Rowssusan

Rowssusan, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Rowssusan! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

February 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Mkdw^talk 23:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rowssusan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I honestly don't care whether I'm unblocked or not, but I would ask for an uninvolved admin, and those who oversee admins, to review this blatantly inappropriate block by Mkdw. See this ANI discussion, started by Mkdw himself. It tells the entire story of what's going on here. Mkdw is either unable to see the huge conflict of interest in this block, or he simply doesn't care about it. He is not only involved to the max (see this discussion between he and I on his talk page prior to the ANI), but also made himself not only the arresting officer by being the reporter at ANI, but also the judge and the jury who closed the ANI discussion and issued the blocked unilaterally. This is clearly an abuse of his admin powers and therefore should warrant sanctions against him. I would also ask that the ANI discussion be reopened so that uninvolved editors can have the opportunity to comment. So far, the only comments were from three heavily-involved editors. Rowssusan (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I read the ANI, and believe that the subsequent block is justified. Further manifestations of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on your part will result in a longer block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:55, 20 February 2016 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rowssusan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If you actually believe that it's even close to appropriate for an administrator to start and close his own ANI report on someone, and then issue a block to that person, then you clearly have no ability to neutrally judge this matter. And this puts aside the fact that the blocking admin's actions were clearly prompted by a disagreement with me on his talk page, and that he and his admin colleague provided zero diffs that support their repeated claims of personal attacks and edit warring. I want someone who oversees administrators to review this matter to determine if this is a case of conflict of interest and an abuse of admin powers. If you believe the Mkdw did nothing wrong, then you won't be worried about letting those above you take a look at what happened here. Rowssusan (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have reviewed the ANI discussion (now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive914#Rowssusan edit warring and incivility) and the behavior discussed within, and the only possible conclusion I can reach is that the block is appropriate and has been fairly applied. It was within the remit of adminship for the blocking admin to issue a block of their own accord, and that they sought discussion at ANI first does not then prevent them from blocking - and it does not violate WP:INVOLVED. You should try to listen to and understand the comments at that ANI discussion (particularly those of User:JamesBWatson) and adjust your future behavior accordingly - but if we see more of the same battlefield behavior once the block expires then I expect to see longer blocks, ultimately indefinite. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I should also add that continuing your personal attacks on the blocking admin, below, and making accusations about their motives is another sign that you really don't get what the problem is here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2016 (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.

Yes, "fairly applied" with zero diffs that support the allegations. Just lots of babbling rhetoric. Great logic there, Boing! Did I violate 3RR or make personal attacks (prior to this block)?? After all, those were the allegations at ANI. Where's the god damn proof? There is none. Let's see if any admin will be the first one with enough guts to actually provide proof with quotes and diffs, or admit that I'm right. Yeah, right. You all spout your crap, but ignore the total lack of evidence. Most of you admins are just a little gang of coward bullies who collude to protect each other no matter what, especially against editors who don't have a lot of experience. The really experienced, hostile editors who violate the rules all the time, with far more egregious behavior than mine, scare the fuck out of you admins because most of you are scared to death to even take them on. The police call what you admins do to protect each other the blue code, or the blue wall of silence. What do you admins call it? It's actually worse than the blue code because most of you hide anonymously behind your phony usernames and use your neato tools as weapons. It's like using a knife or a bat in a fight against an unarmed person. You go on your little power trips and act as judge and jury so you can "win" and feel better about yourselves. But if you had to face these people you block so easily in person, you would probably end up cowering in a corner and crying like little babies. You're lucky you're only in the fantasy world of Wikipedia because if you had to present a real case with real evidence, you'd be laughed out of the courtroom with your tails between your legs. Rowssusan (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• You misunderstand involved. I responded to an admin help request to resolve a dispute which has now ended in a block. I took a considerable amount of time and discussion, including seeking a second opinion at ANI, before reaching my decision. Be clear that ANI was not to report you to other admins to have you blocked. That was well within my guidelines to block you without going to ANI. Wikipedia is not a judicial system with a prosecutor, defence, judge, and jury. In that dispute, I came in as an admin and was not previously involved. Therefore it would be for me to determine the appropriate outcome as serving in the role of administrator. The discussion we had along with a review of your behaviour contributed to my decision. Lastly, you should be aware that under the involved policy, I still have only interacted with you in an administrative capacity, and further disruption or failure to adhere to warnings issued may result in an indefinite block -- administered by me if necessary. Mkdw^talk 02:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You are obviously very worried right now and therefore attempting to protect yourself. It's pretty simple. You talked to me about something on your talk page, got offended, took me to ANI, closed the ANI yourself, then blocked me. Let's see how the powers-that-be above you view what you've done. Self-report to them if you're not concerned about your actions. Rowssusan (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You mistake admins, me being the forth (Ohnoitsjaime being the fifth) having dealt with you since your last block, going through the seemingly painful motions to explain why you're being blocked and your unblock requests being declined, with that of worrying. Our only concern is that every attempt to rationally talk to you is met with combative and accusatory remarks and it's become more and more apparent that you're WP:NOTHERE. Mkdw^talk 03:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Your block is obviously bogus. You let your personal feelings interfere with your admin responsibilities, so you pushed your little block button to get your way. You provided very weak arguments and zero quotes or diffs that support your claim of personal attacks or subsequent edit-warring violations. So you figured the only way you could "win" was to block me. Your behavior and the way you talk and (mis)spell indicates that you're probably very young. You had a blatant conflict of interest and you abused your powers. I know it, you know it, and anyone who looks at this will know it. Self-report and let the bigshots above you decide. The only reason you wouldn't do that is because you're afraid of the outcome. Rowssusan (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

"clear abuse of administrator tools" by admin Ohnoitsjamie

OhNoitsJamie, I certainly hope your decision to ignore Mkdw's clearly inappopriate actions have nothing to do with your own "conviction" for abusing your admin powers ("Ohnoitsjamie's blocking of the IP editor they edit-warred with is a clear abuse of administrator tools"). Rowssusan (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

False allegations about me by JamesBWatson and repeated by Mkdw

Allegation #1: "they accuse other editors of personal attacks when there was nothing that could reasonably be regarded as a personal attack" (zero quotes or diffs provided)

Now let's take a look at the facts, using actual proof (quotes and diffs). Let's see if the claim that "there was nothing that could reasonably be regarded as a personal attack" is true:

• Dsaun100: "push your own faulty agenda, based on ignorance and arrogance"[1]
• Dsaun100: "Your holier-than-thou attitude, not to mention your continued hypocrisy, is nauseating."[2]
• Dsaun100: "Grow up, and stop acting like a petulant child" [3]
• Dsaun100: "Do you ever get tired of indulging in hypocrisy?"[4]
• Dsaun100: "And here YOU go again, Rowssusan, indulging in hypocrisy"[5]
• Dsaun100: "you've just demonstrated your...narcissism"[6]
• Dsaun100: "all this childish rhetoric"[7]
• Dsaun100: "you can't grasp the hypocritical logic you're using now"[8]
• Dsaun100: "Also, John from Idegon and @Calidum: reverted warning templates on their pages before I did so on mine, thus, they're engaging in blatant hypocrisy here"[9]
• Dsaun100: "stalking my page"[10]
• Dsaun100: "You're stalking my page and holding a grudge"[11]
• Dsaun100: "I don't appreciate Rowssusan stalking me"[12]
• Dsaun100: "Rowssusan is stalking me"[13]
• Dsaun100: "You're the problem...it's only you who is stalking me...Grow up."[14]
• Mkdw: "passive aggressive"[15]
• Mkdw: "passive aggressive battleground mentality"[16]
• JamesBWatson: "passive aggression: ostensibly polite, but actually patronising and contemptuously dismissive"[17]

Allegation #2: "attacking other editors all the time" (zero quotes or diffs provided)

• If I attack editors "all the time", there should be many quotes and diffs to prove it, yet none were provided. Show us the proof, so everyone can read them.

Allegation #3: "We are dealing with an editor who cannot act in a collaborative and civil way with other editors"

• Really? I guess this wasn't a collaborative and civil effort. The entire dispute, for the record, all stemmed solely from this inexplicable removal of sourced content by... guess who? And note that it was his very first edit in six months. In the end, all the consensus of course resulted in my proposal being endorsed, and all the content and sources being fully restored.

The above shows that making allegations and spouting rhetoric is very easy when one doesn't provide any proof to back it up. Rowssusan (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Mkdw^talk 19:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note: I have blocked you indefinitely under WP:NOTHERE and WP:DENY. I had thought a short term block would have been a measured and appropriate response, but your conduct throughout this process has been increasingly hostile and you've now continuously resorted to personal attacks (for which you've now been warned multiple times by different admins). While discussion has proven to be fruitless with you in the past, it's not-without process that Wikipedia continues to work. As such, I'm going to explain for the last time that in the ANI report alone, at least 5 diffs regarding your conduct were provided. I had assumed you had read the thread at ANI, but this continued line that no evidence was provided is completely contrary to the report and leaves me at the conclusion that you haven't thoroughly reviewed anything written to you. In regards to your allegations of Blue wall of silence (an interesting read), all the steps to report administrative misconduct can be found at WP:TOOLMISUSE. I will take this opportunity to note that repeated unblock requests may result in your talk page privileges being revoked. Mkdw^talk 20:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

  —SMALLJIM  20:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rowssusan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)