on here , but rather than waste my time.. How about this atfq if you would just answer the fucking question(s).
Language, m'dear, language.
Erik Moeller said: RfC, ArbCom, mediation, etc. - makes it all work.
I'm stillt wondering. I am an editor, who has been blocked indefinitely from editing on Wikipedia and never had any RfC, ArbCom, mediation, or any dispute resolution at all. Never. Just wondering why this was. And also wondering why my unblock request was removed. Will you please just answer these questions. Your answer to unblock request move and the entire process didn't cut it I'm afraid. Policy is being broken. I Never had Any Mediation or Any dispute Resolution. Every single thing the admins did was done in direct violation of Wikipedia Policy
The community is empowered to block people who have behaved so badly that it is not considered worth our while to attempt mediation, RfCs, ArbCom, etc. This is not a "direct violation of Wikipedia Policy" (please don't try to teach others to suck eggs), but is in fact entirely in line with our blocking policy. I'll even quote it for you, because I want you to understand this point so thoroughly that you don't persist in asking such a silly question:
There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is community support for the block, and should note the block on WP:ANI as part of the review process. With such support, the user is considered banned and should be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community").
Your block was entirely appropriate, and well within the realms of policy, community support, and common sense. If you ever want to be allowed to contribute once more to Wikipedia, you will have to provide evidence that you are willing to actually *contribute*, and that your presence will be a net benefit. This is not going to happen if you continue to insist your banning was incorrect.