User talk:Sixty Six

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Caveat to the Emptors 2 Hey there 3 Diane Carey 4 Your comment at Sceptre's talk page 5 Unwarranted and unexplained blocking 6 Heh 7 "HEH" Explained 8 I'm watching, hope you get unbanned soon 9 Still Watching 10 This Has Become A Shameful Fiasco On The Part Of The Admins 11 Why Are The Admins Being So Hardnosed? 12 Sixty Six's Whereabouts 13 Matthew Fenton's User Page

[edit] Caveat to the Emptors

(I've C&P'd this here, since some of you fail to read the user page before hitting the talk page)

When it comes to Wikipedia article contributions you have issues with, constructive criticims I will at least give a listen to; the more rational and logical, the better chance I won't simply tell you to frack off. Most importantly, don't hide behind an obteuse Wikirule as an absolute. Again, I'll discuss changes, but things will work out best if you confer *before* excising. Seriously.

[edit] Hey there

Hi! My name is Sam and I'm a member of Esperanza! Look: as much as you seem to have some contempt for Matt Fenton, I really think you might want to back off, do something else, and chill out a bit. Maybe spend some time on the WikiCouch! Basically I'm saying this to help prevent a block. The Wikipedian community is about kindness and compassion. I guarantee that if you take a little while (maybe a day or so) out of the line-of-fire, you'll feel much better and be able to contribute better to Wikipedia. If you need anything else, just put a message on my talk page! ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 18:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

While I am technically on Wikibreak, I will take the time to answer your question.

1. Any person who has administrator powers on this site was granted them via the community for showing they can be responsible.
2. A person's age on this site DOES NOT MATTER. Everyone has the same right to use this sate as you do. Age doesn't matter.
3. Comments such as "When an *adult*..." and "15-year-olds aren't responsible" aren't only denigrating to the user, but also is terribly in violation of Wikipedia's 'No Personal Attacks' policy.
4. If you feel abused, repressed, etc., simply ask another administrator. Ask for help. There's tons of Wikipedians out who want to help.
5. If you feel harassed, harassment is not the answer to your problem. It will only make it worse.

In conclusion, stop the attacks and harassment. Step back from the argument. Ask an administrator (Or, if you can't get a hold of an administrator, try the next-best thing: Esperanza). Basically, chill out a bit. And smile! Remember: When you smile, the whole world will wonder what you're up to. ~ PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 23:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time out of your break to respond. In order:

1) I'd love to see the paperwork justifying this decision, because his actions - not only against myself, but others as based on his own talk page - betray this process as being *VERY* flawed. At least in this instance.

2) This may wind up being a major mistake. There's a reason that certain rights and responsibilites aren't granted until one reaches adulthood or at least the age of consent, and that involves legal ramifcations. In this case "Will" is clearly neither at the age of adulthood *or* consent.

3) Again, when he behaves like an adult, then he'll be treated as one. As it stands right now he hasn't earned that treatment, much less any respect. Power, he needs to learn, does not automatically grant respect.

4) Do you have another administrator who is a) of age, and b) impartial?

5) Sorry, but I've learned in the 20+ years I've been running BBSs, Usenet newsgroups, and moderating internet forums, that you don't simply back off when being harassed. The bullies will simply keep pushing the issue and claiming victory.

Again, thanks for your input, but "Will" needs to grow up and back off himself. As you can see in the commentary below, I *am* trying to open up a dialog with Matthew to see if we can settle our differences in e-mail, but until he chooses to do so things will stay as-is. Sixty Six 23:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK:

1. If He is an administrator, then it's the choice of the community and you are asked to do what is asked. Let's treat our fellow Wikipedians with respect. On Wikipedia, everyone is the same. We do NOT bias based on age, color, creed, sex, or any other characteristic. We, in fact, do not bias at all.
2. If you are making a legal threat, I must kindly insist you do not.
3. I believe that you are getting 'he is acting like a child' and 'he is being treated like a child' mixed up here. Either way, i think you should let the issue go and get on with your life.
4. How about you talk to me, without getting the very busy admins involved. This is a civility dispute, but I think we can work it out without intervention if we work hard and don't lose our cool. I'm an Esperanzan, and I'm here to help. I am also impartial.
5. If you have trouble letting an issue go, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the best place for you.

If there is anything else you need, please let me know on my talk page. ~ PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 00:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

He does not appear to be making any legal threats, Sam. He's referring to the fact that most volunteer organizations refuse to accept members who are under legal age, or are not directly represented by a parent or legal guardian. The way the current system involving legal liabilities are concerned, having a minor involved in your organization when an incident that results in litigation is concerned can cause far more legal ramifications than would if an adult was involved. I've worked for several volunteer organizations in the past, and while they would accept help from minors whose parents were members, they could not accept those minors as full members due to legal concerns.

One thing I do take issue with is your last point. What you are stating is that one should automatically accept edits regardless of right, wrong or intent, and not argue your case and/or reverse the edits. This policy seems to be more prone towards the inclusion of biased or incorrect information, and the exclusion of information that gives the article more credibility as a research source. As to how this applies here, from what I'm able to gather is that "Matthew", "Will" and possibly one other who've threatened Sixty Six with blocking are all underage teens who are working in concert with one another. In the real world, this would be viewed as bullying, and quite probably as a conspiracy, especially by a court of law. Note that I'm not making any legal threats here, simply stating my assessment of the situation.Geoffrey Mitchell 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diane Carey

Hi. Thanks for adding that section to the Diane Carey section of a couple of months ago. Can you provide a source for the information therein? Thanks. Nightscream 04:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. Here's the rub: The majority of the criticisms directed towards Carey's "Dreadnaught" series was made when the book came out on three specific forums of discussion available at the time:

• Fanzines
• BITNET Relay Chat
• WWIVnet & FIDONet BBS message bases/forums

...In addition, ARPANET had some traffic on this, and the debate has been raised several times on Usenet. There have been a few websites dealing with the issue, but at the time I added to that article I couldn't find any of them on Google. And, of course, there's the fact that Carey gets hit with this question whenever she goes to Trek conventions. Last I heard, tho, she's been taking response lessons from Harlan Ellison, which means she gets really snotty and/or agressively vehement about "Piper" not being "Lt. Mary Sue", but fails to offer any conclusive evidence other than the fact that "Piper" doesn't frack any of the main Enterprise crew. Go figure. Sixty Six 07:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment at Sceptre's talk page

[False niceties deleted]

Sorry, but the comments about "Will" I stand behind, and I'll be restoring them shortly. The kid behaved like a kid instead of the adult he was expected to behave as, and got slapped down for it as he deserved to be. Please refrain from censoring what was a clear and concise observation of his demise as an admin. Thanks. Sixty Six 04:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unwarranted and unexplained blocking

We can't unblock you at this time, because you haven't given us the information we need to look into your block. You yourself were not blocked; if you were prevented from editing, you must have been autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. I'm removing your unblock request because there's nothing we can do without this information. If you are still autoblocked by the time you read this message:

1. If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
   Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are. If it isn't, try clearing your cache.
2. Try and edit the Wikipedia:Sandbox by clicking here.
3. Copy the {{unblock-auto|...}} code generated for you under the "Autoblocked?" section.
4. Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. Daniel.Bryant 06:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

==

Hi. Thanks for the reply. It appears that someone using the wide-area public access wireless here in the complex pissed off an admin, and the IP was blocked. I've sent an e-mail to the admin in question, and so far they have not responded. The IP is still blocked, but I'm not sure what additional information you need other than the facts of the matter. It should be noted that, based on this admin's talk page, that he - I'm assuming it's a he - is very adamant about not removing blocks for any reason, and if I read the talk tracings correctly those blocks have required another admin to forcibly override said.

Note that the third suggestion you made about a template isn't very clear, so I'm not totally sure just what I'm supposed to paste, nor what changes I need to make to the syntax to make it apply. I suspect you may have left a step or three out somewhere expecting someone on your level to fill in the blanks. Web design and HTML I know, but this erzatz version that Wikipedia uses can be quite confusing.

Again, thanks for the reply, and a swift resolution to the block would be appreciated. I'll speak with the Complex IT manager tomorrow morning about tracing who had access to what, and see about blocking whoever caused the problems. Sixty Six 09:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be patient as I research your block. You appear to be on a non-portable static address, can you provide any evidence that it is shared? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is taking an excessively long time to resolve, and your failure to respond to e-mail RFIs on the status of this issue is not a good sign. I have formally requested that another admin step in and resolve the issue so that I can make the edits I've been requested to make in a timely manner. Were this a case of you blocking me personally, it would be a different story, but this was clearly a block on an IP and not a specific person, and it has affected my editing rights without warrant or justification for continuation of said. Sixty Six 20:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heh

It takes two to tango, also what's all that crap about "Die clown die" on your user page? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[Blank stare] Matthew, care to clarify what the hell you're talking about? Sixty Six 19:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, what happened to AGF? Obviously, he's saying "the clown, the". </sarcasm> Will ^{(talk to me)} 22:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see! Thanks for clearing it up for me, Sceptre, I really didn't have the foggiest idea. Cheerio. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, I have no earthly idea why you two kids have decided to troll over here, or what you're talking about. Pretty immature for someone who's supposed to be an Admin, wouldn't you say, Will? Sixty Six 01:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and for that matter, didn't you leave Wikipedia? At least, that's what your user page claims. Sixty Six 01:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Matthew and Will, I suggest you stay off this page; if you complain someone is harassing you, why antagonize him further? Sixty Six, please stop taunting. Newyorkbrad 01:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. However, there's a difference between taunting and making an observation. If Will has "retired" from Wikipedia, why is he here trolling? And according to Matthew's own page, he's "gone" as well. Sixty Six 01:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Very very GOOD point!! Admins? Care to answer that?? 64.149.25.194 06:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "HEH" Explained

Thanks to Geoffrey Mitchell, I've been given some idea of what's going on here. Matthew, Will, I'm aware of the accusations you've made over on the Wikipedia Admin Notice Board. Since my IP is currently blocked, and cannot respond on that particular forum - which renders the notice board, by definition, a "Kangaroo Court" as the accused is not able to argue his or her defense, something that any court of law would rule against Wikipedia were it presented before a judge - I see the charges as nothing but slander on the part of Will and Matthew, and challenge them to present incontrovertible evidence that I am responsible for whatever postings on "ED" they are referring to. If they cannot produce any such evidence, then their charges cannot be considered as anything more than baseless accusations. Be advised also that since I cannot get this "ED" site to load, I am somewhat in the dark as to what it is, and what's been posted there that has Matthew and Will convinced that I am responsible and therefore committing their slanderous actions.

For the record, I am innocent of any charges Will and/or Matthew have presented and/or fabricated, and request that an admin independent and unbiased towards the matter take charge of the issue and resolve it in a positive, productive manner.

Also, be advised that in noting the potential illegality of the "Kangaroo Court" aspects, this should *not* under any circumstances be viewed as a legal threat. By definition, observing and noting legal consequences is not in itself such a threat, and cannot be considered as such under established State and Federal Legal Codes.Sixty Six 04:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: Newyorkbrad, please e-mail me. I am aware that you wish to resolve this matter in a positive way, and the request for an independent admin was actually directed towards you. I would have e-mailed you directly, but could not find a link for you listed on your talk page. Thanks. Sixty Six 04:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I just saw this. I do have Wikipedia e-mail enabled. Just go to my talkpage and click on "E-mail this user" in the column on the left side. Newyorkbrad 18:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried that originally, but for some reason it refused to allow me to send e-mail, claiming I was blocked from that. It appears to be working now, and I've just sent you one. Sixty Six 18:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I've sent you two e-mails. Have you received any of them? Sixty Six 04:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm watching, hope you get unbanned soon

Hey, I've been watching what's going on. Have you gotten your IP unblocked yet? According to the notice board, apparently Sceptre, Matthew Fenton, and Can't Sleep Clown Will Eat Me were all attacked on ED by someone and they are accusing you of doing it. Well, I dunno about Clown but I find it ironic that he was the the admin sent to investigate the IP ban of your address. I'm not signing in because I don't want them to include me on their little crusade. 68.196.250.47 17:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't say I blame you. While I still can't get on this "ED" or whatever it is, from some of the other e-mails I've gotten - none of which were requested replies from any of the admins involved in this, including one who showed up out of nowhere and changed the block reason to something called "arbicom" that defies explanation - apparently your description of the situation is pretty dead on. Again, the issue in a case like this would be proof, which considering that I can't get on that site - it perpetually times out and gives server not found errors - the existence of such proof would be pretty much nonexistent. Unless, of course, it's fabricated by those crying "foul!"

You're not the only one watching this debacle, tho, so what I suspect just by applying a little logic, is that someone decided to use me as a scapegoat while they took shots at the three you named. This sort of trick is an old one, and any admin with any experience or maturity would have recognized this on sight and did more research before acting.

Anyway, thanks for the support. Let's just hope that IP address you posted from isn't the one you normally use, because it wouldn't surprise me one iota if it's blocked by now. Sixty Six 18:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

His block ends some time tomorrow. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Golly, it's sure nice of those responsible to inform me of this.Sixty Six 18:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why does MatthewFenton know when a block on your IP address expires? That would inquire he knows your IP address. Coumarin 19:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Knowing my IP address isn't difficult, since I posted to Wikipedia without an account months ago before I signed up. As for how he knows about the block, I suspect he's been told by whoever originally placed the block *and* whoever extended it - someone named "Alkivar", who I've had no contact with nor understand how he got involved in the first place.

Seems to me one of the primary foundations of freedom is the right to face one's accuser. Guess that doesn't apply in Wikiland, huh? Sixty Six 21:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Well, here we are. It's "tomorrow", and the block is still in place. Tsk. Sixty Six 21:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you know the time/date this block was enforced? If so, could you post it here? Coumarin 02:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope. There's no date given as far as I can find, and the admin who apparently made the block permanent - someone called "Alkivar" who refuses to respond to e-mail queries - gave no date/time info, and the only explanation he gave was that it was for an "arbcom violation". This is *really* sounding more like a Soviet-era Courtroom.

"You're guilty. Execute him!"

"Guilty of what, your Honor?"

"You know what you did! I won't waste my time explaining it to you again!"

"But what evidence do you have that I did what I don't know what I did?"

"IBGMAFR and BNBRJRAW"

"What?"

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse! Off with his head!"

HEEE! This sums up how they've abused you 100%!! I wonder just how the news services covering the Fuzzy Zoeller suit against Wikipedia would use 66's case in their reports? I'd bet they'd see it as another example of how badly things are being run here, especially when they reveal that teenagers are being allowed to be admins!!!! 24.227.251.66 19:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still Watching

I would request unblocking. First off, Clown blocked your IP address. Not your username. Daniel Bryant said that "you yourself" were not blocked. So, the only thing you could do is edit your own page. And from what I've seen, you haven't broken any rules since the block on your IP and if you did, it would be on this userpage. But this Alivar, not sure if I spelled that right goes and bans your username. Lets say, hypothetically you did break a rule, you shouldn't be banned forever. That's ludicrous. I know that Sceptre and Matthew Fenton claimed you wrote the ED article on them. However, they can't make such a claim being that they have no proof. In fact, it would be very very easy to frame you. For all you know, they wrote it themselves to make it look like you did it. Based on their childish behavior, I wouldn't put it past them. I find it hard to believe Sceptre was once an admin here, but then again, I guess that's why he "used to be" an admin. I'm still on your side, for whatever it's worth. Oh yeah, and I'm still not signed in and this IP floats so I'm not worried about them banning my IP. They can if they want but they have no basis to. 68.196.250.47 05:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try this again. Let's see what happens. Sixty Six 06:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I get access to a "Block Log", and this "Alkivar" has set the block to "indefinite", citing again something called "Arbcom". Would someone explain what this means, and please put me in touch with some administrator who's willing to help with this situation? Thanks.Sixty Six 06:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, given this users odd utility preference for talk page participation as exhibited here, his respectable contributions, and his lack of effort to follow the instructions to get unblocked, I believe the user is just having fun on his talk page by making a commotion about not being unblocked. TonyTheTiger 21:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to your beliefs, but you fail to answer the question of *why* should I tolerate a block that's clearly unwarranted? If it were justified, why aren't the admins in question responding to e-mail queries regarding their decision? Also, where does it say that you're *not* supposed to participate in talk page discussions?

Seems to me that, if anyone is "just having fun", it you by trolling to add a negative opinion without having any real interest in the situation. Sixty Six 22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have declined your unblock request. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your decline is based on the false accusations of two others. There is no solid proof that I have committed any of the actions I am being accused of, and to "apologize" for something that I am innocent of is not only not in my best interests, but is *NOT* in the best interested of Wikipedia as a whole. I hereby formally request that this be arbitrated by an admin with a higher level of authority who will actually take the time out to research the situation and the circumstances.

I like how they don't give a reason or any details for that matter. MarloStanfield 00:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and based on another e-mail I just got, what's happening here is pretty obvious: Will and Matthew whined to some of their admin buddies, and it's a case of the "Good Old Boy" networking in action. The admins keep rejecting my unblocks until I finally give up and go away. It's one of the reasons that not one of the admins involved in this mess has returned any of my e-mail queries on this matter. Mokusatsu is how I believe the Japanse put it. Otherwise, if they unblock me, it's a sign that they were in the wrong, and they can't have that, can they? No, sorry, as Adlai Stevenson once put it, I'm prepared to wait until Hell freezes over for their explanation.

And besides, just *what* exactly do I have to apologize for? Since when is disputing wanton edits a crime? Sixty Six 00:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your assuming bad faith. I have no dealings with any of the editors involved in your disputes. I have never had contact with either Will or Fenton. However, the diff-links ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) provided however show a pattern of incivility and harassment. I've even looked into about 30 of your edits and I see either an unwillingness or an inability play nice. The very fact that you don't see the problem with your actions leads me to believe that your remaining blocked is better for the project. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is *you* that are showing bad faith, as well as an inability to weigh the positive contributions I've made that were not negated by the actions of Will and Matthew. But since you are unwilling as well to see my side with a fair view, what is it that you want me to do to get the block removed? Kiss Matthew and Will's butts in public and beg for their forgiveness? I'd like an honest answer to that one. Sixty Six 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As an admin reviewing your unblock request I can do two things... One: I check to see if the block is justifiable. In this case I think it was. The second thing I can do is see if it is likely the behavior is likely to continue if the block is removed/shortened.

If you can assure me the behavior won't continue... the incivility and harassment... then I, or most any other admin, would be will willing to grant your request to be unblocked. However you have been completely unwilling to even acknowledge your comments were problematic so that leads me to believe you'll continue in the same way.

Feel free to place a new unblock request on your page if you want someone else to review this issue, but I doubt anyone else is going to be willing to overturn it under the current circumstances. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly warn you against adding another unblock request, Six. If you'll read the warning in the original request, it specifically states not to do so. From my own esperience, this is a standard "trap" to force you into making another mistake that an admin can use against you. If an admin removes the unblock request, then you are free to do so. It could have been an error on J.smith's part, but until he or another admin removes your original request, I'd advise against removing it. Geoffrey Mitchell 00:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Advice noted and taken as given. I've gotten a couple of other e-mails with the same warning today. It's really fracked when that sort of "red tape" tactic is used to trap someone. Sorta like a cop selling a junkie drugs and then busting him for making the purchase.Sixty Six 07:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, talk about being totally ridiculous. First Clown blocked your ip address for 120 hours, ok big deal, but then Alkivar goes and blocks your username PERMANENTLY after that? That would imply you did something on your userpage during your TEMPORARY IP Block that constitutes the banning. I don't see much other than those two coming over to your page and harassing you. Furthermore, everything this J.Smith admin has referenced are conflicts from November or the admin notice board in which they proclaim you edited an ED page about Sceptre. And those are just baseless accusations. Anyone could have edited that ED page in an attempt to make it look like it was you, even Sceptre or Matthew Fenton themselves. Now it appears this Alkivar fellow has gone off the deep end and has pretty much cursed everyone out [7]. So, I would seriously question his mental stability while block you. Good luck! Coumarin 22:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. My full comments are below. Geoffrey Mitchell 00:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the unblock request. It wasn't my intention to "trap" you into making any kind of error. Feel free to file a new one. No-one would have given you shit for the second unblock-req since it was done at my "blessing."

---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There's another unblock above that I'd prefer to have removed first. Based on four other e-mails I've gotten, that's the advice I'm going to take at this time. If you want to remove that, then fine with me.

Of course, you could have just simply removed the unwarranted block and saved us all a lot of time. Sixty Six 10:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

How true!! How true!! In all the time they've spent trying to back up their dumb decisions, they could have made good on their screwups and given you your access back!! 64.149.25.194 06:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This Has Become A Shameful Fiasco On The Part Of The Admins

I realize that this may result in a retaliation against myself for siding with Sixty Six, but this is more of an expression of dissatisfaction against a trend I'm beginning to see on Wikipedia -- admins who are abusing their authority and committing the same acts of vandalism and terrorism that they're supposed to prevent.

This current situation is a classic example of this problem. There are now not one, but 'two admins who are involved in this obvious harassment of Sixty Six, and possibly three. Two of the admins in question -- Will and Alkivar -- have reportedly resigned from their positions, and the latter has done so in a most unprofessional manner. In the US Court System, were a prosecutor to bring charges against someone that were questionable, and then resign from their position, the charges would be dropped unless there was already clear evidence that the charges might be valid. Other than dissatisfaction with Will's defense of Matthew's edits -- made in a manner very inconsiderate of the work done by not only Sixty Six, but several others who also professed their dissatisfaction -- there was not enough justification for any of the extended blocking actions.

The third admin who initially imposed the blocks -- Can't Sleep, etc -- apparently has washed his hands of the matter and refuses to discuss the matter with either Sixty Six or anyone else. Two other admins apparently have dropped the matter totally, while the latest -- J.smith -- has clearly not viewed all the evidence save for the childish and baseless accusations of Will and Matthew Fenton. I could refer to complaints filed against both of them for the way they've edited various articles, as well as how they handled edit disputes, but both Will and Matthew have closed off their pages and their archives so I cannot access them at this time.

Based on the inarguably unprofessional reactions by at least one admin -- Alkivar [8] -- and the severe lack of any credible evidence against Sixty Six, ethically and legally this block should be removed immediately. This is becoming a severe black mark on Wikipedia's reputation, and any open forum such as this that is not moderated with a fair and proper hand is going to fail. Sixty Six's contribitions -- especially to the Uncle Duke page -- show that, while perhaps a bit unsuffering towards fools and perceived abuses of admin power, he has the best intentions of being a good Wikipedia contributor. Failure to restore his editing rights simply proves those idiots on ED are right, and that's the last thing any of us need. Geoffrey Mitchell 00:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Shameful" is probably putting it nicely. I've a few other descriptors, but seeing the profane tirade thatAlkivar posted, I'm not going to stoop to that level. But you do make a very valid point: if two of the admins primarily responsible for the block have up and departed, shouldn't that at least render the block suspect?

Another good point you bring up is that admins tend to look only at what a Wikian has done wrong, and not what positive contributions they've made to Wikipedia. There seems to be some unwritten rule that any screwups are to be given zero tolerance, and questioning an admin's decisions - especially wrong and rash ones - is verboten under penalty of blocking. That's not the way an open forum peer review system is supposed to work if any positive collaboration is to be achieved. This is half of the reason Nature has dumped their open peer review forum recently, and that sort of maladjusted behavior is going to eventually kill Wikipedia too if it's not at least curtailed.

Referring back to another e-mail I've gotten - again, from someone who wants to remain anon because they're in fear of losing their access here - apparently what I'm expected to do is to beg for mercy and forgiveness from Will and Matthew, and kiss their feet. Sorry, that's not going to happen. I've never denied I've had problems with Matthew, and the problems with Will arose from his rather biased defense of Matthew's lack of maturity in his editing decisions. I put a lot of work into those Jericho edits, and just wiping them without giving any real reason other than essentially to "accept it, and if you reverse it you'll be blocked forever". That's not the way peer review and collective editing works, either; that's pure bullying and abuse of power. So tell me, honestly, which of you would *not* have become irate over such treatment? No, if anyone needs to apologize, it's them, and not just to me, but to those Wikians they've abused previously.

So again, I'm calling for the unwarranted block to be removed immediately. To anyone who's not an admin and more interested in preserving the "aura of omnipotence", it's perfectly clear that at least two admins acted with impropriety, while the third quite probably just stumbled into this and simply had a knee-jerk reaction - his user page tends to brag about such reactions to "vandalism", but also shows some admissions of error and offers to correct, unlike the other two admins in question. I'll post an official unblock request when an admin removes the first one that was refused on some "red tape" technicality, but not before.

And I *STILL* can't get on that "ED" site, which sucks because I honestly want to see what "I" supposedly "wrote".Sixty Six 11:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi!! Sorry to see the Admins are still playing games with your access. It's a real shame that these guys insist on making the other Admins look bad, because most Admins out there know how important it is not to screw around with people. That's not what WP is all about!! But it seems some have forgotten that, and would rather have fun making you suffer than doing their jobs correctly. I've seen Matt Fenton and Sceptre play their games with others in the past, and that Alkavar clown had no real excuse for butting in and making the ban permanent without giving any real reason that made any sense. Since he told everyone to "f*ck off" -- his words, not mine! -- when he up and retired from WP, the guy really must have had some serious hangups with being an Admin. If a Judge acted like that in court, the case would be thrown out, and that's exactly what should be done here!! Why permanently punish someone for refusing to kiss the butts of Admins who aren't doing their job properly?? 64.149.25.194 06:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Shameful" doesn't even begin to cover it. When the two admins who caused the current mess run off from Wikipedia under fire, this raises a lot of questions about their motivations. "Good Faith" obviously never entered into it from the start, and these admins were just jacking around and not doing their jobs the way they're expected to do. Sixty Six may have gotten pissed at Will and his buddy, but if you read how they handled their editing of Sixty Six's edits, not giving any really clear or justifiable reasons, and then backing up their edits with threats of blocking if Sixty Six didn't just accept their deletions, well, who can blame him? What they were doing was removing information and making the articles less informative. Funny, I didn't know this was newspeakipedia! 24.242.148.169 17:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, still no progress. I have a problem with this on a number of levels. First, MatthewFenton and Sceptre have a history with Sixty_Six. And, from what I've seen, Sixty_Six has been the only person that ever tried to resolve things on a professional level via private email. Now, about this whole ban thing, the IP address ban was totally suspect, but not a big deal since it was a temporary ban. However, this whole Alkivar ban was mind boggling. That was until I looked a little further. On MatthewFentons 3rd failed RFA attempt, Alkivar is one of 5 people that voted in favor of him becoming an admin, implying he was likely a friend of MatthewFenton (not a big surprise). Now, if you look at all the opposes (and there are a hell of a lot, you'll see they all site invcivility of some sort, the same thing JS refuses to unban Sixty_Six for). Now, that Alkivar has quit, I also notice JS was the first person to post on his page asking him to come back. Gee, another friend? On top of it, JS sites things back in November (which were posted on the admin notice board at the time and nothing was done about it by admins because no banning was neccessary then either. JS really has no basis to keep a permanent ban in place. At the most, a temporary ban might have been appropriate. I think the problem is that any unban request so far has gone to a friend of Sceptre/Matt/Alkivar and the unban doesn't happen simply because they would be ruling against their friends. We seriously need a NEUTRAL party admin to look at this. Coumarin 19:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting info there, Coumarin. It appears to confirm without question Sixty Six's claim that he was essentially "kangaroo court" judged and condemned. There is clear evidence that the - how did he put it? - "old boys network" between the admins in question did in fact exist, and was instrumental in the permanent block being imposed. Alkavar was apparently under fire as was Will for their actions as admins, and as a "parting shot" apparently made the ban permanent; it could have been anyone that Will was in conflict with at the time, it just happened to be Sixty Six who was in the line of fire.

Also, you add a very valid point about issues in November being dredged up and used against Sixty Six. I looked at his track record, and from what's clearly visible the problem is not with Sixty Six being unable to positively contribute, it's he's unable to capitulate to one particular Wikian who is apparently more interested in imposing his own view of things upon everyone, and running off those who, like Six, refuse to jump whenever he yells "Frog". Before Matthew blocked access to his archives, there were several incedents of this, and I've noted Matthew has already found another target - [user: Munta] - and the conflict there is similar as well; Matthew makes an arbitrary change to someone's contribution and then defends his actions by citing Wikipedia guidelines without explaining his reasoning as to why they apply.

Finally, as I've pointed out on my own talk page, I've noted that the main issue in all this is that JS is insistant on Six apologizing for things he clearly does not need to apologize for. If anyone needs to apologize, Matthew at least needs to apologize for his own actions in this, as does Will for abusing his admin authority in this and other issues involving Matthew's disputes with others.

Note that this truly is not a personal attack against Matthew, but it is a denoument of his actions, their obvious motivations, and the results thereof. There's a difference between a guiding hand and a maced fist, and Matthew's method of trying to be a guiding Wikian is clearly described by the latter. This betrays a level of immaturity that explains more than anything else why he was refused admin status not one, but THREE times. At least there the system works. Geoffrey Mitchell 01:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Are The Admins Being So Hardnosed?

Howabout it, admins? Have you bothered to look at 66's contributions? Or did you just decide that his refusal to bow and kowtow to Will and Matthwe Fenton when they double-teamed and bullied him was just grounds? What's the **REAL** motivations here? 24.227.251.66 19:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I already said this once, he's free to appeal the block... yet he doesn't. I don't relay know why, but thats not my problem. I made my choice in the issue and I haven't heard any convincing arguments that the situation is any different then it appears... but my word isn't the final authority on it.

Oh, and good contributions aren't a free pass to be break other rules.

Now, if this talk page trolling doesn't end I'll simply lock the page for a while. More incivility and unfounded accusation isn't going to bring a positive resolution to this situation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not talk page trolling, and so far, you have been the final word since a friend of yours has blocked him indefinitely and you have been the person to review the unblocks. Also, J.S., I would like to know what you think about MatthewFenton's incivility throughout his time at Wikipedia. You can easily find an incivil confrontation on a weekly basis with him. Coumarin 18:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My words have only been the final ones because SixSix has not followed though on the next steps. I even gave him my blessing to re-file the {{unblock}}... It's no my fault he didn't do it. {{unblock}} isn't even the end of the line when it comes to appealing a block.

You know, it's kinda funny how all these new and little used accounts show up on this page and make the same wild accusations. How very odd. Maybe I need to take a walk over to WP:RFCU? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting how whenever an Admin comes under fire for his or her actions, or more than one person comes to the defense of someone having a dispute with an admin, the first thing they do is claim sockpuppetry and then threaten to throw around their admin weight to silence opposition. That's probably why so many resort to anon accounts to prevent their "normal" accounts from suffering from the type of retaliation that Sixty Six has experienced. But you're above that, JS, right? Geoffrey Mitchell 20:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, fair enough, the next step is for him to file a new unblock request and the only thing I am calling for is that an admin who has no association with Sceptre, MatthewFenton, Alkivar, or yourself to review it. I'll wait to see the result of that before I criticize this whole situation again. By the way, I'm still wondering what you think on MatthewFenton. Coumarin 23:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I have very little association with Alkivar and none with Sceptre and MatthewFenton.

I went thought the last 50 edits of Matthewenton (checked all the talkpage posts and edit summary's) and I didn't find anything that stuck out. If you want me to review particular edits I'm happy to do so if you provide the diff-links. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhpas you would like to have a look at my user talk page [9] and at my comments[10] that led to this incivilityMunta 09:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what I see there is a ridiculous argument over whether someone is assuming good faith or not. Accuseing someone of assumeing bad faith is actualy exactly the same as assumeing bad faith. So... two people assuming bad faith at eachother and not discussing the content of the article. Sounds like you guys need to focus on content... both of you. Open a RFC if you can't come to an agreement in reguards to the actual content dispute. As for the "good faith"/"bad faith" dispute... shame on both of you for even having it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have glossed over the fact that I offered an olive branch when he accused me of making a malicious effort. And yet you say "shame on me". Is it any wonder that people are getting rather diaspointed with the addminstration of this site. Munta 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You asked. His comments were in the past-tense. "seemed" means "it looked that way at one point, but no longer does". Next time you face a similar situation I recommend just dropping it and moving on to more important things. Arguments like that are entirely a waste of time. It was a bad choice to make the comment in the first place. He could have made the same point using a lot more tact.

It occurs to me that we are sorta abusing Six Sixty's talk page. If you want me to review anything else feel free to bring it up on my personal talk page. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sixty Six's Whereabouts

According to an e-mail I received yesterday (3-10-07), Sixty Six has been recovering from a burst appendix for the past couple of weeks. While he didn't go into all the details, he did say that it was "touch and go" there for about a week. He's home now, and says that once he gets his strength back up a bit, he'll be back to "fight for his rights to contribute to Wikipedia". Let's wish him best speed in his recovery, people! Geoffrey Mitchell 20:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

All the best Sixty Six. Concentrate on recovery first. Munta 21:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Same from me. Don't worry about your Wiki access problems until you get better, 66! We'll keep the fires burning here until you get back! 67.106.107.171 05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any further info on what Sixty Six's condition is? It would be a damn shame for him to have died without having the chance to win his case against Matthew Fenton, Sceptre, and the other corrupt admins who were involved in this travesty. I wonder if those who're involved truly realize that if this sort of Wikian abuse were to catch the eye of Wikipedia's major detractors - Kim Komando for one, who bashes Wikipedia at least once per show - just how much of a negative effect it would have on Wikipedia's credibility? Or do they even care? 69.29.1.225 21:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Fenton's User Page

So, what's up with Matthew Fenton these days? It seems he's had his user and talk pages totally erased, and has been changing his account info around. I thought we weren't supposed to delete the talk pages so the admins can see every single time we've screwed up so they can use it against us forever and ever ad nauseum? 67.106.107.171 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Matthew has dropped the "Fenton" from his Wiki account name, and is now attempting - with the help of some admins - to "vanish" and shake off the bad reputation he's picked up in recent months. If you take a look at his blocks and at his third attempt to become an admin, it's pretty clear he's not as highly regarded as Sceptre and some of the other admins were trying to present him as. There's even been some discussion as to whether all the admins involved might not be just a bunch of schoolkids sockpuppeting one another, especially since Alkivar and Sceptre have both "left" Wikipedia amid controversy regarding their abuse of admin powers and responsibilities. 69.29.1.225 21:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)