| Revision as of 15:45, 28 June 2006 editInShaneee (talk | contribs)15,956 edits rm personal attack← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:52, 28 June 2006 edit undoInShaneee (talk | contribs)15,956 edits →Announcing my departureNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| PS: Don't email me your support, I have enought of cowards, so I disabled it. | PS: Don't email me your support, I have enought of cowards, so I disabled it. | ||
| '''Unlike what I have said in the mailing list, I have been blocked for 72 hours not 36.''' | '''Unlike what I have said in the mailing list, I have been blocked for 72 hours not 36.''' | ||
| == Civility, privacy == | |||
| First of all, even though you claim to have 'left', continuing to edit any pages means that you are still subject to wikipedia policies. I have removed the IRC chat logs you posted above, as copy/pasting IRC transcripts is STRICTLY forbidden without the express consent of all parties involved. Secondly, I've removed the personal attack you made in your rant above. If you continue, you may be blocked and your talk page protected from editing if you continue. --] 15:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:52, 28 June 2006
Announcing my departure
I have started contributing on February 17, 2005 and engaged in controversial and heated subjects from the beginning and contributed positivally I'd believe. After over a year of contribution, I have to conclude that no matter if you don't understand any policies or guidelines directly affecting the quality of the articles, you just have to be polite and all is OK. It doesn't matter if you don't understand what neutrality means, it doesn't matter if you wrongly still think that Misplaced Pages is supposed to represent the 'truth,' it doesn't matter if you don't understand that 'fact' in Misplaced Pages is about the correct representation of positions and should not to be mistaken as 'truth,' it doesn't matter if you don't understand that original research is unwelcome and that your opinion or interpretation of things or your concieved validity of an author has no place in the article. As long as you are polite you can do whatever you want and get away with it.
I have wasted much of my time trying to debate with people who had one thing in mind, and is to enforce their position as not only position but as 'truth,' I have made 'sur place' peddling and backpeddling because of users ignoring the subject at hand and who'd become experts few minutes later with few google search while totally ignoring the scholarly publications about a topic.
I have wasted my time voting in RfA's, when those I elect as a Wikipedian, once promoted will totally ignore the right of the users, those same users that have supported them. Once administrator, you can abuse your powers, those same powers which were given to you because of users like me, but you will get away with it, you just need me to get elected not after. You can restrict my right to contribute, my right to vote in polls, my right to vote in RfA, when even prisoners in various countries are given such rights. You can threat members of block, you can provoke them and then in retaliation against a provocation, act as the judge and the victim. Don't worry afteral, you are an Admin, and no Admin will question you, if a member request an unblock, just wait the block being expired and that's it, since no Admin will bother answering to an unblock request. If the member don't want to give up and place you in the Administrators notice board, it will be a matter of interpretation of policies, while most Admins won't even bother reading you. And those who realise the abuse, would prefer remaining silent and support you privatly but publically shutting down. You will be yet another member who is 'crying' and the abusive administrator will even recieve barnstars because he doesn't give away to 'trouble makers.' People will even tell him: If you have so many critics you must be doing something right.'
When we are at a point that users in a heated discussion start reporting other users with whom they cronically disagree, and that such users are to be blamed for as much. We can't assume it is done in good faith are we? It would take rather an incompetent administrator who would randomnly warn honest users who will not report their fellow Wikipedians when they are equally to be blamed just because they disagree.
An incompetent Administrator is the one who is incapable of making any assesment on the value of his judgement, better yet, an administrator who has no judgement and who act randomnly and does not comprehend for what the tools that are given to him are actually given to him. An incompetent administrator is the one who can not and will not reconsider his jugement, rather lack of judgement. An incompetent administrator is the one who can not understand when his intervention is more disruptive than his silence.
I know such an administrator. I have reported his abuses in the mailing list, no consideration, I have requested an unblock, no answer. Be wrong as a user, and no Admin will waste his time supporting an Admin who is in the right, but don't ever be in the right, because Admins will prefer remaining silent.
The whole affair was in my talk page, being ignored I have deleted it, doesn't matter, there are two type of people in Misplaced Pages the Users (Dalit) and the Admins.
I'm done
PS: Don't email me your support, I have enought of cowards, so I disabled it.
Unlike what I have said in the mailing list, I have been blocked for 72 hours not 36.
Civility, privacy
First of all, even though you claim to have 'left', continuing to edit any pages means that you are still subject to wikipedia policies. I have removed the IRC chat logs you posted above, as copy/pasting IRC transcripts is STRICTLY forbidden without the express consent of all parties involved. Secondly, I've removed the personal attack you made in your rant above. If you continue, you may be blocked and your talk page protected from editing if you continue. --InShaneee 15:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)