| Revision as of 01:40, 21 September 2009 editBongomatic (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,898 edits →September 2009: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:43, 21 September 2009 edit undoChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)43,041 edits →September 2009: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| <div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:one ]|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''one ]'''|You have been '''temporarily ]''' from editing}} for {{#if:because (a) you used the word "Clinton" in an edit summary; (b) "Clinton" is a former US President; (c) Obama is the current US President, so therefore (d) you are in violation of your topic ban.|'''because (a) you used the word "Clinton" in an edit summary; (b) "Clinton" is a former US President; (c) Obama is the current US President, so therefore (d) you are in violation of your topic ban.'''|]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:yes|<sup><small><font color="green">]</font></small></sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex;"><small><font color="blue">]</font></small></sub> 01:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> | <div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:one ]|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''one ]'''|You have been '''temporarily ]''' from editing}} for {{#if:because (a) you used the word "Clinton" in an edit summary; (b) "Clinton" is a former US President; (c) Obama is the current US President, so therefore (d) you are in violation of your topic ban.|'''because (a) you used the word "Clinton" in an edit summary; (b) "Clinton" is a former US President; (c) Obama is the current US President, so therefore (d) you are in violation of your topic ban.'''|]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:yes|<sup><small><font color="green">]</font></small></sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex;"><small><font color="blue">]</font></small></sub> 01:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> | ||
| :) You got me. I was fooled at first. ] (]) 01:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:43, 21 September 2009
Misplaced Pages is vandalised and biased by cliques of agenda driven editors censoring those they disagree with and distorting our article content in order to impose their personal beliefs on everyone else. Anyone who tries to correct inaccuracies, balance coverage, or uphold the core neutral point of view policy and its requirement that we include a variety of notable viewpoints is stalked, harassed, and intimidated into silence. This thuggish behavior and the disgusting damage it does to the integrity of Misplaced Pages has been encouraged by dishonest and corrupt admins. It has also been condoned by an incompent arbcom committee that can’t be bothered to enforce our most basic and fundamental policies and values.
 Archives | ||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Distortions, lies, smears, stalking and harassment from thugs
Editors and administrators can misrepresent and lie about my edits and edit history to smear me. They can harass, stalk, and attempt to intimidate me with impunity. Fine. I don't want to discuss it any more. Let Arbcom do what they want. If they choose to continue to encourage liars and thugs then so be it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
About running for adminship
Hi, CoM. Regarding this comment: It's been a little over three months since I last ran, so I'm a bit more confident that I'll pass if I run again. Feel free to add my name to whatever list you have at WT:RFA. Timmeh (review me) 23:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would be inclined to support you Timmeh, even though I opposed last time. There was a discussion on the RfA page about how no one was running and I noted you as one of those who I thought would make a good candidate. But my endorsement is probably the last thing you need and I don't think my nomming you would be helpful. :) Anyway, good luck. Please keep in mind that it's important to make welcome those with alternative viewpoints and unusual perspectives. Also, collegial discussion and problem solving through mediation should always be the first option in resolving disputes and blocking should be the last option. :) Sadly even our Arbs don't seem to get that, which may explain the high level of tension, incivility and disatisfaction. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't take this in the wrong way, but I don't want your nomination, and I think you know why. I was just saying that you could put my name on that list at WT:RFA, in case one of the RfA regulars is looking for someone to nominate. Timmeh (review me) 00:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I completely understand. No worries. You might check with Skomorkh or ThaddeusB. They seem to be the ones leading the charge, and seem to be working up a vetting process they are trying out that might interest you. Good luck! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll take a look into that. Timmeh (review me) 00:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I completely understand. No worries. You might check with Skomorkh or ThaddeusB. They seem to be the ones leading the charge, and seem to be working up a vetting process they are trying out that might interest you. Good luck! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't take this in the wrong way, but I don't want your nomination, and I think you know why. I was just saying that you could put my name on that list at WT:RFA, in case one of the RfA regulars is looking for someone to nominate. Timmeh (review me) 00:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
hey CoM
Unrequested advice, remember to be civil and nice and if you can't then don't talk to them. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Being nice works both ways. Misrepresenting an editor's good faith contributions, smearing them, lyng about their block log, and trying to block them for a month when a simple note to avoid a particular article subject would suffice doesn't seem very civil to me. I'm coming to understand that the lack of collegiality and the tense and uncivil environment here starts at the top. Thanks for the note. I certainly appreciate your efforts to help. If other editors, admins and arbcom worked to resolve disputes instead of playing cop, this would all be a lot more fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree there is a lot of that, I try to avoid it. I think this is better... keep it in mind that the last thing to be done is to block an editor, don't go to any noticeboard and encourage it, try to avoid it at all cost, resolution is the way to grow. I was going to say to you, stay away from those editors and those articles, chill on some other work. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
New articles
What are we going to create??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
September 2009
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. matic 01:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- ) You got me. I was fooled at first. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)