So, one of my sockpuppets started the "ripening" process with some good-faith improvements to the Wikipedia article about planned giving.

Then it got blocked. Then, well after the fact, Acalamari comes in (a la JzG) and reverts my improvements, making the article -- and especially those wikilinks -- much worse.

What a childish, stupid robot.

This makes me always laught: You are free to contest your ban with WP:ARBCOM but you are not welcome to edit Wikipedia while banned.

Yes! After all, if you edit Wikipedia while banned, one of the consequences is that the duration of your block may be extended. Thus an "indefinite" block could be extended to a "super infinity-plus-one" block.

Greg

Typical admin nonsense. Revert the edit, even though it was a good edit, because it came from a banned user - we can't have banned users improving the encyclopedia! Oh noes!

When this happens, one wonders if they actually take the whole "building an encyclopedia" thing seriously. And if they don't why should anyone? (are you paying attention, donors?)

That article now has a scarlet letter on it. Anyone that goes and tries to fix that will be accused of being a Wikipedia Review "meat puppet".

Things like this usually don't get fixed because people are more concerned about acquiring adminship than free content or building an encyclopedia. You can't get adminship by rocking the boat or *gasp* agreeing with a banned user.

You know, not that we don't have reams of evidence regarding this point, but this behavior alone should be sufficient to convince anyone that Wikipedia is nothing more than a social networking site.

Acalamari is the ultimate 15 year old admin (unless he's 16 now).

The robot has done some of my bidding, and Majorly has finished it.

Yes, my children, you shall do my bidding. Look into my eyes. My EYES!

Acalamari actually did me a good deed by (unsolicitedly) offering me the coveted (?) "rollback" feature, which I accepted (but have yet to use except to test it in the sandbox).

However, despite his being nice to me on that occasion, he seems to be a "cliqueista in training", getting his cues from the (rapidly waning) clique and apparently not yet aware that he's picked some poor role models. He's becoming one of the few clique true believers left, as so many old-time cliqueistas are slinking away or becoming so discredited they're not listened to any more. He was even one of the tiny handful who signed Morven's view on the Mantanmoreland RFC.

Hell you could have asked me for rollback.

He's been consistently nice to me, giving me not only the rollback button but a barnstar as well. It looks like he's capable of independent thought, unless he just doesn't realize what the "clique" thinks about me. Maybe he's a reconciliation-minded kind of guy.

You should have reverted vandalism instead. Next time you should do that. You may want to give a blank edit summary, though.

When your account gets banned and they revert vandalism back you will have the last laugh.

Acalamari is not a cabal lackey. He was among the admins defending me on the notorious ANI thread calling for my unblock:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...oetlister_block