I am new to this forum - coming here after being totally ripped off and now totally disgusted with my WP experience. I foolishly thought that being a good contributor, fighting against the behavior of bullies, socks and whackos as well as standing up for the integrity of article content would get some respect. Not. What it got me was being targeted by a wannabe admin who then contacted an admin. That admin then targeted me, dogging me all over the project blocking me for nothing worse than what those who I was fighting against were doing. All the while, I am thinking to myself, "why aren't they doing the right thing here?" While thinking such in the midst of fighting daily for my right just to exist in WP, I was not just blocked. I was community banned for a year. Unbelieveable.

And then it dawned on me...they don't want what's right, they just want what they say is right and really don't want anyone else telling them what's right.

Any comments? Thoughts? Suggestions?

I've really only taken a glance at this, but I've having trouble finding any "attack" in this

Your experience repeats, almost verbatim, the experience of many (including myself).

It is SarekofVulcan, a person who very few people like but with an impossible to active recall process that allows him to use it as justification for being a jerk to people and abusing his power.

By the way, nothing like giving a user who has been on Wiki since 2006 a year long block without any real evidence to justify it.

This little doozy is pretty good evidence that Sarek should be desysopped for not knowing how not to use blocks to intimidate others. The best part is that it is standard -not- to increase blocks for incivility on user talk pages in response to a block, especially when there are admins taunting and provoking.

I don't mean to diminish your experience by saying that it is common, but that is the case. Most of the members here have had a similar one -- even some who continue to support Wikipedia!

The best first thing to do here is peruse the "archives", as it were -- the older articles. That will give you some context on how pervasive and long-running the problem is.

Second, the best characteristic of a long-term member here is to put one's own experience behind you and extrapolate to the broader principles involved. We understand a certain amount of bemoaning one's outcast state and railing against the perpetrators, but after a little while it gets old.

Dig up some more generalized dirt, conduct an "ethical breaching experiment" or three, or just put WP behind you, and you'll have a better time here.

(For those members inclined to unravel this, here is at least one state of the argument between NotaSpamBot (aka SkagitRiverQueen (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) and DocofSoc (T-C-L-K-R-D) , with some involvement by the doofus Sandstein (T-C-L-K-R-D) . I cannot be bothered to sort it all out right now.)

So what is it, really, that keeps one in good favor with those with a voice in WP? Does one simply have to be a tuchus-kisser? (something I'm not and never will be) Does one have to rack up tens-of-thousands of edits just by reverting everything in sight? Because the liars and the frauds and the most rankest of behaving editors seem to have free reign while those of us who say, "hey! the emperor has no clothes on!" seem to be the ones who are reviled, ridiculed, blocked, and banned.

Sarek et al (as I can see from glancing at your interactions with various admin) are not those that even high up Wiki people would want to associate with. Long term, problematic admin who got in and can't get out without a solid ArbCom case. They are the reason why people keep trying to put up a process to vote out admin. Don't worry, you ran across one of the worse of the worse, and not standard (just prolific).

Well...if you don't mind - I will need to vent for a bit before I "put it all behind [me]" here (part of the reason I found you all). After I feel a little better, then I will put it behind me, okay?



Yes...the "taunting and provoking" from admins - what the heck is *that* about? I saw it over and over again - and worse than anything I *ever* said to anyone in WP...yet the beating went on (and on and on...)

You get on the good side of another admin. Some will just do it because they think it's the proper thing to do (though admins of that sort are being culled these days), others will want a bit of ass-kissing and political favors. Sucks, but that's how it is.

I've been having trouble finding the attack in this that's deserving of being blocked for a year.

You have to piss off a LOT of other editors for a community ban to stick.

Apparently, you have .

Looking at the final list of people supporting the ban, Wikipedia would honestly be in much better shape if they were all banned instead. Gesh, why do they let those people continue to troll ANI and the rest?

(1) - There wasn't "a LOT" who were in favor of the community ban (unless 6 is considered "a LOT")
(2) - Two of them belong to a group that's been dogging my every edit and whining about anything they can come up with for months because I dared to speak out about one of their buddies
(3) - One of them is Rschen (need I say more?)
(4) - One of them is Sarek (need I say more, again?)
(5) - Two of them I've never had any knowledge of or conflicts with prior to that AN/I

But, bottom line...I think there was something else at work with all of my Sarek blocks and the final ban - something behind the scenes and likely worked out via email. Regardless, no one should be banned for so little. No one.

That's an odd question for YOU to ask, OR. Personally, I think you and SRQ should get a room.

Oh, wait-- that wouldn't work too well.

However, now that WP is rid of the both of you for a while, I hope WR and its regulars isn't going to fill the role, because that's not my idea of

Looked at this a bit. It seems that user RfC has been dropped in favor of ad-hoc bans decided quickly at AN/I, of all places. Discussion is going on and Skagit River Queen seems to feel free to question it, with extensive comment, clearly has no idea what is about to happen. Bang! Blocked. Banned. Unanimous !vote.

I'm not familiar with most of the editors commenting in that ban confirmation, except for one, CrohnieGal. I classified her as a cabal editor in my RfAr because of a history with cabal issues. Very ready to comment to ban another editor, and in deep umbrage if it's suggested she might have been biased. Poison, presents herself readily as a victim, but abusive. However, by no means the worst.

SRQ, politically, you screwed up. However, that ban is pretty shaky, my opinion, and you can appeal it to ArbComm. You'd use email, to arbcom-l. Before you do that, though, make sure you know what you want. If you made mistakes that you can admit, do so. ArbComm doesn't like editors who are on crusades, no matter how useful it might be. So know what you want, what's important to you.

Problems with this ban. SkagitRiverQueen (T-C-L-K-R-D) , see the block log. Almost all blocks are by SarekOfVulcan. Bad sign, could indicate a biased admin. Up to twice, maybe. But beyond that, an admin, seeing an emergency, can block but should consult and should not make the decision absent emergency. The length of block did not escalate as is normal. Jumping to a year block is extreme. Discussion was underway when SOV blocked, citing the discussion, which wasn't extreme as such go. I have not analyzed the AN/I discussion of the ban, but that no support appeared there is a bad sign. What it's a bad sign of is not the propriety of the ban, but that participation at AN/I has gone to hell. Evidence isn't being required. Graduated, measured response isn't being recommended.

21 March, it looked like there would be an interaction ban. These can be useful and I've never objected to one that I've seen. Then, out of the blue, blowing her fuses, SarekOfVulcan blocked for a year. Per the AN/I report:

[quote]I just gave up on anything short of a full ban, and blocked SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for 1 year. If anyone thinks that this went too far, feel free to unblock without checking with me. If consensus does not override the block, it should be probably considered a community-imposed ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[quote]

I see editors who are far worse all the time, arguing before ArbComm, raising fusses on noticeboards, tendentious, edit warring, tolerated. Community ban process sucks. The whole process above, from block to ban, was about a day. That's not time for an editor to settle down. Few editors respond well to being blocked, they tend to rant and rave for a while. An admin who judges an editor based on how they respond to being blocked, and who then blocks again, might often be found to have violated recusal policy, if they end up being called to account. Usually they aren't held responsible, part of the problem.

Anybody wants to restrain SarekOfVulcan, particularly if this admin has done this to others, it's an opportunity, while it's fresh. That the community apparently supported it isn't necessarily a protection. I.e., an action can be supported, it might be good, but if it violates recusal policy it should at least be the subject of a reprimand. Note, though, that going after an admin is very, very hazardous. If an admin does it, one can probably survive. A non-admin is taking their wiki-life in their hands to challenge an admin. The admins tend to circle the wagons.

I'm planning on doing it for one, and I'm fully aware that this could be the end for my account. I'll do it in as minimally disruptive and focused a way as possible, and with as clear and simple a case as possible, no walls of text and no ranting and raving, but this could still be the result. It's the politics of Wikipedia.

Skagit RQ, if you value your account, and don't care about addressing the issues around your block/ban, my opinion is that you could get ArbComm to lift the ban, based on an acknowledgment of problems and a plan to make sure they do not recur. I don't know enough about your problems and goals to give you more advice than that, beyond pointing out that you cannot expect justice on Wikipedia, it's quite erratic, as you found.

Take home lesson: when everyone is screaming at you, stop writing, except with extreme care and necessity. Let them froth at the mouth for a time. You cannot reason with a mob. Period.

Trick I've used (and it's sincere): Being threatened with sanctions or blocks, write a note in your Talk page promising to follow the instructions and restrictions of any neutral administrator. Then do it. If you don't like the restrictions, you can always later retract the agreement, or appeal it. Basically, this is taking a step to make it very clear that there is no improvement of the situation by blocking you, you are stopping all objectionable behavior, and not just according to your own opinion, but according to the opinion of a neutral administrator.

If you look at my recent block log, Abd (T-C-L-K-R-D) , you'll see that all the recent "ban violation" blocks were from one administrator, who blocked first and asked questions later. In both cases, the blocks were surprises. There isn't any question. This admin was out to get me. At the same time, before the second block, Sandstein had clarified my ban, in response to an edit he believed violated it. I wrote that Sandstein was neutral and I promised to follow that ban until review by ArbComm, which was possibly pending. Sandstein did not block. Future Perfect at Sunrise did, based on an interpretation that was even tighter (over content that essentially existed already at the point that Sandstein was asked about it, by me, and didn't object). Future Perfect and I were already in dispute, before the first block, even. Clearly recusal failure. We'll see what ArbComm does with it. Because I was blocked for comments made before ArbComm, I believe that this one goes directly to RfAr, but they could bounce it back to RfC.

There is no way to predict the arrival of someone like Future Perfect. Currently, I'm at AE for a completely new interpretation of my ban, and there are signs that ArbComm is starting to get irritated, not just at me, but at all these enforcement actions being filed over trivia. I believe that, except for one mistake, an accident, I didn't violate the ban at all, not even close. But, nevertheless, I placed that promise to follow the instructions of any neutral admin. It's like a magic incantation. Nobody responded, nobody even said, stop! But if one had said, for example, you can only edit your Talk page and the RfAr pages, I'd have followed that.

Because any neutral admin can block, they can restrict in lieu of block. Restrictions should be used more often. They can be used to elicit cooperative behavior, in the hands of an admin who really wants to help the editor. Mentorship in cooperation with such an admin could be used to good effect; the key is finding a sympathetic mentor, one who knows how to avoid disruption while still standing up for what's important and hewing to policy.

I find it interesting how you are defending those who are obviously abusing their authority.

But you never really did say anything worth while, so we can just add that one to the list.

Before I say anything, I want to thank you for your thoughtful, detailed, and very informative response. Yes, I know I messed up "politically". But, I've never been much for political games - even though I worked for many years for two Fortune 500 companies (and did pretty well working my way up the corporate ladder). When I recognized that I had screwed up politically at WP, I knew I could do one of two things - start being a suck-up (not my style nor in my personal code of ethics) or continue being me and standing up for what I believe to be right. Obviously, I chose the latter.

Yes, I do value my account and I value the articles I have created, pics uploaded, and articles I have spent considerable time at for nearly 4 years. I have what I feel is a vested interest in the areas of WP where I have contributed and do not want to throw it all away. Interestingly enough, I *did* write out a plan as well as an acknowledgement of problems in my second request for my block to be lifted. Here's the link. I meant every word of what I said in that unblock request. Unfortunaately, (or maybe not - I'm thinking a needed a break, anyway) Beeblebrox nixed it.

I do also believe that SoV targeted me - for whatever reason - along with some others. He's kind of a mystery to me - at times he seems to want to be a nice guy, but at others he almost seems, well...bi-polar in his behaviors (that's not a commentary on what I see his mental status to be one way or the other, but the best description I could come up with at the moment). I had the same experience with Lar (who I see has contributed to this forum) - while I don't think he targeted me, I do believe he may have been working behind the scenes to encourage SoV and/or another admin or two with my ultimate fate (but maybe not - at some point I think I started to get kinda paranoid, because it seemed that everywhere I turned there would be certain editors and admins watching my every move).

Anyhoo...rather than belabor this reply out any longer, I will say that I think I will be requesting my ban be lifted in a month or two. Your suggestions above are good ones, and I will certainly ponder and sift them thoughtfully. I also appreicate that you are willing to risk your account to do something about the glaring inequity and bias that occurred via Sarek's actions. Regardless of what happened to me, I wouldn't want what happened to happen to anyone else - whether it be by Sarek's hand or some other out-of-control, authority-drunk admin. Thanks.

Some truth in what you say about SarekOfVulcan getting pissy and finally going ape. Looking at the history, the whole thing sort of looks like this:


Followed eventually by



However, what you don't see is the prelude: SRQ is somebody Will Rogers never met. This user's interactions with others on WP were, overall, pretty bad. The only user who will miss SRQ on WP seems to be Ottava Rima, and that speaks for itself.

Except that I never met the person before, and if you bothered to look at their contribs (or hell, even this thread), you would see that many of the statements that were claimed by Sarek as having attacks flatly did not.

The user has been around since 2006 and was not being blocked until just recently for a reason. The only different in the whole situation was their running into Sarek and Sarek's buddies taunting him and baiting him.

Don't play their game. Like most gamers they need you to play their game on their terms, so they have someone to have power over. Sometimes a ban is needed to wake people up to what wikipedia really is - a complete waste of time and energy, working for Jimbo Wales unpaid and uncredited.

Yeah...it took me nearly four years, but I did figure that out. Thanks for the advice.

You've been fucked hard by a demonstrably batshit insane admin and his clique of kooks.

And you want to go back for more? If so, you are just as insane.

Best advice: "Get a Life." I suggest purchasing a very large kite - Prism Tensor, HQ Beamer or other large power kite -- taking it to a beach and learning how to fly it. That step alone will put you several notches above the drooling troglodytes who administrate the so-called encyclopedia. These people have stolen a great deal of your life ... why give them another nanosecond more of it?

This thread sounds like it belongs in the Support Forum.

Got one.

How about you worry more about your own and less about mine? (of which you know absolutely nothing, BTW)

You asked:



I answered.

If you don't like the answer, that's your problem, not mine.

More than ever, I'm convinced this thread belongs in the Support Forum.

I asked for comments, thoughts, and suggestions related to my experience in WP - not my life outside of WP.

Aren't able to follow the thread? That's your problem, not mine.

I'm sorry, but the bayesian prior is heavily weighted to the position that if you actually had a life outside of Wikipedia, you would not be using Wikipedia to the degree you have. Your own statements in this thread belie a massive physical and psychic investment on your part, one that is distinctly unhealthy and one observed in many other cult rejects that have washed up on these shores.

Maybe the Bayesian prior is wrong. Maybe you are different. But you've offered absolutely no evidence that you aren't much better off than the rest of them, and what has been offered fits the pattern all too well.

So: Get A Life. And if you have one: Live It.



I'm afraid it's about to become your problem again: it's clear to me you are laboring under the fallacious concept that Wikipedia Review is some kind of place where you while away your block-days, scheming and festering, trying to figure our how to out-do your Wiki-Enemies, plot for your return, concoct a Master Wikivellian Plan of Total Doom.

While all the while, displaying the lack of social skills that got one "stuck" here in the first place.

You're an WP Admin or admin wannabe, aren't you? (if not, you sure do act like one) Admins and wannabes love to give the impression they have super-powers that allow them to read minds of editors and see into the future of other SP editors. Or maybe you're just one of those kinda people who likes to project a lot. Either way, I'm not impressed *or* interested.

Go bait someone else.

Why? If you really want to edit Wikipedia, just roll your IP address, create a new account, and edit Wikipedia. Odds are they will never notice. The only other reasonable alternative is to shake the dust from your feet and walk away. You simply will never get vindication from Wikipedia, and there's nothing at all you can possibly gain from trying other than even more irritation. The only other thing you can hope to do is create drama, and if you want to do that for the lulz, then fine, but don't pretend that you're doing it for any other reason.

I do agree that the thread probably belongs in the Support Group forum, but there are a few decent points being made. But telling people to "get a life" is needlessly confrontational - you're actually trying to help NotASpambot (SRQ) here, but she isn't going to realize that if she can't get past the apparent hostility of that particular phrase.

SRQ's relationship with Wikipedia has been somewhat sporadic, hardly obsessive. Her big problem is that she seems to binge-edit on biographies, some of which are of important people (who would belong in a real encyclopedia), some of which aren't. She also wrote much of the article on the late Carl W. Thompson, Sr. (T-H-L-K-D) - who seems to be her uncle, apparently. That article definitely wouldn't belong in a real encyclopedia, he's just too marginal a figure. Unfortunately, they can now threaten her indirectly by threatening to "mess with" that article, if not to simply delete it (though deletion would be a very good thing for the Mr. Thompson's memory, IMO). She also identified herself in one of the edits to that article, which only gives them more revenge options.

This is a no-win situation, quite frankly. Most likely, the people behind the DocOfSoc (T-C-L-K-R-D) and CrohnieGal (T-C-L-K-R-D) accounts complained to SarekOfVulcan (T-C-L-K-R-D) (Garrett Fitzgerald), and either called in a favor, made a deal, or generally wouldn't stop complaining until he "did something" - why him, I have no idea, but it probably stems from a past dispute. I wouldn't put too much mental effort into that question; he's just a typical admin. SRQ could probably get unblocked by groveling, but who would want to do that? I can't imagine.

So basically, Mr. Taiwopanfob is correct in that you (NotASpambot) should completely disengage from WP as soon and as permanently as possible. He just has a less-than-nice way of expressing it.

You have seized antipathy from the jaws of empathy.

But there's a problem. If I'm a certain person under a certain ban, I'm going to need not only an interest-transplant, but also a personality-transplant, in order to avoid the banhammer yet again. If I could do that, I wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

LOLkitty sez dys nots teh bezteztz gamez.

Of course, it's always possible it's a plot from somebody behind the scenes, running all those socks and admins who hate me. Then it's easy to fix with the IP change. ....




.....nahhh!

No, I could never - and would never - do that. I'm not a liar - and socking, to me at least, is a lie. I've exposed one editor's sockpuppet game and have not taste for that kind of behavior.



It may seem like the only "reasonable alteernative" to you, but it's not to me.



I'm not really looking for vindication - I just want to edit again. Why? Because I like it. Do I like the abuse I've been subjected to? Not at all - exactly why I put a plan of action together and intended (and still do) to stick by it (should I be afforded the opportunity again). I've been reminded that I have the power in my hands to allow and not allow certain behaviors of others to trigger certain behaviors in me. I have no desire to revisit the irritation of the past. Having the power to change myself and how I respond to the bullies and trolls and sadists and complete jerks is in my hands - and I forgot that.

Ain't gonna happen again.



I have no desire to create more drama than I've already been a part of there. And please don't tell me what I'm pretending or what my reasons are for wanting to go back in time (if that's what you are doing above - that's the way I read it, anyway - if not, I apologize).

Actually, the admins attained missile-lock on your miserable ass quite accurately, probably as accurately as I have. You were picking fights, and waging pointless wars with other people Over There. You are here just to try and find some sympathy but also to dig up dirt on your wiki-enemies (c.f. the thread in the Editor's Forum). I can understand the former -- you were indeed wronged deeply -- but both miss the point of Wikipedia Review quite completely.



But not disinterested enough to comment anyways ... I've heard this all before.



Can't resist:

http://s263.photobucket.com/albums/ii137/A...er-GetALife.flv

The solution of your Wikipedia problems do not lie in Wikipedia.

Nor do they lie in Wikipedia Review.

I have told you where the solution is. So have others. Frankly, you are baiting yourself, and will continue to do so until you realize these truths.

Well then, you're probably on the wrong website, I'm afraid. Even if you don't simply generate more friction with various people here who don't want to edit again because they don't like it, the WP'ers will simply see your having registered here as a sign of "bad faith," and that you've "gone over to the dark side" (note the classic cultist terminology) and use it against you to keep you banned as long as possible (which, let's face it, is likely to be forever).


Such "plans" are meaningless to them, other than as a form of ego-gratification - surely you must see that?


It doesn't matter what your desire is - drama is the engine that keeps Wikipedia going, by providing ongoing amusement for regular participants. You're just a source of fuel to them, at this point, whether or not you want to be one.

Finally, I commend you on your not wanting to "sockpuppet"; it shows a certain strength of ethics that's rare on Wikipedia, which is why it rankles the other users there. Nevertheless, unethical actions in the face of an unethical system are at least justifiable, if you have a higher purpose than mere self-gratification. (IMO, of course.)

If you're really desperate to edit and/or create, simply avoid wikipedia altogether and build your own encyclopaedia. That way you don't have to deal with admins you don't get along with.

Take your best work from the past four years and port it over to Google Knol, where you can author it under your own name.

Create a blog on Google Blogger and chronicle your personal experiences there.

Vent your anger by writing poetry, atrocious song parodies, or works of fiction.

I can point you to examples of each of the above, if you like.

Man, the irony of anyone on a forum telling someone else to get a life is just delicious.

And before you start, yeah, I know. I'm here too. So what?

SkagitRQ, you'll find rather quickly that WR isn't exactly a support forum. We've all wasted our time on Wikipedia in the past, but there are some people here who seem still angry about it, and feel compelled to lash out against anyone who doesn't buy completely into the "big evil" theory. Don't let them get you down. You're gone from there, that's the good first step.

I never understood mere contributors of WR telling other what WR was or was not ... there seem to be a few members here who consider themselves to be Cereberus (... Cereberuses ... Cereberii?). It is kind of weak to queue up to kick the next victims falling out of the Porno-pedia, isn't it?

Make here what you want for as long as you can get away with it ... just, once you have licked your wounds, try to be cheerful, funny or informative please!

SarekOfVulcan had a recall raised against them, here, and does seem to have Future Perfect licking their butt hole.

Don't you just hate it when grown men clean up each others talk pages?

It is, but when you've been doing this a while, I think you learn to recognize when new registrants are really just angry about specific people, and aren't really all that concerned with the system itself, the rules that are created to sustain it, and the underlying means by which "undesirables" are removed.

Regardless, an interesting facet of Wikipedian culture is that people who have been exposed to it long enough will often take lines like "get a life" and "stop whining" to be far more offensive and insulting than traditional profanity-laced ad hominem streams of invective. It has something to do with the basic dysfunctionality of WP's internal group dynamic, or some such thing... Most people manage to purge themselves of it soon enough though, once they've disengaged from it.

Also, I think we all realize that in many cases we're doing various abusive WP'ers a favor in the short-term by suggesting to their victims that they disengage, which can easily be seen by those victims as our telling them to accept defeat and give up, when their prevailing impulse might well be to fight back and try to "win." I'm not sure there's a good answer for that; the mistake is getting involved there in the first place, and people just have to realize that there's no "win" involved with Wikipedia. Ideally, if you make a mistake, you correct it, you move on - and I can only say that the disdain and disregard you show them by doing that is far more damaging to them than almost any more direct approach you can come up with. (Then again, if you're a BLP subject, that changes things somewhat... and as I mentioned earlier, Ms. NotASpambot does have an interest in remaining a WP participant that's not all that dissimilar from that of a BLP subject.)

Boy ... but does she really want to spend the rest of her life defending her edits!?! This is where the whole Vulva-pedia becomes a vast and increasing, life sucking black hole. I take one step close to the "Destroy Wikipedia" Camp.

It is a conspiracy against the IT classes, just as the Weekend supplement papers were to the middle and chattering classes, designed to suck away their lives into futile pursuits and keep them from doing anything practical to change the world.

I think the problem is, once wounded and tarnished in such a clear way, she is now marked ... and prey for the second and third division of predators.

That's as far as I read.

Joe - can you, like, not refer to female WP editors without adding some gratuitous sexually-tinged remark?

After the whole German mainpage vulva controversy (on Jimbo's talk page at least) I thought Vulva-pedia was a pretty good word. I like the way it rolls off the tongue.

Yeah, that's my shtick! Go find your own trademark, bub!

Maybe not, but 16 could be...



No, but SkagitRiverQueen (T-C-L-K-R-D) did complain to me in email about an interaction ban violation from Wildhartlivie (T-C-L-K-R-D) , so I promptly blocked WHL for it. Believe me, I have no interest in cutting a deal with DocOfSoc -- I do not like the way she edits the Bouley article. No deal with CrohnieGal, either. Sorry to disappoint you -- I may be eeeevil, but I'm not that evil. :-)



Oh, that's ok, My Lurkers Support Me In Email. :-)



Oh, you mean the one that requires 6 editors in good standing to activate it, and only got 2 supporters last time it was used?

It's fascinating how WP is evolving into a First-Person Troll Shooter Game.

Lets see, last time someone challenged my referral to what an Arb sent me, I posted the whole chat on the noticeboard and people started throwing a fit in all sorts of ways. Everyone knows I talk to a lot of people constantly. Hell, I was extremely popular at the DC Meetup for a reason.

And 6 editors in "good standing" meaning anything and you required them to have a "direct" interaction with you. Basically, what you are saying is that there must be a dispute with them directly involved, you must have used admin ops on them, and then the admin ops disqualified them from being in good standing.

Delightful stuff. How about 6 editors who think you are an ass and treat people like crap? I can name many current admin who use WR who have stated such towards you before. No one likes you, and you get your revenge on others by bullying them for it.

I wondered how long it would take you or one of the clique to get here. I expect Equazcion to pop in as well - he never could resist adding his input whether it was wanted or not and always seemed to think everyone was just waiting for him to show up and share his Wiki-wisdom. In fact, it could be that in the DSM next to "Narcissistic Personality Disorder", his picture is there.

Fact is, Garrett, you are a bad administrator. Really bad. You use blocks punitively and you know it (if you don't you should). You think you're a good admin, and you probably were at one time, but somewhere along the way you lost the bubble (that means you lost sight of your fairness and balance). It's kinda sad, because I think you're probably a good guy, a good husband, a good dad - but an good, effective admin? Nope. In fact another admin, characterized admins such as yourself to me in an email like this:



I think that's a very accurate characterization of you and too many others. You can try to justify your year-long block of my all you'd like - but you know deep down it was over-the-top (if you didn't you wouldn't have asked for opinions at AN/I) and you knew that by going to AN/I you would get support because of the Wildhartlivie crew and Equazcion and the support they are able to get through canvassing in the blink of an eye. You'd been hounding me for months, and others (even some who aren't so fond of me) have questioned it with your other blocks of me. You were just *waiting* for the time to be right to where you knew you could get this through. In the meantime, you let others get away with "Wiki-murder". Your bias against me is obvious, your need for vengeance (for whatever reason) quite probable.
I suppose that now you've been here (and others from WP have been, too) my chances for ever being unblocked or unbanned are doomed. That's too bad - you know I make good contributions and have been for nearly four years. I asked you for explanations, I asked you for input, I asked for help, I asked for understanding - you responded with "I can't help" and more hounding and lengthening blocks and then the final result. I guess you can live with that. If I were you, I couldn't (but then again, I wouldn't have done what you have done even once, so the point is moot).

Verily there is something vacuously vaudvillian in the vanquishing of venomously verbal vixens by verdict of vicarious Vulcans, and vote of various victims. Vituperative voices vow vengeance, but e-vendettas verge into vanity.

Yrs in Vulgarity but without Vajazzling,

MR

[Moderator's note: Sarek of Vulcan versus Ottava hissy fit moved to the Tar Pit.]