Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:45, 3 May 2009

Topic ban re-imposed indefinitely

I am informing you that the community has re-imposed your previous topic ban indefinitely, at .  Sandstein  06:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Amendment: Sorry, I was imprecise, it is only your topic ban concerning "Anything that relates substantially to Baronets, Baronets by name, a group of them, or the actions thereof" that has been re-imposed.  Sandstein  06:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Thats not a personal attack. I am discussing her disgusting abuses of her adminship not be personality! --Vintagekits (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on Sandstein that is not a personal attack do admins just look at someones block log and fire out the blocks, it is a comment on the admin actions of BHG which he backed up with diffs twice blocking VK while in dispute with him that is wrong and so is this block. BigDunc 13:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(e.c.) What you said was: "You are a digusting and disgraceful admin and no one can believe a word you say!" That is an attack on her as a person, not on the exercise of her administrative duties. Moreover, serious accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are considered personal attacks. You know, I have no beef in this dispute, which seems to be between a bunch of British and Irish users (I'm a Continental European), but you are not helping your case with your conduct.  Sandstein  13:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I specifically stated that I was referring to her use of admin powers. In no way was I referring to personality. I provided to piece of evidence of her abuse of admin powers against me - what more did you want. I have to wonder that if you hadnt taken the ridiculously rash decision to impose a spurious topic ban on me whilst there was an ongoing discussion would you have taken this action as well?--Vintagekits (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand this question. Another edit of yours that is a reason for this block is ("be quiet!"), which violates WP:CIVIL.  Sandstein  13:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk about clutching at staws - stop embarassing yourself.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah come on Sandstein that is not a personal attack and in no way deserves a block. BigDunc 13:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was involved in a dispute with Sanstein with regards his(gender neutral) topic ban on me. Therefoe he is not neutral and this block should not stand. Also it was not a personal attack it was an attack on the abuse of admin powers - I specifically words the comment so as to not make it personal - I have nothing personally again BHG, what I am disgusted about is how she abuses her admin powers - I provided evidence within the "offending post" which backs that up.

Decline reason:

Oh come on ... you really expect us to believe that "You are a digusting and disgraceful admin and no one can believe a word you say!" isn't a personal attack? There are better ways to phrase that criticism if you must voice it, and with that in the record it matters little who blocked you or why. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Surprise surprise I wouldn't waste my time with unblocks VK they wont overturn the block. BigDunc 13:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What a flipping farce! --Vintagekits (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked

I don't agree with Vintagekits' claim that Sandstein was too involved to place this block. But I do agree that the diff by Vintagekits about BrownHairedGirl's block which Sandstein invokes was not a personal attack. VK gives reasons for his criticism of BHG's block, and, crucially, does not criticize her (as it might be: "You are a disgusting and disgraceful person") but criticizes her use of admin tools. It's very important for Misplaced Pages that criticism of admins remains permitted, even if it's not elegantly couched. As for the conditional "Be quiet"... ("Do you know the history between me and Jacky? If not then be quiet!") no, seriously: not a personal attack. The user has been recently blocked, he's upset, which is the effect blocks have. Please leave him alone. Vintagekits, relax, go for a walk perhaps? Unblocked. Bishonen | talk 13:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC).