User talk:ColonelS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Gamaliel's Abuse of Sys-Op power: 1.1 How Gamaliel made a politically motivated block of me for "3RR" when I was undoing a vandal who repeatedly blanked a page 2 Hypocrisy: 3 More liberal hypocrisy: 4 blanking 5 3RR 6 Gamaliel's "Enemies" List 7 More Tricks 8 Chip Berlet's Wacky Worldview 9 Don't be a dick 9.1 Why is it a bad thing? 9.2 Remedies

[edit] Gamaliel's Abuse of Sys-Op power:

[edit] How Gamaliel made a politically motivated block of me for "3RR" when I was undoing a vandal who repeatedly blanked a page

Hello all. As you can see below, my account is currently blocked for an alleged "3RR violation." This is not true however

The real reason it is blocked is because I am presently being harassed by an out of control Wikipedia administrator named User:Gamaliel, who also happens to be a partisan liberal Democrat and is harassing me because I am a Republican.

Here is the real history of what happened and what led this sys-op run amock to block me.

1. [1] - First time user "Carlosvillareal" logs in and completely blanks 3/4ths of the content on National Lawyers Guild. Please note Carlosvillareal's edit summary, which shows he did this for partisan political reasons: "Trying to keep the far-right Horowitz nuts from rewriting history."
2. [2] - I restored the blanking of this text.
3. [3] - an anonymous IP address who is probably Carlosvillareal blanks the article again.
4. [4] - User:Latinus restores the blanked article.
5. [5] - Latinus warns the anonymous guy/villareal that he is vandalizing this article
6. [6] - vandal ignores warning and blanks it again
7. [7] - User:Tawker restores the article.
8. [8] - Vandal blanks it again
9. [9] - Latinus restores it again, posts a second vandalism warning to the anonymous guy.
10. [10] - CarlosVillareal logs in again and blanks it.
11. [11] - User:MSTCrow posts another vandalism warning to Villareal
12. [12] - I restore the blanked text.
13. [13] - User:Calton arrives and reverts back to the vandalized version. Calton's Edit Summary also indicates he has a political motive and accuses the 4 editors who fought off this vandal of "McCarthyism."
14. [14] - I restore the text and include a vandalism warning in the edit summary.
15. [15] - Calton restores the vandalized version and makes personal attacks in his edit summary.
16. [16] - I restore the text and quote the vandalism policy to Calton.
17. [17] - Calton reverts back to the vandalized version.
18. [18] - I ask for help on the vandalism in progress page and restore the text that Calton blanked.
19. [19] - Gamaliel, who has been harassing me all day and making frivolous threats of banning me for our political differences on another article, shows up and reverts back to the vandalized blanked version and blocks me for "3RR" violations.

The problem with Gamelial's block, however, is that the Three Revert Rule on Wikipedia says "This rule does not apply to: correction of simple vandalism" So what happened here?

I helped fight off a clear vandal who was blanking this article all day and who was warned by 2 other editors. Once Gamaliel saw that I was doing this, he used it as an excuse to ban me since he couldn't come up with a good enough reason to do that in our dispute on the other article (cataloged below) without getting himself into trouble.

Rest assured though - this is a clear case that Gamaliel abused his blocking powers and he should be de-sys-opped because of it - a request I intend to make as soon as I'm able to edit again. Note: Any real sys-ops out there who follow the rules - if you see this please consider this request. Gamaliel is clearly abusing his powers to crush political dissent from his personal beliefs and he used this case of fighting off a vandal to block me for false "three revert" violations. -- ColonelS 07:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hypocrisy:

Please do not use edit summaries to accuse other editors of censorship. Keep your comments civil and productive. See Wikipedia:Civility. Gamaliel 22:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Then tell your buddies not to censor out facts to cover the rear ends of their liberal friends.

Editing Wikipedia articles is a collaborative process, not a combative one. There is no reason for this to be adversarial. You can be a strong advocate for your case without resorting to such accusations. Gamaliel 22:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

And I'm sure you're going to lecture the guy over at the National Lawyers Guild article who just wiped it clean and said "to keep the far-right Horowitz nuts from rewriting history." [20] Let's see how consistent you are there. -- ColonelS

I cannot personally monitor the actions of every user on every article and I see no need to rush over to some random article to prove something to you. Your actions are not dependent upon what other people do, you are the one responsible for them. Gamaliel 22:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So in other words you're passing the buck and making excuses for singling me out to a standard that you don't hold others to. It was a simple task, Gamaliel. It only involved one user on one article -- not a request to monitor "every user" on "every article." And the guy you just gave a pass to happens to be a liberal. Why am I not surprised? -- ColonelS

Oh, and Gamaliel - while you're at it, would you mind giving that same lecture about "civility" to user:Cberlet, who ever-so-kindly responded to my changes to the article by accusing me of a "cheap fabrication" both in his note and his Edit Summaries [21]. Do that and we'll see once and for all if you are REALLY interested in keeping things "civil and productive," or if you're just singling me out for being a Republican while letting all the lefties slide. -- Col.S

I'm singling you out because you are the person who accused someone else of censorship in an edit summary that I noticed when I was monitoring recent changes today. I've been accused of both liberal and conservative bias so many times that your little taunts do nothing but make me yawn. I've tried to be polite about this, but since you are so determined to be the victim of political oppression, tell you what, next time you accuse anyone of censorship I will block you for incivility and disruption. Learn to play nice with others or I won't play nice with you. Gamaliel 22:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My my, what a pleasant person you are! "Do as I demand or I'll block you" while you look the other way when the other guy breaks all the rules he wants. And you call that politeness? Also if you were simply "monitoring recent changes" on the Chip Berlet article today, how is it you didn't see it when another liberal guy accused me of making a "cheap fabrication" in his Edit Summary? I sure didn't fabricate anything and that's more of a personal attack than saying it is censership when somebody deletes an entire paragraph of documented quotes that Berlet actually said! Tell you what - I won't call it censership anymore since you think that's uncivil, but in return I expect that you will step in and stop the other guys when they are uncivil to me and call me names like user:Cberlet just did. And that's just on the Chip Berlet article you are "monitoring" or whatever it is. -- Col.S

Also Gamaliel - Please forgive me when I too decide to yawn at your attempt to cast yourself as a neutral-minded unbiased participant here. I notice that you proudly state on your profile that you're a "Wikipedian Democrat." Nothing wrong with that per se, but don't try to convince me you're not just as biased to them as I am to the Republicans since you admit your own partisan affiliation with the Dems. All I ask for is a little consistency in the way you "enforce" the rules around here, especially when it is on the same article between two sides. If a lib insults me and accuse me of fabrications in the edit summaries he should be lectured on civility too. But if you threaten to block the conservative but give the liberals a pass for worse offenses since you align with their party it is holding your own side to a lighter standard than the conservatives and, well, that WOULD be a real case of censership. -- Col.S

My political orientation or your political orientation is irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia rules. When you are violating a rule like Wikipedia:Civility, I don't feel the need to do an ideology check nor do I feel the need to keep track of the ideologies of people who violate the rules to make sure I warn the same number of Republicans and Democrats. The rules are the rules, and your behavior is still in violation regardless of what people of a different ideological orientation are up to somewhere else on Wikipedia. You can imagine yourself the victim of ideological persecution all you want, but that does not change the fact that it is a violation of this site's rules to throw out rude accusations like "censership" (sic). If you are going to go into every exchange with every editor on this site with metaphorical fists and accusations of "liberal bias" flying, I predict a short future for you on Wikipedia. Typically such people are eventually banned from the site, not because of their ideological orientation, but because they are rude and offensive to everyone they interact with here. I suggest you endeavor to keep this sort of behavior in check if you want to contribute in a positive way here. If all you want to do is battle liberals, please find a message board. In any case, I have indulged you enough in this matter. The rules are the rules, and you don't get a free pass because you are a Republican and I am a Democrat. Gamaliel 00:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

They don't get banned. They become Admins.

MSTCrow 04:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More liberal hypocrisy:

Please be aware of the three-revert rule, which you are about to violate at Political Research Associates. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that all you sys-op types do around here? Threaten to ban conservatives for breaking the same rules that liberals get away with? As always the hypocrisy on the left is palpable. -- Col. S

The three revert rule applies to everyone, regardless of ideology. If you find someone breaking the 3RR you may report it at WP:AN/3RR. Gamaliel 06:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blanking

Blanking is replacing the entire content of the article with blank space. This is indeed vandalism. Removing some material from an article is not blanking, it is a legitimate content dispute. I do not see anything in the edit history of National Lawyers Guild that could be accurately described as blanking. Please do not describe content disputes as vandalism. Thank you. Gamaliel 06:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What is it, are you stalking me now in addition to trying to start secret tribunal investigations of me? You've got some serious issues, buddy. Since you're so keen on throwing out rules and policies why don't you come off your high horse and read them:

Wikipedia:Vandalism says "Blanking - Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit."

Now tell your liberal friends to quit vandalizing that article by removing significant parts of it. - Col.S

Keeping an eye on problem users is part of my responsibilities as an administrator, and you've certainly caused far more than your share of problems today. In fact, I have given you a great deal of leeway since you are a new user and thus unaware of our rules. An established user would have been blocked for this nonsense already. Now that you are aware of our policies, you will find adminstrators less willing to put up with your behavior if you keep it up.

Your interpretation of blanking would make it impossible to remove content once it is placed in an article. Instead of accusing people of vandalism and censorship, why don't you simply argue the inclusion of the material on its merits? If you deal with people politely instead of assuming they are your enemy, you will find that many of your conflicts will disappear. Gamaliel 06:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Great deal of leeway? BS. I made a single ACCURATE comment that stuff I had added was being censered out of an article for seemingly political reasons and you threatened right then and there to ban me for being "uncivil" - even though all of your friends had been insulting me and attacking me (and they still are for that matter - Cberlet just posted a lie that my changes to the article were full of spelling errors when MS word shows ZERO) and you didn't see fit to accuse any of them of being "uncivil." If anybody deserves to be blocked here, Gamaliel, it is you - for being rude, hostile, threatening, for abusing your power as a sys-op to enforce a political agenda, for being biased and having double standards in the way you interpret the rules, and for starting secret tribunal investigations of anybody who crosses your path or looks at you the wrong way. You have almost singlehandedly succeeded in making my initiation to the wikipedia an extremely unpleasant and unfortunate event. And now when one of your liberal allies thinks he can delete 75% of an article at will and have it NOT be vandalism even though that's what your own rule's definition of vandalism defines as blanking, you blame me for being the one who pointed it out. Anyway, I'm done with you and no thanks to you just about done with this site. I can only pray that most of the other sys-ops are nowhere near as nasty, rude, condescending and abusive as you are. Either way, leave me alone and go find something productive to do with your life. -- Col. S

[edit] 3RR

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule at National Lawyers Guild. Gamaliel

Do whatever you will, since you are obviously pursuing a partisan agenda against me. Since the reversions I made were to undo vandalism by blanking they did not violate 3RR. Therefore I will seek other administrator sanction against you for abuse of your administrator powers as soon as the block expires.

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule says "This rule does not apply to: * self-reverts * correction of simple vandalism"

Even if you count the "established user" Calton's reverts against my three, you violated this rule for counting the first revert that was made of an anonymous vandal who, along with a username he just registered for this, made 5 blanking reverts. Have fun with those sys-op powers while they last, Gamalial. Keep abusing them like this though and I'm sure people are gonna get very sick of you very quickly. -- ColonelS 07:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gamaliel's "Enemies" List

Thought you'd like to know you're on Gamaliel's "enemies" list, or as it's listed, "Userwatch." Reminds me of Babylon 5 "Nightwatch"...

MSTCrow 22:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Tricks

Rather than tone down his own behavior, he's now accusing you of being a sockpuppet on the admin page. The attack wheel continues. Morton devonshire 23:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chip Berlet's Wacky Worldview

You might find http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=106 interesting.

MSTCrow 03:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't be a dick

The following is taken word-for-word from Wikimedia meta:Don't be a dick. If Admins took this to heart, most of the disputes they find themselves in would go away, and Wikipedia would be a happier and more useful space.

[edit] Why is it a bad thing?

Generally speaking, if you are being a dick, the likelihood of whatever point you are trying to make (or whatever you're doing) reaching the ears of your intended audience dramatically (even exponentially) diminishes. Why? Simple: no one likes listening to dicks, no matter how correct or in the right they are.

[edit] Remedies

If you've been labeled as a dick, or if you suspect that you yourself may be one, there is hope. The first step is to realize that you are being a dick. Ask yourself what is causing you to be one. Change your behavior and your mode of presentation. If needed, apologize to anyone who you may have been a dick to. It's okay! People will take notice of your willingness to cooperate and will almost always meet your efforts with increased respect.