| Revision as of 05:15, 4 July 2006 editMark (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,068 edits second archive← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:24, 5 July 2006 edit undo85.70.5.66 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| '''Please note that I do not usually respond on this page - if you leave me a message, I will most likely reply on your user talk page, so that you will be notified when you receive my message.''' | '''Please note that I do not usually respond on this page - if you leave me a message, I will most likely reply on your user talk page, so that you will be notified when you receive my message.''' | ||
| == ] blocked == | |||
| I have blocked ] for 3 days for personal attacks and offensive behaviour (mocking users' IQs) on ], and for disruptive behaviour in starting an RfC on a completely unrelated administrator whose only involvement was to place warnings for the above behaviour on his/her user page (which this user promptly removed). I have advised this user of ways he can seek to have this block overturned, and if another administrator feels that this block should be overturned, I will respect that. - ] 09:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :He needed to be in the time out corner, and 3 days is probably good. I endorse the block, although I do think this was a peevish person stamping his foot and ''might'' have been neutralized by ignoring. A short block is at least as valid an approach though. (I hate it when people try to be clever and just miss. The belly flop they make is much more noticeable than someone just jumping feet first into the pool.) ] 13:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hey Mark, this is me, Ackoz, although I decided not to contribute anymore, I just came to check how the ] dispute is going and to leave you this note. However, I dont think I need the nick anymore. I just wanted to quote to you that that the NPA policy states, that:<br><br> | |||
| In '''extreme cases''', an attacker may be blocked under the "disruption" clause of the blocking policy, though the practice is almost always controversial. Personal attacks should be reported at WP:PAIN.<br> | |||
| You blocked me per NPA, which I might have violated once (one sentence) and only if someone was interpreting my statements by your ''common sense'', anyway no ''extreme case'' happened, and for my statements that I do not want to comply with WP policies (such statement being no criteria for blocking someone) and for erasing a warning from my talkpage, that was actually finally removed by the editor who placed some of it there, (i.e. you blocked me for removing something that was removed by someone else), after I asked him to review my contributions. Moreover, George's comments about sending me to a corner, calling me peevish, "trying to be clever" (in your ''common sense'' interpretation, that would mean he had been calling me stupid) etc made me feel kinda sad. I really tried to contribute to wikipedia, I have created ], ], ] and some other articles in the last month because I had the time finally. I spent a lot of time on them, researching, sourcing etc. You can check them I am proud :) I haven't been here long (since April), but really insulting arguments like "you haven't done any edits on articles for months" were also used by some other admins on my talkpage when I asked for unblocking - you admins don't really check what the user did you just look shortly and block, very nice of you. That all was kinda humiliating as I couln't properly respond to those allegiations because I was blocked. I felt like a little kid showing my teacher that I actually did the homework. I dont ever want to feel like that, I am sure you understand, and I am not going to expose myself to mocking by some "admins" who believe they are just fabulous because they are "admins" in some virtual community. If I believed in the principles of wikipedia, I would ask you be desysopped by the ArbCom by clearly abusing your admin powers. But I don't believe in[REDACTED] and I think I would be wasting my time. Just please before blocking someone next time, check if the case is so ''extreme'' that you really ''have to'' block the editor, you are in no teacher's position here, remember. And please be more kind. ] 18:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:24, 5 July 2006
Welcome to my discussion page. Please do not hesitate to leave me a message. I will respond to you as soon as I can.
Please note that I do not usually respond on this page - if you leave me a message, I will most likely reply on your user talk page, so that you will be notified when you receive my message.
User:Ackoz blocked
I have blocked User:Ackoz for 3 days for personal attacks and offensive behaviour (mocking users' IQs) on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Trampikey, and for disruptive behaviour in starting an RfC on a completely unrelated administrator whose only involvement was to place warnings for the above behaviour on his/her user page (which this user promptly removed). I have advised this user of ways he can seek to have this block overturned, and if another administrator feels that this block should be overturned, I will respect that. - Mark 09:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- He needed to be in the time out corner, and 3 days is probably good. I endorse the block, although I do think this was a peevish person stamping his foot and might have been neutralized by ignoring. A short block is at least as valid an approach though. (I hate it when people try to be clever and just miss. The belly flop they make is much more noticeable than someone just jumping feet first into the pool.) Geogre 13:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey Mark, this is me, Ackoz, although I decided not to contribute anymore, I just came to check how the Caron dispute is going and to leave you this note. However, I dont think I need the nick anymore. I just wanted to quote to you that that the NPA policy states, that:
In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked under the "disruption" clause of the blocking policy, though the practice is almost always controversial. Personal attacks should be reported at WP:PAIN.
You blocked me per NPA, which I might have violated once (one sentence) and only if someone was interpreting my statements by your common sense, anyway no extreme case happened, and for my statements that I do not want to comply with WP policies (such statement being no criteria for blocking someone) and for erasing a warning from my talkpage, that was actually finally removed by the editor who placed some of it there, (i.e. you blocked me for removing something that was removed by someone else), after I asked him to review my contributions. Moreover, George's comments about sending me to a corner, calling me peevish, "trying to be clever" (in your common sense interpretation, that would mean he had been calling me stupid) etc made me feel kinda sad. I really tried to contribute to wikipedia, I have created Abdominal aortic aneurysm, Transfusion-associated graft versus host disease, Antyllus and some other articles in the last month because I had the time finally. I spent a lot of time on them, researching, sourcing etc. You can check them I am proud :) I haven't been here long (since April), but really insulting arguments like "you haven't done any edits on articles for months" were also used by some other admins on my talkpage when I asked for unblocking - you admins don't really check what the user did you just look shortly and block, very nice of you. That all was kinda humiliating as I couln't properly respond to those allegiations because I was blocked. I felt like a little kid showing my teacher that I actually did the homework. I dont ever want to feel like that, I am sure you understand, and I am not going to expose myself to mocking by some "admins" who believe they are just fabulous because they are "admins" in some virtual community. If I believed in the principles of wikipedia, I would ask you be desysopped by the ArbCom by clearly abusing your admin powers. But I don't believe in[REDACTED] and I think I would be wasting my time. Just please before blocking someone next time, check if the case is so extreme that you really have to block the editor, you are in no teacher's position here, remember. And please be more kind. 85.70.5.66 18:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)