| Revision as of 13:26, 20 April 2007 view sourceLoomis51 (talk | contribs)4,197 edits →Resonse to []← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:13, 23 February 2023 view source MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (176 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=I was blocked for objecting to WP:NPA against me|decline=As your block log shows, you had a last chance and you blew it. Even if you hadn't, this kind of request usually doesn't work. — ] (]) 13:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| Please delete my account. I realize that my edits will remain in history and have no problem with that whatsoever. I simply no longer have any interest in contributing to Misplaced Pages. ] 01:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=My block was in contradiction with Misplaced Pages's ]. Beginning in December of '05, I began editing at the RefDesk and enjoyed it immensely. Apparently so did the rest of the RefDesk community, as I was issued plenty of barnstars and drew a significant amount of praise from OP's and fellow editors alike. Yet this was put to an end when a certain other editor began to post responses I disagreed with, as well as to personally attack and offend me relentlessly. The reasons given for my block are vague indeed: "Violated terms of unblock, even after warnings." Yes, I indeed violated the terms of my unblock. However these unmentioned "terms of unblock" were based in no way upon anything to be found in Misplaced Pages's ]. Briefly stated, these terms consisted of being told that I must avoid the other editor in question completely, and should I voice any disagreement whatsoever with her responses, even in the ''politest possible of manners'', I would be in breach of these terms. Now according to Misplaced Pages's blocking policy, editors are to be blocked for behaviour disruptive or damaging to Misplaced Pages. My aim has always been to ''improve'' Misplaced Pages, not to disrupt or damage it, by offering alternative responses to certain particular questions, rather than to let the OP be misled that there is one, and only one authoritative answer to the question asked. I would argue that my being blocked from contributing did far more harm to Wikepedia than any behaviour of mine while there. Is it indeed Misplaced Pages policy that a polite disagreement with another editor's response does more to damage and/or disrupt Misplaced Pages than to have that disagreement stifled, giving the OP the false air that there is no controversy to what is in reality a controversial question? Yes, I rocked the boat a bit, but only to benefit and improve the quality of Misplaced Pages. I'm here to offer my perspectives once again, and since the other editor in question has quit contributing for some two years, I can't possibly see any friction whatsoever. If you would like me to once again offer my perspective, as well as my particular knowledge in certain fields, please unblock me so I can begin again. Likewise, should you be uninterested in my contributions, leave me blocked.|decline=Per the comments of the blocking admin, and considering my observation of probable sock puppetry, I see no reason to unblock the account. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| ===Comment from the original blocking admin === | |||
| == Editing others' comments == | |||
| I find the above request disappointing for a number of reasons. First, an unblock request was placed () – and denied () – by an independent administrator just ''yesterday'', and it strikes me as rather careless of Loomis not to mention that. The extant request is simply a more verbose restatement of the wikilawyering position he took previously. | |||
| Please do not delete the comments of others from talkpages. If you believe a personal attack has occurred, you can ask the individual to retract them or, if serious enough, you can replace them with ''<personal attack removed>''. Thank you. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| More seriously, Loomis appears to be relying on a lack of 'institutional memory' due to turnover on the project in an attempt to rewrite his own history here. | |||
| :Just curious, does this "directive" of yours apply to everyone or just people you disagree with? How about we make a deal. Copy this post, go to eric's talkpage, paste a copy there, and I'll gladly do as you suggest and never delete another's post. Should a policy apply equally to everyone, I'll observe it with enthusiasm. Otherwise, if it's applied unequally, I have no respect for it, and see no purpose in paying even the slightest bit of attention to it. ] 00:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The real reason for Loomis51's block is clear from this talk page's history. After repeated, explicit warnings and escalating blocks issued by at least three different editors, Loomis insisted on continuing a campaign of harrassment directed at another Misplaced Pages editor. For that, he was blocked. | |||
| ::: I am not aware of any instance where eric removed another's comments as a personal attack, from a talk-page. Next time he does so, feel free to let me know and I'll leave the same note. Also this "directive" of mine is a corollary to ] and thus applies to everyone. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 02:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| See and for the conditions under which his last unblock was issued, and the reason why he was subsequently indefinitely blocked. For nearly a month, his only contributions to Misplaced Pages were to pursue his dispute with another editor. | |||
| No problem, here's the particular instance I was referring to, from the Humanities RefDesk, March 21: | |||
| Note that even ''before'' he was blocked from Misplaced Pages, he chose to take his show on the road, and made extensive use of our sister project Wikiversity to launch a fresh broadside of attacks (under the usernames Loomis and Lewis) in a venue where Misplaced Pages's administrators were less likely to take note of his behaviour. | |||
| Within one of her posts, Clio the Muse made the following remark: | |||
| * "Clio, a clearly disturbed individual"; "Clio is INDEED a Nazi Apologist" | |||
| * "Eric or Clio or Ten...have skulls that are so damn thick they're absolutely inpenetrable...trying to convince them of the painfully obvious is an impossible task." | |||
| * "that spoiled brat of a revisionist historian"; "...he's probably the only one who's actually stupid enough to actually be speaking honestly when he denies the reality that's so obvious to everyone else"; "I'm openly referring to Friday as an imbecile, and Ten as an opportunistic egomaniacal prick" | |||
| * "...disgusting and pathetic a person she is"; "she's a disgusting person"; "the obnoxious, conceited disgusting monster she is" | |||
| * "Clio pretty much fits the bill as the model New Antisemite"; "She just doesn't come as a "bad" person to me. Yes, she's obnoxious as all hell, completely lacking in social skills, incapable of any form of humility whatsoever, incapable of ever admitting she's wrong, extremely lax when throwing around supposed "facts"...." | |||
| Finally, the argument that he should be unblocked since the editor he was harrassing has left the project is specious. As he apparently sees nothing wrong with his previous conduct (the above abuse qualifies as merely ''rock the boat a bit, to benefit and improve the quality of Misplaced Pages''), I have little confidence that this problem will not recur the next time he encounters someone with whom he has a disagreement. | |||
| "Since 1933 the Jews of Germany had experienced a steady escalation of anti-semitic measures: in Austria they came all at once, a combination of official policy and an outburst of years of built-up resentment and hatred by the local Nazi movement." | |||
| It was at Loomis' emailed request that I unprotected this talk page to allow him the opportunity to post – and have considered – an unblock request. I had ''hoped'' that he would acknowledge his previous mistakes, or at least recognize that attempting to rehash past disputes would be a fruitless endeavour. It would have been nice to see some awareness that his singleminded focus on Clio wasn't helpful to him or to the project. If he had been prepared to say, "''Yes, I blew it a year and a half ago; I got into a badly overblown dispute with another editor; I've learned from it and I won't do it again''" then we might have something to work with here. | |||
| I was particularly offended by that ''statement'', and responded with the following post: | |||
| As it stands, Loomis is attempting (twice in as many days, as he didn't take the hint from the first unblock denial) to resume the ''exact same debate'' that got him blocked the last time around. If nearly two years of reflection haven't sufficed to allow Loomis to release his grudges, I don't know what will. As the last blocking admin, I won't turn down the unblock request myself, but I strongly recommend that it be denied. Any admins reviewing this request can feel free to drop me a line if there is need for further background material. ](]) 13:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| "Though I'm dedicated to holding true to my word, I must make occasional exceptions. Hopefully I'll never have to do this again. I'd just like to say that I take extreme offence at even the mere suggestion that Nazism and the ensuing Holocaust can in any way, shape or form, be rationalized, even to the slightest degree, as being the result of some sort of "outburst of years of built-up resentment". The admittedly harsh treatment of the German people meted out by the Treaty of Versailles is in no possible shape or form an excuse for Nazism. Hyperinflation, exhorbitant war reparations, economic chaos and the disdain of the rest of the world may all indeed be a real bitch, yet still are utterly unacceptable rationales, unworthy of mention, in examining the rise of the Third Reich. Many other peoples have undergone far worse treatment, yet never sunk to such levels of unprecedented inhumanity." | |||
| :As the admin requesting this comment - thanks, and I agree with Jehochman's declining the unblock request. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Despite the fact that I never even refered to the author by name, Eric decided upon himself to remove my post. | |||
| :NB: I've restored the original unblock request/denial from the page history for reference. ](]) 16:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I asked him to explain his removal, and he basically told me that even without so much as mentioning her name, I somehow stil managed to personally attack her: | |||
| ===Rebuttal to Comment From the Original Blocking Admin === | |||
| First off, my apologies for not mentioning my previous unblock request. It was apparently filed in improper form, and I honestly didn't see any purpose in mentioning it. | |||
| "Loomis, in answer to your question, i removed your response because it provided no value to the reference desk, and was merely a transparent attempt to continue this ongoing campaign of yours to malign another editor." | |||
| "More seriously, Loomis appears to be relying on a lack of 'institutional memory' due to turnover on the project in an attempt to rewrite his own history here." With respect, gratuitous editorial comments such as these are uncalled for. | |||
| Basically, my post was removed either because he believed that I had somehow personally attacked her without so much as mentioning her name or commenting on her as a person in any way, or worse, because he simply disagreed with what I was saying. | |||
| "The real reason for Loomis51's block is clear from this talk page's history. After repeated, explicit warnings and escalating blocks issued by at least three different editors, Loomis insisted on continuing a campaign of harrassment directed at another Misplaced Pages editor. For that, he was blocked." With respect, this is a rather gross mischaracterization of events. There simply was no "campaign of harrassment". The pattern is simple. I would politely disagree with the editor in question, upon which she launched a salvo of personal attacks. At first I would consult an Admin, and plead with him to censure her, to no avail. So yes, my frustration got the better of me, and I responeded in kind, leading me to be warned several times, and ultimately blocked. | |||
| Should I take it that I'll be seeing a note at his talkpage sometime soon? ] 04:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| "See and for the conditions under which his last unblock was issued, and the reason why he was subsequently indefinitely blocked." | |||
| ::Lewis, an important difference is that you've been showing really bad judgment on what is or isn't appropriate to delete. If you think this is a double standard, you're right. Misplaced Pages has a double standard on purpose: reasonable actions are treated differently than unreasonable actions. ] ] 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| These weren't the conditions I discussed with Rockpocket via private email: | |||
| :::Does this somehow account for why Clio (amongst others) is basically allowed to dish out the most vile of personal attacks upon me without even the slightest of criticism, whereas eric is allowed to delete an entire post of mine that disagreed with hers, yet never either explicitly nor even implicitly consisted of any personal attack on her in any shape or form? And now ''you're'' preaching to ''me'' about "bad judgment"? | |||
| "You say that you give me your word that you will respond without bias to whatever concerns I bring up. So I'll take you at your word. I'm fully prepared to be absolutely civil in my behaviour. HOWEVER, DO NOT FORGET THAT YOU GAVE ME YOUR WORD. I give you my word to be civil and you give me your word to be fair. As long as both words are kept, I see no problem and am fully prepared to return. And please do not be concerned that I'll be coming to you to complain about every tiny little insignificant infraction. Only significant concerns will be raised. I suggest that you don't rush to unblock me without giving this agreement full consideration. Only should you be absolutely certain that we are indeed in full agreement, and that you're as prepared to live up to your end of it as I am prepared to live up to mine, do I hereby officially request to be unblocked." | |||
| :::For example, just the other day, in response to a post of mine, Vranak responded with three simple words: "You are boring." How would you describe that statement? Is it just me, or was that pretty much the very definition of a personal attack? If you caught that one, yet decided that ''in your judgment'' it didn't amount to a personal attack and didn't warrant a comment on his talkpage, I'd say that it is ''your'' judgment, not mine, that is sorely deficient. But maybe you missed it because it was just so short and so unimaginative. That's perfectly understandable. However, now that it's been brought to your attention, I would only expect that it would be a mere matter of common sense for you to bring to his attention the fact that he was clearly in violation of ] and insist that he refrain from such personal attacks in the future. As I said, it's a mere matter of common sense. Yet should you decide not to act, it would be equally a matter of common sense as well as the clearest of proof that you actually consciously condone personal attacks upon me. | |||
| These, in fact were the terms of my unblocking. | |||
| :::Put yourself in my shoes. Can you honestly tell me that if you were expected to be civil and polite at all times, yet the admins openly condone others making the most blatant of personal attacks upon you, you wouldn't be any less frustrated by it all than I am? And what do you think is driving all this admittedly disruptive behaviour of mine but the sheer frustration of it all? C'mon Friday, be honest with me. I've said it before and I'll say it again. The answer is so incredibly simple. All I ask for is to be treated with a minimum degree of respect, and only that same minimum that I'm expected to treat others with. What I just can't understand is why that simple, modest request is considered so unreasonable. Hopefully you'll acknowledge and understand, and as a responsible admin, put in your best effort to finally make it clear to the rest of the community that they're expected to treat me with the same degree of respect as I am expected to treat them. Otherwise, can you really blame me for being deliberately disruptive in an environment where the admins openly condone and perhaps even encourage others to treat me with no respect whatsoever, yet where I'm expected to behave in a completely respectful manner towards all others? Of course you can't. I'm sure you'd react in very similar fashion. ] 01:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Yet Rockpocket did not at all live up to his word. Once again I politely disagreed with one of the editor in question's responses, and yet again she returned with a full salvo personal of attacks. As was my agreement with Rockpoket, I responded with nothing. Instead I made him aware of the attacks, and expected some sort of warning be given to the editor in question, only to be turned a deaf ear. | |||
| :Oh c'mon Friday, that whole "rant" tactic for dodging a convincing argument is getting really tiresome and so, so transparent. Can you at least explain to me how the above nicely structured, completely ''on-topic'' (we were both talking about "appropriate behaviour" and "good/bad judgment" were we not?) three paragraphs can in any way be characterized as a "rant"? Of course not. | |||
| However the terms of my unblocking were somehow transformed into: | |||
| :In any case, you obviously read the part about Vranak personally attacking me by responding to a post of mine with the three words: "You are boring". Yet you didn't consider that obvious violation of ] worthy of even acknowledging, much less actually commenting on his talkpage about. | |||
| "You will cease and desist from any communication with Clio whatsoever. If you choose to respond the same question as her, or write in the same article, you will do so without any reference, no matter how oblique to her or her answer. Indeed any reference to her here, or on Wikiversity, will result in a block." | |||
| :Basically, in answer to my question as to whether you condone personal attacks upon me, your answer seems to be a clear "YES". | |||
| "For nearly a month, his only contributions to Misplaced Pages were to pursue his dispute with another editor." On the contrary, there was nothing I could have wanted more than for the dispute to end so that I can return to contributing. | |||
| :That understood, what possible respect do you honestly expect me to have for you or your opinions? | |||
| Of course I didn't contribute anything. I was forbidden from disagreeing were the editor in question in any shape or form, and seeing as she participated in responding to the vast majoriy of questions asked, I was pretty much shut out from the RefDesk. | |||
| :None. | |||
| : All I have to say is that: | |||
| :Friday, you are boring. ] 04:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :# Loomis was not a party to the discussions I had with the other editor in question, and therefore has no idea of how I "kept my word" to be fair in my efforts to keep both editors editing. | |||
| :# The diffs show that Loomis was ''not'', in any reasonable interpretation, "absolutely civil in behaviour." | |||
| :# The Ref Desk is not a discussion forum, and therefore expressing agreement or disagreement with other editors is not a necessary (or even encouraged) for full participation. The conditions were clear and fair: Loomis was free to contribute like anyone else so long as he didn't use to it as a forum to perpetuate personal disagreements. The other editor in question agreed to this also, and stuck to it. | |||
| :# I did not block Loomis (quite the opposite, I unblocked him despite misgivings by other admins, and continued to try and keep him from being reblocked), therefore my actions are somewhat beside the point. | |||
| : ]<span style="color:black;">e</span>] 17:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Which diffs are you referring to? | |||
| ::In case it wasn't apparent, the thing that turned me off about your statement was that you didn't even get through a single sentence without mentioning the alleged crimes of some other editor. Your latest response is just more of the same. How is this relevant? You don't need to respect me; you're allowed to ignore me or tell me to buzz off. What you can't do is be persistently disruptive. ] ] 05:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Correct, the RefDesk is not a discussion forum, and I don't recall ever expressing any "disagreement" with the editor in question. However the RefDesk ''is'' a forum that represnts itself as being factually correct, is it not? If one editor is factually incorrect, or employs a logical fallacy, correcting that incorrect fact or that logical fallacy does not amount to mere disagreement. Should one editor posit that 1+1=3, and another correct that statement by simply stating: "Incorrect. 1+1=2," would you classify this "disagreement" as an innapropriate engagement in "discussion", unsuitable for the RefDesk? | |||
| ==Resonse to ]== | |||
| "Loomis was not a party to the discussions I had with the other editor in question." Indeed I was not. However the agreement was that Rockpocket " me word that will respond '''without bias''' to whatever concerns I bring up." I recieved public censure for my innapropriate behaviour, yet the editor in question did not, for her far more innapropriate behaviour. What is this if not bias? Why was my innapropriate behaviour publicly censured, while hers was not? | |||
| Hello Lewis. The apparent rift has also troubled me. I've been tossing up whether to send you a private email, but until I knew what I wanted to say I couldn't make a start on it. Thanks for providing the opportunity by reaching out. | |||
| Clio: "Lewis Posesses an Almost Total Lack of Intellectual Comprehension". | |||
| Much of your message troubles me. Along with some of your recent posts to the Ref Desk Talk page, it seems to indicate that your internal world and mine are very different places, which doesn't bode well for any kind of ongoing friendship. Nevertheless, it's now fully accepted by the scientific community that men and women are from different planets - and ''they'' seem to get on ok, so there's hope for us yet. I always live in hope. I hope that, after you’ve read and absorbed the following, you’ll still have respect for what you so graciously call my wisdom, kindness and generosity of spirit. But I have no control over that. All I can do is put it out there and see what happens next. | |||
| Not only did Clio not get the mildest of public censure for it, indeed it was in merely asking the question as to why these types of extreme personal attacks against me are allowed without even the mildest of disapproval that ultimately got ME permanently blocked, as constituting what Ten refers to as a "campaign of harrassment". | |||
| One of the things that has confounded me recently is knowing just where you're at. You left the Ref Desk with a message on your user page; then you said you were leaving Misplaced Pages entirely to go to a different site; then you came to the Talk page and urged others to leave Misplaced Pages as you had done (''Leave! For the love of God leave!''); then you engaged in discussion with others on the Talk Page; then you removed your user page entirely; then you continued to engage in discussion on the Ref Desk talk page; and now you're talking to me as if you and I are just ordinary fellow Wikipedians, and interceding on behalf of another Wikipedian - yet your user page remains nowhere to be seen. (I may have the sequence of events wrong). I can't see anything wrong with any of these actions, in isolation. But together, to me, they paint a picture of a man who is not grounded, at the present time. I find it extraordinarily hard to relate to or have reasonable communication with people in real life who seem to present different faces, or contradictory positions - which may help to explain why I've been avoiding contact with you for a while; I just don't know which Lewis is turning up here from day to day. Is it the one I formed a good bond with, or some other Lewis? I hope you can see my dilemma. And now you seem to be seeing a different Jack, too. Has Jack changed so much, or at all? Or is Lewis viewing Jack through different eyes? ] said that the voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having different eyes. Is your voyage of discovery concerned with discovering me, or discovering yourself? I have no idea what the foregoing means, I just felt compelled to put it down as it came to me. | |||
| So I basically asked the question: "Why won't anyone please tell Clio that saying "Lewis Posesses an Almost Total Lack of Intellectual Comprehension" constitutes a personal attack?" | |||
| About A.Z. - what can I say? He and I exchanged messages some time back. There were always friendly relations between us, we have some things in common, and at a personal level I've never felt any way towards him other than warm, welcoming and friendly. My last message to him prior to yesterday (''']''', in response to ''']''' from him) invited him to come to my talk page at any time to talk about anything he wanted to. He's yet to do so, and I have no problem with that. Yesterday, I sent him ''']''', but I’ve not had a chance to look at his reply yet because I’ve been busy writing this message to you. A.Z. has never revealed his age to me; all I know is that he's studying at university, which could make him anywhere from 18 upwards. But I think age is irrelevant here. We can't be in the business of adjusting our responses based on a user's age - unless they tell us they're a child, for example. The basic assumption I work on is that other users are adults – (btw, 18 is the age of majority in most places these days, so A.Z. is not a "boy") - and I treat them that way and expect to be treated that way in return. That doesn't mean treating them harshly, just equally, and everyone here expects everyone to be responsible for the words they write here. | |||
| Ten: "In daring to ask that question Lewis is once again continuing with his "campaign of harrassment" against Clio. Lewis must therefore be permanently blocked." | |||
| Without rehashing my exchanges with A.Z. about personal opinions etc, what I would say is that I was a little frustrated by his apparent mercuriality (if that's a word). One time he'd present an argument for one position, then next time he'd present an equally strong argument for what seemed to me to be a diametrically opposing position. As I said above, I find that very hard to deal with, and it did get under my skin to a degree. This was particularly the case when he interpreted my support for a longstanding Misplaced Pages core policy as being "harmful to Misplaced Pages". That came close to hurting me, but I kept the lid on as much as I could. If some steam was escaping, that tells you how much my blood was boiling. However, I don't believe I've ever been uncivil to him, made a personal attack, or assumed lack of good faith. The intensity of language can vary quite a lot without reaching those boundaries, and I do my darnedest to stay within the zone. Although he seems to write English better than a lot of native speakers, he says he has difficulty with both expressing himself and understanding others in a written English environment. I took him at his word, and went to some trouble to keep him responsible for his own argument, explain where it was being illogical and contradictory, and pointing out what I thought may have been a fundamental misunderstanding on his part, the meaning of the phrase "personal opinion". He responded fairly robustly to all my posts, until the discussion was stopped and archived. My last post was to tell him that his argument that all opinions are opinions about oneself was a non-argument. I was rebutting his argument, not personally attacking ''him''. I believe in saying what I have to say as concisely as I can, generally speaking (this post is a good example of an exception); if this is sometimes interpreted by others as terseness, and further interpreted as rudeness, that is a matter for them. It’s often tempting to try to divine the mood of a writer, as if we are with them in the same room and can see their body language or hear their voice tone. But we can’t do this. And I don’t have to almost apologetically put a smiley at the end of each and every strong, assertive statement I make, to ensure that the reader is not offended. If a post is strictly about the topic, as mine was, it is folly to make the leap into making it out to be a personal criticism. OK, I know this is not an exact science and the edges are rather fuzzy, but those are the kinds of guidelines I work by. They’ve served me well, and I don’t propose to be changing them any time soon. | |||
| Insanity. ] (]) 06:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Back to A.Z. At no time did I get a hint of any hurt being caused. He has never said that to me, either on the Ref Desk Talk page or in a personal message to me. Why he would make these statements to a third party, and not to me, is a mystery. Not knowing what he has said to you, you would appreciate I am in absolutely no position to respond. In any event, I would respond to what he actually says to ''me'', not to any third party. As for him being "extremely sensitive" - I don't doubt that for a moment, but again, how is it reasonable to be required to take such a thing into account when framing one's responses on a Misplaced Pages talk page? Should we be required to tippy-toe around people we perceive to be extremely sensitive? No, certainly not. If responses are civil and to the point, and don't break any guidelines, they're perfectly acceptable. If he's so sensitive that he has a problem with that, then ... he has a problem with that, and it's something he's going to have to resolve, both here and, more importantly, in the real world. I'm sure he's beautiful, too - Brazilian men have a well-deserved reputation. The best I can hope at this stage is that A.Z. reads this and derives some benefit from it. | |||
| == socking == | |||
| One thing you need to understand about me, Lewis. It is simply not in my nature to ever intend to hurt anybody, here or anywhere, about anything. But I’m human (I know this may come as a shock) and I sometimes make mistakes. I’m always happy to apologise for anything I’ve done wrong, including any offence I have unintentionally caused, and have done so a number of times on Misplaced Pages. I do it in real life all the time. In some cases, ongoing heated disgreements lead to a decision to permanently distance myself from particular people, rather than continue a pointless and ultimately damaging dialogue. But that’s rare. There’s only one Wikipedian I’ve had to make that decision about in the 4 years I’ve been hanging around here, and he's unlikely to be anyone you’ve ever had dealings with. | |||
| I believe this account has been evading its block as {{checkip|76.14.124.175}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Now to the most troubling part of your message: | |||
| :* ''"I was just skimming over the above posts with utter disbelief. The friendships you seem to have developed with those so utterly beneath you such as Rockpocket, Ten, Clio, Friday, eric, and so many others, along with the animoosity that's developed between us, as well as between you and the two remaining (used to be three in that it included you!) truly decent people here, A.Z. and Stu, makes me wonder if the brilliant and kind Jack that I used to believe existed truly ever did."'' | |||
| Lewis, I don’t regard any other human being as being beneath me. We are all equals. What people may '''do or say''', and who they '''are''', are 2 very different things. I’ve said this to you in previous messages, but you don’t seem to have accepted it. | |||
| To concoct an extreme example: if one of my sons murdered someone in cold blood and I was the only other person who knew about it, I would urge him as strongly as possible to give himself up to the police and take the consequences, and if he failed to do so very quickly, I would report him. I could not possibly condone his actions, and he must be subject to the law like everybody else. But would I stop loving him unconditionally for even a millisecond? – not a chance. It’s his '''behaviour''' that I would be holding in contempt, not '''him'''. | |||
| Basically - and I simply don’t know any kinder way to say this - you have a colossal hide to think that you can decide for me who I should associate with or not. I make absolutely no apology for daring to have friendly relations with people you have had disagreements with. '''There are no sides here'''. I'll say it again: '''There are no sides here'''. We’re all on the same side – Misplaced Pages (ever heard of it?). If you can’t accept that and make Misplaced Pages your main focus, then maybe it’s best you stay away until you can. And when I say "stay away", I mean "stay away" - totally, absolutely, no popping in from time to time. I don’t say that lightly, but I do say it genuinely, as a friend. | |||
| Further, if you think I will for one moment agree that there are only 3 decent people here, you’re monumentally mistaken. Who are you, or anyone, to decide whether any particular person is "decent" or not? You’re still not separating people from their actions. Stop personalising everything, and stop labelling people, no matter whether in positive or negative terms. | |||
| You may have genuine grievances about being subjected to sanctions that others who’ve done worse things haven’t been subjected to. I accept that, and agree that it doesn’t seem fair. But how is that any different from real life? You get nabbed for speeding, but the car in front of you was going 20 mph faster and they weren’t nabbed. That’s unfair, but that’s the way it is. The point is, '''you''' were speeding, '''you''' broke the law, '''you''' were caught, and so '''you''' pay the price. You just have to cop it sweet and assume responsibility for '''your''' actions. Going on about how others have got away scot-free gets you nowhere, except to be seen as a whingeing trouble maker. They’ll get their just desserts in due course – have you ever heard of karma? | |||
| :I just have to interrupt you here for one moment, as words such as "racial profiling" and "prejudicial law enforcement" come screaming to mind. Ever heard of those? (And when I say "racial", I mean it only as an analogy, I don't for a moment actually think that my "race" is in any way involved here). But do you honestly believe that it's just "karma" as you put it, that time and time and time again, it's only my car that gets nabbed, and never the other one? "Luck" and "coincidence" have their limits. There comes to a point where one must face reality that there's a persistent bias in the system that needs to be adressed. | |||
| If I could remake history, there’s one comment I made recently that I would say differently - ''"There's really nothing in the foregoing that's worthy of any response"''. That was poorly worded, and it led to your opinion of me being lowered. I’m sorry for that outcome. It’s not that I didn’t care that you felt you were being wronged by previous goings-on, but that I didn’t see it as my personal responsibility to fix the problem. I was annoyed by the ''"Leave! For the love of God leave!"'' heading and what initially followed it; which is why I said you couldn’t have it both ways. Meaning, either leave and stay away, or remain here and contribute in a positive manner. I was further annoyed by "''I, Lewis, hereby promise never to return here again, EVER! Except now and then when I feel like it."'' To me, this was trivialising and mocking the very issue you were raising. How can you encourage '''others''' to leave, and in such melodramatic, almost panic-stricken language, but at the same time choose to drop in whenever it suits '''you'''. How was that acting with any sort of integrity or consistency? What sort of game were you playing? Is it any wonder some people don't take some of your genuine posts seriously, because they see you as ]? These were the questions in my mind at the time (and to a large degree, still are). It seemed to be a classic case of ''"Do what I say, not what I do"''. That’s what my post was about, but I was just over it by that stage and didn’t have the mental energy to say any more. (Yes, even I, your personal guru, get tired and depleted sometimes). | |||
| :It's a shame that you didn't catch the fact that that line was meant completely as a parody of how I'm treated by the admins. ''"Do what I say, not what I do"'' is actually a perfect way of expressing it. | |||
| This has been a long post, probably the longest I’ve ever posted on any WP page in 4 years. To that extent, you can regard it as a compliment to you that I would take the time and trouble to say what I have to say so comprehensively. I hope it will serve a positive purpose. | |||
| Please go back to the start and re-read it before doing anything. | |||
| Best wishes/Jack. | |||
| ] 05:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You do realize, of course, that if it were I who just wrote this, it would be no matter its sensibility or the truths it may hold, it would invariably be dismissed as an "incoherent rant". Yes, I will read it over and think about it before even attempting any full response, but for the time being, try and imagine if I had responded quite simply: | |||
| ::"Jack, the foregoing is no more than yet another incoherent rant of yours, and as such I see no point in responding". | |||
| :You see, I too am only human. Though this may sound reminiscent of a Shakespearean soliloquy, trust me in that that fact only occurred to me ''after'' I had thought it through in my head. If you (not YOU, but the general "you" as in "one") insult me, I get hurt and can't help but insult you back. If I'm then reprimanded for the insult but you're not, I can't help but get frustrated. If I try to explain the unfairness of it all and you further insult me by telling me that my explanation is but a mere rant, not worthy of being read, I can't help but get incredibly angry. Not only have you lowered me to subhuman status by basically making it clear to all involved that I'm unworthy of the protection granted to everyone else by the ] guideline, but now you're basically telling me that I'm an insane retard retard who can't write in coherent English. Take a look at the above exchange between Friday and me as the perfect possible of examples. Now multiply that by about 100 and you might get at least some idea as to what the past six months have been like for me here at Misplaced Pages. Have I been acting irrationally? Of course! Though you may think better of yourself, faced with the same continuous abuse I'm sure you'd behave no more rationally, for sch irrationality would be the natural and healthy response of a human being being treated with the utmost of disrespect. ] 13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:13, 23 February 2023
Loomis51 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked for objecting to WP:NPA against me
Decline reason:
As your block log shows, you had a last chance and you blew it. Even if you hadn't, this kind of request usually doesn't work. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:59, 25 March 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.
Loomis51 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My block was in contradiction with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy. Beginning in December of '05, I began editing at the RefDesk and enjoyed it immensely. Apparently so did the rest of the RefDesk community, as I was issued plenty of barnstars and drew a significant amount of praise from OP's and fellow editors alike. Yet this was put to an end when a certain other editor began to post responses I disagreed with, as well as to personally attack and offend me relentlessly. The reasons given for my block are vague indeed: "Violated terms of unblock, even after warnings." Yes, I indeed violated the terms of my unblock. However these unmentioned "terms of unblock" were based in no way upon anything to be found in Misplaced Pages's blocking policy. Briefly stated, these terms consisted of being told that I must avoid the other editor in question completely, and should I voice any disagreement whatsoever with her responses, even in the politest possible of manners, I would be in breach of these terms. Now according to Misplaced Pages's blocking policy, editors are to be blocked for behaviour disruptive or damaging to Misplaced Pages. My aim has always been to improve Misplaced Pages, not to disrupt or damage it, by offering alternative responses to certain particular questions, rather than to let the OP be misled that there is one, and only one authoritative answer to the question asked. I would argue that my being blocked from contributing did far more harm to Wikepedia than any behaviour of mine while there. Is it indeed Misplaced Pages policy that a polite disagreement with another editor's response does more to damage and/or disrupt Misplaced Pages than to have that disagreement stifled, giving the OP the false air that there is no controversy to what is in reality a controversial question? Yes, I rocked the boat a bit, but only to benefit and improve the quality of Misplaced Pages. I'm here to offer my perspectives once again, and since the other editor in question has quit contributing for some two years, I can't possibly see any friction whatsoever. If you would like me to once again offer my perspective, as well as my particular knowledge in certain fields, please unblock me so I can begin again. Likewise, should you be uninterested in my contributions, leave me blocked.
Decline reason:
Per the comments of the blocking admin, and considering my observation of probable sock puppetry, I see no reason to unblock the account. Jehochman 15:28, 26 March 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.
Comment from the original blocking admin
I find the above request disappointing for a number of reasons. First, an unblock request was placed () – and denied () – by an independent administrator just yesterday, and it strikes me as rather careless of Loomis not to mention that. The extant request is simply a more verbose restatement of the wikilawyering position he took previously.
More seriously, Loomis appears to be relying on a lack of 'institutional memory' due to turnover on the project in an attempt to rewrite his own history here.
The real reason for Loomis51's block is clear from this talk page's history. After repeated, explicit warnings and escalating blocks issued by at least three different editors, Loomis insisted on continuing a campaign of harrassment directed at another Misplaced Pages editor. For that, he was blocked.
See and for the conditions under which his last unblock was issued, and the reason why he was subsequently indefinitely blocked. For nearly a month, his only contributions to Misplaced Pages were to pursue his dispute with another editor.
Note that even before he was blocked from Misplaced Pages, he chose to take his show on the road, and made extensive use of our sister project Wikiversity to launch a fresh broadside of attacks (under the usernames Loomis and Lewis) in a venue where Misplaced Pages's administrators were less likely to take note of his behaviour.
- "Clio, a clearly disturbed individual"; "Clio is INDEED a Nazi Apologist"
- "Eric or Clio or Ten...have skulls that are so damn thick they're absolutely inpenetrable...trying to convince them of the painfully obvious is an impossible task."
- "that spoiled brat of a revisionist historian"; "...he's probably the only one who's actually stupid enough to actually be speaking honestly when he denies the reality that's so obvious to everyone else"; "I'm openly referring to Friday as an imbecile, and Ten as an opportunistic egomaniacal prick"
- "...disgusting and pathetic a person she is"; "she's a disgusting person"; "the obnoxious, conceited disgusting monster she is"
- "Clio pretty much fits the bill as the model New Antisemite"; "She just doesn't come as a "bad" person to me. Yes, she's obnoxious as all hell, completely lacking in social skills, incapable of any form of humility whatsoever, incapable of ever admitting she's wrong, extremely lax when throwing around supposed "facts"...."
Finally, the argument that he should be unblocked since the editor he was harrassing has left the project is specious. As he apparently sees nothing wrong with his previous conduct (the above abuse qualifies as merely rock the boat a bit, to benefit and improve the quality of Misplaced Pages), I have little confidence that this problem will not recur the next time he encounters someone with whom he has a disagreement.
It was at Loomis' emailed request that I unprotected this talk page to allow him the opportunity to post – and have considered – an unblock request. I had hoped that he would acknowledge his previous mistakes, or at least recognize that attempting to rehash past disputes would be a fruitless endeavour. It would have been nice to see some awareness that his singleminded focus on Clio wasn't helpful to him or to the project. If he had been prepared to say, "Yes, I blew it a year and a half ago; I got into a badly overblown dispute with another editor; I've learned from it and I won't do it again" then we might have something to work with here.
As it stands, Loomis is attempting (twice in as many days, as he didn't take the hint from the first unblock denial) to resume the exact same debate that got him blocked the last time around. If nearly two years of reflection haven't sufficed to allow Loomis to release his grudges, I don't know what will. As the last blocking admin, I won't turn down the unblock request myself, but I strongly recommend that it be denied. Any admins reviewing this request can feel free to drop me a line if there is need for further background material. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- As the admin requesting this comment - thanks, and I agree with Jehochman's declining the unblock request. Sandstein 15:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- NB: I've restored the original unblock request/denial from the page history for reference. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Rebuttal to Comment From the Original Blocking Admin
First off, my apologies for not mentioning my previous unblock request. It was apparently filed in improper form, and I honestly didn't see any purpose in mentioning it.
"More seriously, Loomis appears to be relying on a lack of 'institutional memory' due to turnover on the project in an attempt to rewrite his own history here." With respect, gratuitous editorial comments such as these are uncalled for.
"The real reason for Loomis51's block is clear from this talk page's history. After repeated, explicit warnings and escalating blocks issued by at least three different editors, Loomis insisted on continuing a campaign of harrassment directed at another Misplaced Pages editor. For that, he was blocked." With respect, this is a rather gross mischaracterization of events. There simply was no "campaign of harrassment". The pattern is simple. I would politely disagree with the editor in question, upon which she launched a salvo of personal attacks. At first I would consult an Admin, and plead with him to censure her, to no avail. So yes, my frustration got the better of me, and I responeded in kind, leading me to be warned several times, and ultimately blocked.
"See and for the conditions under which his last unblock was issued, and the reason why he was subsequently indefinitely blocked."
These weren't the conditions I discussed with Rockpocket via private email:
"You say that you give me your word that you will respond without bias to whatever concerns I bring up. So I'll take you at your word. I'm fully prepared to be absolutely civil in my behaviour. HOWEVER, DO NOT FORGET THAT YOU GAVE ME YOUR WORD. I give you my word to be civil and you give me your word to be fair. As long as both words are kept, I see no problem and am fully prepared to return. And please do not be concerned that I'll be coming to you to complain about every tiny little insignificant infraction. Only significant concerns will be raised. I suggest that you don't rush to unblock me without giving this agreement full consideration. Only should you be absolutely certain that we are indeed in full agreement, and that you're as prepared to live up to your end of it as I am prepared to live up to mine, do I hereby officially request to be unblocked."
These, in fact were the terms of my unblocking.
Yet Rockpocket did not at all live up to his word. Once again I politely disagreed with one of the editor in question's responses, and yet again she returned with a full salvo personal of attacks. As was my agreement with Rockpoket, I responded with nothing. Instead I made him aware of the attacks, and expected some sort of warning be given to the editor in question, only to be turned a deaf ear.
However the terms of my unblocking were somehow transformed into:
"You will cease and desist from any communication with Clio whatsoever. If you choose to respond the same question as her, or write in the same article, you will do so without any reference, no matter how oblique to her or her answer. Indeed any reference to her here, or on Wikiversity, will result in a block."
"For nearly a month, his only contributions to Misplaced Pages were to pursue his dispute with another editor." On the contrary, there was nothing I could have wanted more than for the dispute to end so that I can return to contributing.
Of course I didn't contribute anything. I was forbidden from disagreeing were the editor in question in any shape or form, and seeing as she participated in responding to the vast majoriy of questions asked, I was pretty much shut out from the RefDesk.
- All I have to say is that:
- Loomis was not a party to the discussions I had with the other editor in question, and therefore has no idea of how I "kept my word" to be fair in my efforts to keep both editors editing.
- The diffs show that Loomis was not, in any reasonable interpretation, "absolutely civil in behaviour."
- The Ref Desk is not a discussion forum, and therefore expressing agreement or disagreement with other editors is not a necessary (or even encouraged) for full participation. The conditions were clear and fair: Loomis was free to contribute like anyone else so long as he didn't use to it as a forum to perpetuate personal disagreements. The other editor in question agreed to this also, and stuck to it.
- I did not block Loomis (quite the opposite, I unblocked him despite misgivings by other admins, and continued to try and keep him from being reblocked), therefore my actions are somewhat beside the point.
- Rockpocket 17:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Which diffs are you referring to?
Correct, the RefDesk is not a discussion forum, and I don't recall ever expressing any "disagreement" with the editor in question. However the RefDesk is a forum that represnts itself as being factually correct, is it not? If one editor is factually incorrect, or employs a logical fallacy, correcting that incorrect fact or that logical fallacy does not amount to mere disagreement. Should one editor posit that 1+1=3, and another correct that statement by simply stating: "Incorrect. 1+1=2," would you classify this "disagreement" as an innapropriate engagement in "discussion", unsuitable for the RefDesk?
"Loomis was not a party to the discussions I had with the other editor in question." Indeed I was not. However the agreement was that Rockpocket " me word that will respond without bias to whatever concerns I bring up." I recieved public censure for my innapropriate behaviour, yet the editor in question did not, for her far more innapropriate behaviour. What is this if not bias? Why was my innapropriate behaviour publicly censured, while hers was not?
Clio: "Lewis Posesses an Almost Total Lack of Intellectual Comprehension".
Not only did Clio not get the mildest of public censure for it, indeed it was in merely asking the question as to why these types of extreme personal attacks against me are allowed without even the mildest of disapproval that ultimately got ME permanently blocked, as constituting what Ten refers to as a "campaign of harrassment".
So I basically asked the question: "Why won't anyone please tell Clio that saying "Lewis Posesses an Almost Total Lack of Intellectual Comprehension" constitutes a personal attack?"
Ten: "In daring to ask that question Lewis is once again continuing with his "campaign of harrassment" against Clio. Lewis must therefore be permanently blocked."
Insanity. Lewis (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
socking
I believe this account has been evading its block as 76.14.124.175 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). Jehochman 11:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)