User talk:BannedEditor
February 2014[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. AdmrBoltz 18:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)- Thanks, it saves me the trouble of replying to the comments at my ban discussion. BannedEditor (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Also, just as an extra note @Admrboltz:. If you haven't done so already you should go to AN and support my ban from the project for obvious socking. Even though this whole situation was salted by some of your peer admins and I would not have had to do it if it wasn't for the block on my IP so I couldn't respond to comments or questions in the discussion to ban me from the project. But I am the troll and the one being abusive to other admins. Admins on this site would never do something like that and prevent a user from responding to comments in a discussion to ban them. Oh no. And you all wonder why I have lost my respect for the project and the policies here. BannedEditor (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- After discussing this with Admrboltz I have unblocked this account so you may continue to participate in the discussion if you like. 28bytes (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- @28bytes: Thanks, I can just respond from here by pinging the commentors. Of course it fragments the discussions but no one thought about that I guess when they blocked the IP's, forcing me to create a new username, so they could then justify adding socking to my list of "crimes". The fact that I had to create this username at all, because some admins blocked all the IP's before the discussion was over is proof enough for me that this system is completely broken. This place has become a disgrace.BannedEditor (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- After discussing this with Admrboltz I have unblocked this account so you may continue to participate in the discussion if you like. 28bytes (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Also, just as an extra note @Admrboltz:. If you haven't done so already you should go to AN and support my ban from the project for obvious socking. Even though this whole situation was salted by some of your peer admins and I would not have had to do it if it wasn't for the block on my IP so I couldn't respond to comments or questions in the discussion to ban me from the project. But I am the troll and the one being abusive to other admins. Admins on this site would never do something like that and prevent a user from responding to comments in a discussion to ban them. Oh no. And you all wonder why I have lost my respect for the project and the policies here. BannedEditor (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Reply to Moxy[edit]
@Moxy: What I want is wholly irrelevant. Admins are blocking every IP so before the discussion is even over so I cannot even reply. So I created this username and added it to that discussion. So at this point even if I said I will never do it again, it ain't gonna matter because the abusive admins will do anything to get me out of the project and even other non abusive admins are helping out just to shut me up. The system is broken and I have no respect for a system that isn't respected by those who have been put in place to control it. BannedEditor (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Reply to Hahc21[edit]
@Hahc21:. I appreciate the kind remarks in your Support vote and I think your a good person too. I also apologize to you, because I am about to say some things that are directed at the Arbcom of which you are a member that are far from nice. I must confess that I am completely disappoined in the disgracefully inept manner that Arbcom handles the portion of its mission to deal with abusive admins. Arbcom is the only ones who have the mandate and authority to do anything about them. You were handed a Ferrari and you treat it like a lawn mower. I don't advocate that an admin loses the tools for minor mistakes or the occassional error in judgement but when you have admins with a longterm pattern of abuse and you and your fellow arb members look the other way, that is disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourselves. Not that I think for a second you are, but you should be. So now we are in a situation were I have advocated so loudly for so long for some basic common sense reforms to how the community deals with abusive admins that I am being banned from the community. And you all think I should have respect for the rules and for policy? Why should I when none of the admins do? You and the other members of Arbcom let a handful of admins treat WP and its editors like a toilet so at this point fuck it, I don't really care if I get blocked or why because at this point none of you are here to build an encylcopedia. Your just here to stroke each others ego's and for validation in your lives. BannedEditor (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hey. The only thing that I would note is that, by now, I am not yet an arbitrator. I understand all your concerns but there is nothing I can do about it. I am only a clerk for the Committee, which is a different position that holds no power on ArbCom rulings. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 21:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes I know your just a clerk, but you are still affiliated with the Arbcom. BannedEditor (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Respond to Viriditas[edit]
@Viriditas: I just wanted to respond to your question. There are a little over 1400 admins on the site if you include bots, bureaucrats, stewards and the like. Of that only about 500-600 have edited in the last 6 months. Of that only about 100-200 are really active and edit more than a couple times a week. Of that, about 10-15 are what would generally be considered to have a history of abusive behavior. So, in order to protect 10-15 abusive admins who shouldn't have the tools, I am being banned from the community. I hope that helps to clarify. BannedEditor (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Do we really have 100-200 active admins on en? The way this place is run is seems like there are less than 50. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's a very good point, it really depends on how you quantify active. I would agree that there are less than 50 who logon everyday and do stuff everyday. There definitely are not enough editors with access to the tools to do the jobs that need to be done, admins or otherwise. Backlogs routinely stretch into unacceptable levels just because the Wikipedia community and editing environment doesn't foster trust in its editors. Adding to that the inability to remove abusive admins and you end up with a pretty volitile and negative situation that will eventually (it already is really) derail the project. BannedEditor (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, and so do I think, more than 20% of active editors, which is all you would need to change the rules. The thing is, you've been saying this for a while and nothing has changed, so it's not what you are saying, it's how you are saying it. Think about that for a bit. Yes, we need to debundle the tools. I don't like AfD, but some people do, and if we need admins there, then we should consider giving people rights in the areas where they edit most effectively. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's a very good point, it really depends on how you quantify active. I would agree that there are less than 50 who logon everyday and do stuff everyday. There definitely are not enough editors with access to the tools to do the jobs that need to be done, admins or otherwise. Backlogs routinely stretch into unacceptable levels just because the Wikipedia community and editing environment doesn't foster trust in its editors. Adding to that the inability to remove abusive admins and you end up with a pretty volitile and negative situation that will eventually (it already is really) derail the project. BannedEditor (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)