Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2023 11:59 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 154 times


Post by ChaosMeRee » Thu Jan 18, 2024 12:27 am

It's pretty insane to see this many mistakes in one post by an Administrator.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... WP:CENTRAL
Indeed the point of the block is not punitive, but rather to deter you from getting edit-warring blocked for a dozenth time, sometime in the future, whether that might be a week or a year from now. As you seem to have forgotten your previous blocks, which should have constituted repeated warnings, rendering further warnings unnecessary and redundant, this block serves to jog your memory and remind you of your previous warnings. I'm not sympathetic to your requests to essentially downgrade the blocking policy to a guideline, while you continue to push to elevate the manual-of-style guidance on capitalization to the level of a de facto black-and-white policy. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
He is attempting to explain this block....
19:04, 15 January 2024 Wbm1058 talk contribs blocked Dicklyon talk contribs with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring: at Template:Centralized discussion)
Maybe they picked up all these bad habits by hanging out on Wikipediocracy too much?

To break it down......

1. Wait, you blocked someone for edit warring now to prevent them getting blocked for edit warring in the future? Wow. Um, thank you? Dumbass.

2. I'm pretty sure blocks are not placed to remind people of their previous warnings. That would be what a talk page is for. Dumbass.

3. Given 2., why did you think a block was appropriate in a situation where the user was indeed edit warring, does indeed have prior blocks for edit warring, but where said edit warring had not continued once a different Administrator had given a very specific warning and instruction.....
01:17, 15 January 2024‎ Novem Linguae talk contribs‎ 2,116 bytes −329‎ Undid revision 1195733806 by Dicklyon (talk) - you've been reverted by 3 different editors before me, so I think it's time to take this to the talk page (I have no opinion on whether this should be on cent or not, but I would like the edit warring to stop please)
Did you not think to even consult said Admin before you blocked, if only to inform them that the user would be unable to "take this to the talk page" as requested? Dumbass

4. Also given 2., why did you 'block and run'? Why did your explanation of the apparent purpose of this 72 hour block not arrive until nearly 24 hours into its duration?

5. While policy does make it clear that previous interactions with a user strictly as an Administrator does not make one INVOLVED, the last line shows pretty clearly that to an outside observer it wouldn't be remotely out of order to think your judgement in placing this specific block on this specific user was clouded by strong feelings about the underlying content dispute, meaning that combined with 1., 2., 3., and 4., dude, this totally is an INVOLVED block. You really dumb bastard.

Oh, and there was of course more.....
Dick, I am not deeply anti-you. I still remember your six-month block and how unjust I thought that was. I just can't understand why the community doesn't bat an eye about mandatory six-month blocks for socking while it freaks out about a lousy three-day block for edit warring. I still think the madness of the dysfunctional manual-of-style debates needs to stop.

Nor am I anti-draft-lowercase – I'm ambivalent about that. There is no right or wrong answer. I've helped you change title case to lower case where appropriate and there is a consensus to do that. I'm just anti-anything-goes-battle-tactics to get your way. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC
1. INVOLVED isn't about you, it's about the perception of you.

2. Seriously? I'm not saying it's right, because it isn't, but as an Administrator you really should be aware of the real-politik of Wikipedia. They could give a crap about socks, they're considered EVIL. But blocking an established user for even a short time, you better believe they take that shit seriously. It's a matter of honor. EEng equated an indefinite block to a lethal injection. Nobody batted an eye-lid. You live in crazy-town, part of the CTPD. So you really should know this stuff.

3. Duuuude. Don't even use words like madness and dysfunction if you really want people to believe you really are ambivalent about the underlying content dispute and therefore the judgement calls in blocking one of the chief participants can be trusted to be uninvolved.

Anyway, all's well that ends well. He undid his own block, eventually, and Dicklyon isn't being a dick about it.

But still. Seriously.

That's some crap Admin work right there.

Really really crap.

But what can you do? Nothing. People can't do shit about it.

The really funny part is how he never even admits fault or explains his decision to unblock Dick. The much maligned Dick is being really classy in not jumping up and down about how obvious it is that wbm1058 has extremely deep feelings about him.

In that regard he said very little about that when challenged on it at AN.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... by_Wbm1058
.... I have arguably been in behavioral disputes with him, where he thinks he did nothing wrong, but I think he did. ...
...while simply insisting the block was correct and what any other Administrator would have done (our survey said, no).

With shades of that corrupt piece of shit Beeblebrox, he actually devoted more time and more detail exp!aining his motivations and this history of disputes, to his good buddies at Wikipediocracy.....

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 23#p342106
The assumption made by the gnomes working such reports is that the matter is not controversial, or if it was controversial, there was a discussion to resolve the dispute which came to a consensus.

But then I had to move it back after Requested by GoodDay at WP:RM/TR: page was moved without discussion

I then had to make a lot of edits to undo the edits I made in response to Lyon's executive decisions.

This is rather abusive of the good faith of gnomes; it isn't how "bold-revert-discuss" is supposed to work.
Not cool.

But if he is this stupid, how has wbm1058 avoided being dragged to ArbCom before now?

Probable because he has only ever made 33 blocks in eight years of continuous Adminship.

Which only makes his choice to get his weapon out now to fuck a dick in the ass, even more suspect.

If there is anyone awake on ArbCom (with that many rookies on it this year, they need a lot of nap time), you might want to consider one of those new fangled File It Ourselves Cases. Just to see if this guy will run.

He's been whining about not being paid a cent for his work for Wikipedia for as long as I can remember.

Time to see if he can back up that arrogance with proof he isn't part of the problem.

Post Reply