Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:53, 22 February 2017

1 month block

You are blocked for 1 month for this personal attack, which yuo reinstated even after it had been removed. You have come off a block for personal attacks less than two weeks ago, so this time it is not for a week but for a month. Fram (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: That remark was originally made by Giano three days ago; and had subsequently been reinstated by Davey2010 here and here, last night. Neither of whom are blocked. FYI. O Fortuna! 09:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

How nice for you. Tell me, how's your civility issues with RexxS going? Still being uncivil towards him? belittling his contributions; using foul language about other editors; accusing him of being a vandal; of the fact you called him a vandal, indirectly; on another matter, commenting on Nikkimaria's "true colours". People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I see there's already a sock allegation linked to Mr Ernie. It would perhaps be more beneficial for you to spend your time doing an investigation into that before knee-jerk blocking me. I also see I'm not the only one to have reverted the {{RPA}} tag, but please don't let a little thing like that get in the way of consistency. But, as always, I'm happy to sit this out. Happy editing! Cassianto 09:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Asking whether someone was also editing logged out (twice) is not a "sock allegation" (and would have little bearing on your blkock in any case), and I haven't made any comment about Nikkimaria's true colours. People are free to investigate my personal attacks, they are at ANI (in a section started by me) and anyone can comment and take action if necessary. They have hardly any relation with your reinsertion of a gross personal attack. I'll warn Davey2010 as well (he hasn't been blocked for personal attacks before though, you on the other hand come straight off a block for them). Blocking Giano three days after the fact for a comment he didn't reinsert (AFAIK) after it had been removed would not really serve a purpose, although I won't object if anyone else feels this is necessary. Fram (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

That's big of you. Frankly, I think you're a stinking hypocrite - based on my diffs above - and are indicative of what a bad administrator actually is. FWIW, I'm not seeking to have Giano or Davey2010 dealt with by the the same method, but I'd wholly expect you to wimp out, even if the circumstances were different. Again, happy editing! Cassianto 09:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Why would I wimp out of blocking Giano or Davey2010? The most recent block in Davey2010's block log was made by me... Fram (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you still here? I thought I'd wished you happy editing? Cassianto 09:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Fram: This really seems to be a very poorly judged block. The comment was made three days ago with no reaction to it whatsoever - it was also in the edit summary so was really quite visible - many people had continued the ongoing discussion and did not appear to take any umbrage with it at all. An IP (now there's a surprise, perhaps a CU should be run? I realise editing while logged out is permissible but not when it's for the sole purpose of shit stirring being disruptive) pops up and decides it's to be removed two days later. Cassianto did not make the initial comment nor did he edit war to keep it in, so issuing a block for a month seems completely inappropriate. I do wish everyone would get back to (or, in some cases, start) creating/expanding content instead of all the senseless bickering/baiting that is going on. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Since when is removing a blatant PA (or ro you dispute this "being disruptive"? If no one had reverted the PA removals, no "shit" would have been "stirred". What excuse is there to revert the removal of such a PA someone else has made? You are free to request a CU on the IP (I don't think it will be granted, but I'm not a CU), but I don't think it has any impact on this block anyway. Fram (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Fram, I'm afraid I'm having difficulty parsing what you're trying to say there but never mind, I guess I fall into your category of ignorant people who should be driven away, so don't bother trying to respond to me. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• • • STILL here, Fram? As per the unblocking advice from Ritchie333 the last time I was wrongly blocked, and to appease my friend's dismay at my assertion that I would no longer be writing content, I decided to start Bruce Bernard two days ago, at a whim, in order to avoid banging on at various talk page discussions involving infoboxes. This, in my opinion, is far more of a benefit to the project than Fram's apparent harassment and incivility towards another friend of mine. As I'm sure Fram is aware, Mr Ernie and I have had previous altercations and he seems to follow me everywhere like a bad smell. Also, it appears Mr Ernie is logging out in order to evade 3RR, something else that seems to have been ignored by Fram. This place has gone fucking mad, it seems. Cassianto 12:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that Fram jumped on the bandwagon to block Cassianto far too quickly and eagerly. Had he stepped back to draw breath he would have seen that I posted the "Crass moron" comment days ago and to a user who was deliberately putting false words into my mouth and being generally tiresome. The pot was then stirred by a IP, lots of people then get very excited and Fram leaps into the mire from a great height having only taken the most cursory of looks at the edit history. If Fram has any integrity, he will now back down and agree he has made a mistake. Giano (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, @Fram: Cassianto wants to write articles and stay out of trouble, unblock please. Ritchie333 14:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment: I'm no fan of Cassianto's bad behavior when he is indeed behaving badly, and I came here from watching Ritchie's talkpage, expecting to agree with the block. But the evidence does not support any block, much less a one-month block. I think this should get a block review if it is not voluntarily revoked by Fram. (No prejudice against a re-block if Cassianto actually does engage in personal attacks or extended belligerence.) Softlavender (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)A bit like SL above, I don't always see eye to eye with Cass. However, as with the previously ill thought out block, the logic behind this one is... plainly non-existent. In essence, Fram, your argument can be boiled down to; as long as it's not Cassianto making the personal attacks, people are free to make insensitive comments as they please. This is, I am sure, definitely not your intent Fram. Don't for a second think that that is what I am trying to say, but, that is exactly what your actions suggest. Consider the fact pattern; You did not so much as warn Giano for making the "moron" comment three days ago, nor did you hand out a warning or block to Davey for not once but twice re-instating the comment within the space of a few hours on Jan 30, but, mere hours after Cassianto stepped in to do the same its now, suddenly, one month block worthy. Now, Fram I suspect you're going to factor in Cass' recent block and I will counter with "that block was summarily reversed upon consensus review on this talk page" and "that review was never challenged despite an open invitation to do so". This block comes off as an attempt to find some reason to block Cass, and not, prevent issues of "bad" behaviour. If it were about bad behaviour there would have been three blocks, or at least, three warnings. I obviously support a block review per SL if Fram is unwilling to voluntarily reverse the block themselves. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Unblock - Personally I don't see any personal attack in that comment which I why I kept reverting, Would I like to be called a crass moron ? .. No not particluary but it's not something I would give a flying shit about either if I'm honest, As I said on my talkpage if Giano had called someone the c word or similiar then yeah I could understand but blocking over "crass moron" is just ridiculous sorry. –Davey2010 15:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Cassianto and SagaciousPhil - I was not the IP that first removed the comment. Why would I hide behind an IP to do an action I have no issue with doing under my user name? Cassianto can you use a diff to provide any evidence for your claim that "It appears Mr Ernie is logging out in order to evade 3RR?" The IP reverted the comment before I did. How could I log out to evade 3RR before I'd taken any action? Do the people weighing in here really want to continue to make "You really are a crass moron" a hill they would fight for? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: FYI, I think that opposing blocks considered poor is the hill you're looking for. Happy editing! O Fortuna! 15:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's the compost mound two towns over with the little Mt. Shitverest sign next to it, you know, the one where all the poor blocks hang out around. This is meant as friendly banter and not a comment to anyone in particular, I had the joke, may as well make it. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I will get you blocked for making personal attacks against hills. And blocks. O Fortuna! 15:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"The Mutants, or Hill People, are ... deformed outcasts, created through radiation poisoning.".... so just beware. Barry Normal 123 (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Kindly leave this talk page, Mr Ernie. Seeing as I'm not allowed to tell you to "f*** off", I'll do like I did with Fram and substitute it with another ending; hmm, let me see...happy editing!! Cassianto 15:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Would sure like to know who the IP-in-question was. Very frustrating when any individuals hide their Wiki-identity. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If Fram were to do his job properly, we might find out. Oh but hang on; that would take a bit of investigation, wouldn't it? As we all know, Fram doesn't investigate, Fram just opts for the easy option and blocks someone based on their block log. I noticed, too, how I've been blocked for "personal attacks and harassment". Firstly, it wasn't me who made the "personal attack"; and secondly, to harass someone (I wasn't) needs a course of conduct on at least two occasions, but then I wasn't alone in that. As far as I can see, I reverted the once. Fram is an incompatant at best and, well, perhaps you can draw your own conclusions based on the behaviour you've seen. Cassianto 17:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to comment on the rights or wrongs of personal attacks, or of removing them, or of reinstating them. But considering the fact that the others involved were not sanctioned in any way, and that you were not warned in any way, a one month block seems to me to be wholly inequitable and has all the appearance of a personal grudge. I know you haven't formally appealed the block, but I think there would be a good case for unblocking you now as "time served". It's obvious you want to get back to article editing. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Martin. As always, I couldn't give a toss about being blocked; I'm certainly not apologising for issuing a "personal attack or harass" someone when I did neither. If I were to, then the apology would be wholly insincere and it would lose its entire purpose. I think everyone here can see who's at fault and I think the blocker has made themselves look incredibly stupid and vindictive. With regards to an appeal, I shan't be doing that either. In light of there being no apology, I don't see an unblock ever occurring as whoever takes up the appeal will be wanting to see me issue some sort of grovelling show of remorse, knelt down in a pool of my own mucus, wringing my hands until they're sore, pleading with my entire being not to be blocked anymore. That ain't happening; I wouldn't give them the satisfaction. I'm certainly not desperate to get back here as what little enthusiasm I did have for making a return to writing, has pretty much gone again. If someone were to unblock me though, I'd be re-visiting Bernard, briefly, as there's a bloody mis-placed comma, stealing a living, that keeps winking at me. Cassianto 20:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, how charming, a pool of your own mucus.Lovely. But then you always were a bit of an artistic type. Damien Snot 123 (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That's it, make things more miserable than they already are, Evans! Cassianto 20:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"Enjoyment isn't everything!!" Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

... we should all just be grateful that we can contribute to such a warm and friendly collaborative project. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunatley not. Maybe I should treat hostility with song in future? I've always considered music to be a good way to make light of an otherwise oppressive regime. Cassianto 21:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"Turned out nice again!" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Great choices here, many songs, one a chorus on liberty, which could not be performed under oppression, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

So: what's going on then? O Fortuna! 07:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Cassianto has emailed me to say he has retired from Misplaced Pages. I look forward to Fram finishing off his FA work. Ritchie333 17:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I just stumbled on this page by chance. I thought this paranoid clown Cassianto had retired once or twice already. I'm sure he'll be back in the near future. Singora (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)