493:
First of all, the actions of my friends or people you perceive to be my friends have no bearing on whether or not I should be blocked. I have made one edit on
Knowledge (XXG) that could be considered vandalism; almost all the other edits are completely legitimate. I challenge you to show otherwise.
342:
with the summary "fuck jews and chinks and spics and dot com billionaires". I ban users only for trolling
Knowledge (XXG) and I couldn't care less what they do outside it; my quote of GNAA Popeye saying "my weekend getaway is trolling wikipedia" was an attempt to point others to his behaviour, which
142:
Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of
Knowledge (XXG). Such disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies, and may include changing other user's signed comments or making deliberately misleading edits. Users should be warned that they
392:
Which part of the blocking policy allows blocking for trolling? Which part of the blocking policy allows permanent blocking for trolling? Was there consensus on GNAA Popeye's behaviour being disruptive? Was there even discussion about GNAA Popeye's behaviour being disruptive? Why does the opinion of
430:
Oh please, Silsor. I already felt uncomfortable using a hostile procedure to draw attention to my questions. Now I would really hate to see you use the stringency of the procedure as an excuse to escape them again. The only purpose it serves is to make people wonder why you are not showing the same
65:
Silsor, when asked for an explanation about the block, did not point to proof of vandalism, but instead claimed that deliberately trolling the
Knowledge (XXG) community was sufficient grounds for blocking, and provided a mere IRC (or similar) log of GNAA Popeye claiming to intend to troll Knowledge
498:
Knowledge (XXG) needs a few good trolls to challenge some of the crypto-fascist repressive bullshit that some of these administrators liberally imbibe. The only difference between a troll comment and any other are the writer's own motives, which in my case you cannot claim to know. Did it ever
61:
The user GNAA Popeye was blocked for "repeated vandalism". However, none of this user's contributions seemed to be vandalism, and Mark
Richards unblocked him on Oct 21st for this reason. Then Silsor permanently reblocked him on Oct 21st. Arminius claimed on Silsor's talk page that Mark Richards
426:
Yes, how convenient for you to ignore the situation and make lame excuses when confronted with the facts. I'm sure 24 hours is more than enough time for you to defend yourself. Geeze. Whoever made you a wikipedia admin should have their testicles squeezed until they pop. --
66:(XXG), without any evidence of any actual trolling. Silsor then ignored further questions on the Village Pump. I also asked Arminius (who apparently performed the blocking on behalf of Silsor) for more information, but he simply erased my question from his user page.
329:
This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other
137:
that would qualify as vandalism. Anyway, even if there was, there is a vast majority of valid edits. The existence of some of the articles being contributed to might be discutable, but is not relevant to the point being discussed
489:
00:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) Dude GNAA Popeye and his goons have done more here than you might immediately realise, but if you go deep and check all their contribs, man you'll see they're nothing but pure vandals.
473:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
127:
Sysops may also permanently block user accounts that do essentially nothing but vandalism. However, user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be blocked in this manner.
438:
No, this entire RFC is ridiculous. You didn't even bother to look at Popeye's first contributions and I'll bet you haven't checked the contributions of the last anonymous IP to edit this page either.
372:
Thank you for replying at last, Silsor. (Note: I am not sure whether a reply should appear here or somewhere else on the page, so feel free to move it around if necessary.) I have further questions:
238:"What were the specific reasons for the block of this user? As I said above I think it would be helpful to know the specific edits which were the reasons for the block and reblock."
145:
Silsor claims that trolling the
Knowledge (XXG) community is sufficient grounds for blocking. However, he failed to point to an objective definition of this kind of "disruption".
499:
occur to anyone that I'm concerened that certain people want to censor an informative article about an organization they have a personal problem with? Apparently not. -- Popeye
382:
Was there any vandalism from GNAA Popeye on articles? (not talk pages) I can see 16 contributions from GNAA Popeye to article pages. All of them seem perfectly legit to me.
334:
I have not spent much effort on the subject of GNAA Popeye simply because he craves attention, which the bringer of this RFC has kindly given him. A quick glance at
379:
Also, since one example hardly illustrates "repeated vandalism", can you provide for instance two more links to edits that qualify as vandalism?
57:
This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
216:
should be sufficient grounds for blocking. If it is outside
Knowledge (XXG), what is blocking the user from Knowledge (XXG) supposed to solve?"
514:
385:
Was there any vandalism from GNAA Popeye after
September 30th? I could not find any. If so, why was he blocked again for "repeated vandalism"
17:
407:
Also, please do not blame me for "kindly giving attention to this user". It was you and
Arminius who ignored my questions. In a rather
338:
shows that his actions at
Knowledge (XXG) are mostly confined to defending his trolling club, with a few minor diversions such as
431:
obedience to the rules when blocking people. If the questions have answers, what does it change that no one else signs the RFC?
220:"according to the policy, "disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies". Where is your objective definitiion?"
376:
I am not sure I understand your point very well; are you claiming that "defending his trolling club" qualifies as vandalism?
445:
What is wrong with Popeye's first contributions, except the childish vandalism edit you already mentioned? And how can his
116:
62:
unblocked GNAA Popeye again (though I know of no way of verifying this). Arminius then reblocked him on Oct 27th.
36:
23:
87:
134:
200:
that users can be blocked for trolling wikipedia. The aforementioned IRC log is visible in this diff.
389:, on October 21st? He must have done something really terrible that everyone missed to deserve that.
74:
Permanent blocking of a user with no tangible justification. Ignoring of requests for explanations.
439:
420:
419:
I don't feel I need to defend myself any further, as this RFC will be deleted in about 24 hours.
354:
344:
251:
193:
183:
454:
432:
412:
366:
288:
247:
229:
207:
173:
494:
And no, statements that you disagree with or consider to be "trolling" don't count.
513:
signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to
261:
212:"I strongly oppose the idea that deliberately trolling the Knowledge (XXG) community
234:"Can you be blocked for "trolling" and if so what is the definition for "trolling"?"
486:
44:
311:
163:
478:{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}
453:
blocking after several people claimed his behaviour had been all right?
103:
IP blocks used by GNAA Popeye that no longer appear on the block log.
254:'s discussion page about the unanswered questions, dated Nov 3rd.
400:
397:
394:
339:
335:
265:
257:
243:
225:
203:
197:
189:
179:
169:
159:
130:
268:
of the message by Arminius, with no further explanation.
152:
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
343:
seems to have flown right over some people's heads.
176:that GNAA Popeye has probably not done much wrong.
482:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
350:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
45:http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm
143:are violating policy before they are blocked.
8:
496:There is no rule against trolling wikipedia.
278:Users certifying the basis for this dispute
24:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Silsor
393:one administrator prevail over the one of
166:that GNAA Popeye's conduct has been fine.
301:Other users who endorse this statement
7:
18:User:Astronautics~enwiki/Sam Hocevar
31:
387:after three weeks of legit edits
1:
340:vandalizing Hadal's user page
258:Request for more information
515:this page's discussion page
360:] 00:30, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
531:
442:17:55, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
423:00:10, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
347:08:11, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
435:13:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
415:13:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
357:08:11, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
180:unblocking of GNAA Popeye
457:22:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
314:03:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
291:02:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
264:'s discussion page, and
52:Statement of the dispute
214:outside Knowledge (XXG)
37:User:Silsor/Sam Hocevar
411:way, if I may say. --
447:first contributions
110:Applicable policies
129:I cannot find any
336:his contributions
305:(sign with ~~~~)
282:(sign with ~~~~)
240:, dated Oct 29th.
226:pending questions
222:, dated Oct 29th.
204:pending questions
196:, followed by an
22:(Redirected from
522:
27:
530:
529:
525:
524:
523:
521:
520:
519:
508:
470:
370:
326:
320:
303:
297:
280:
274:
154:
117:Blocking policy
112:
80:
72:
54:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
528:
526:
507:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
469:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
428:
405:
404:
390:
383:
380:
377:
369:
363:
362:
361:
358:
325:
322:
318:
317:
316:
315:
302:
299:
295:
294:
293:
292:
279:
276:
272:
271:
270:
269:
255:
241:
223:
201:
187:
177:
167:
153:
150:
149:
148:
147:
146:
139:
121:
120:
111:
108:
107:
106:
105:
104:
101:
98:
92:
91:
79:
78:Powers misused
76:
71:
68:
53:
50:
49:
48:
40:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
527:
518:
516:
512:
505:
497:
492:
491:
488:
485:
484:
483:
480:
479:
475:
474:
467:
456:
452:
448:
444:
443:
441:
437:
436:
434:
429:
425:
424:
422:
418:
417:
416:
414:
410:
402:
399:
396:
391:
388:
384:
381:
378:
375:
374:
373:
368:
364:
359:
356:
353:
352:
351:
348:
346:
341:
337:
332:
331:
323:
321:
313:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
300:
298:
290:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
277:
275:
267:
263:
259:
256:
253:
249:
245:
242:
239:
235:
231:
227:
224:
221:
217:
215:
209:
205:
202:
199:
195:
191:
188:
185:
184:Mark Richards
181:
178:
175:
171:
168:
165:
161:
158:
157:
156:
155:
151:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
125:
124:
123:
122:
119:
118:
114:
113:
109:
102:
99:
96:
95:
94:
93:
89:
85:
82:
81:
77:
75:
69:
67:
63:
59:
58:
51:
47:
46:
41:
39:
38:
33:
32:
25:
19:
510:
509:
495:
481:
477:
476:
472:
471:
468:Outside view
450:
446:
408:
406:
386:
371:
365:Response by
349:
333:
328:
327:
319:
304:
296:
281:
273:
237:
233:
219:
213:
211:
141:
131:contribution
126:
115:
100:GNAA Popeye2
83:
73:
64:
60:
56:
55:
42:
34:
455:Sam Hocevar
433:Sam Hocevar
413:Sam Hocevar
367:Sam Hocevar
289:Sam Hocevar
248:Sam Hocevar
232:to Silsor:
230:Paul August
210:to Silsor:
208:Sam Hocevar
198:explanation
135:GNAA Popeye
97:GNAA Popeye
70:Description
506:Discussion
449:cause his
330:summaries.
190:reblocking
398:different
174:Kosebamse
409:not kind
324:Response
262:Arminius
244:Reminder
84:Blocking
266:removal
440:silsor
427:Popeye
421:silsor
355:silsor
345:silsor
312:Vetta2
252:Silsor
194:Silsor
164:Jmabel
401:users
395:three
246:from
170:claim
160:claim
138:here.
16:<
487:Node
236:and
218:and
43:See
35:See
511:All
260:on
250:on
228:by
206:by
192:by
182:by
172:by
162:by
133:by
88:log
517:.
451:re
90:):
403:?
186:.
86:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.