User talk:Pontius Ethics/Archive1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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).

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

Request reason:

Collaboration between Admins for Personal Attacks -- using blocks as punitive measures -- 'tagteam' harrassment -- provocation

Decline reason:

Legal threat and extremely questionable behaviour from this editor. -- Yamla 17:02, 16 January 2007 (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 is where I will be developing my new ethics system.

Please feel free to critique so that I can better my system.

Initial Continuation of Outside Harrassment

I originally deleted this, as I didn't see this coming. This was posted on this talk page by user Modemac. These guys follow me *everywhere* and pull these kinds of stunts.

Here's a critique, Gammamute: claiming Ivan Stang died is slander. It gives Wikipedia administrators the right to block you from editing here. So consider this a friendly warning to stay with Wikipedia etiquette. --Modemac 01:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats

Since, per this edit and this edit you have clearly chosen legal action instead of dispute resolution, I have revoked your editing privileges, per our Wikipedia:No legal threats policy. Your editing privileges will be restored only upon either your complete retraction of all legal threats or the appropriate completion of any legal proceedings. Uncle G 13:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Pontius Ethics

Uncle G,

Actually, modemac has harrassed me through several mediums consistently for the past year. I'm sure you're unaware of that. This has happened on IRC, as well as usenet and anonymous email. I certainly hope wikipedia is not condoning such behaviour by policy now. I feel like this block is being used as a punitive measure and wish to dispute it.

Retraction of Statements

"I want his legal contact information."

I fully retract this statement. While modemac's harrassment is illegal, I understand that this is not the place to request such information, as wikipedia is allegedly neutral and would not support *either* party involved in such a dispute. I apologize for using wikipedia as a medium to request this information and am requesting my ban to be lifted so that I may contribute to the wikipedia archive.

Retraction of alleged legal threat

Modemac I will not be suing you at this time.

I understand that wikipedia policy prohibits making of legal threats and personal attacks. I apologize for these.

I also agree that my edits to the Church of the Subgenius were inappropriate, given that my sources were not cited, and that they violate wikipedia's conflict of interests policies.

Unban, Please.  Pontius Ethics 00:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

End of Retraction Statements

And I want my block lifted. This is an abuse of administrative privelage. Please respond promptly.

Secondly...I did *not* threaten him. The words 'I will sue you' did not come out of my mouth, regardless of my intentions. There was no legal threat. Please stop abusing the nature of this policy. I wish to have mediation in this if you are unwilling to comply.

Uncle G

If you did not threaten him, then retract the statement regardlessly. It's that simple. By the way, you can still at any time edit your own talk page; you just cannot edit other talk pages or articles.65.190.160.210 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Pontius Ethics

It will not allow me to retract the statement as I am blocked from editing articles. I would be happy to do so on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pontius Ethics (talk • contribs) 2007-01-15 02:41:43

Uncle G

Writing that you are not threatening legal action immediately below where you have written "I want his legal contact information." is clearly self-contradictory. Despite the advice to retract your legal threats from 65.190.160.210, you are clearly instead continuing them and repeating them, and thus your editing privileges will remain revoked. As above: Your editing privileges will be restored only upon either your complete retraction of all legal threats or the appropriate completion of any legal proceedings.

As for what Wikipedia condones by policy: Wikipedia does not want outside disputes being brought here. Both No legal threats and Wikipedia is not a battleground are policy. As you've explained above, bringing outside disputes here is precisely what you are doing. Uncle G 11:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Modemac's Response

"Actually, modemac has harrassed me through several mediums consistently for the past year." Two words should suffice: "Prove it.

Actually, the IRC Taphouse cabal has been laughing at "Gammamute"'s pitiful attempts to disrupt their IRC server for the past year or so. See also: Usenet search for "gammamute" Also, regarding "I am not Gammamute:" http://hashphp.org/user/Gammamute and http://www.myspace.com/gammamute and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56TbxIpGplA . Now please stop trolling. Thank you. --Modemac 17:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Pontius Ethics

Modemac, please cease all contact with me not relating to wikipedia articles through wikipedia. I will not engage in trolling battles with you on this medium. I'm not sure what your references are supposed to mean, either. I think your anger may have gotten the best of you again. Again- please cease all contact not related to content in wikipedia articles. It is against wikipedia policy.

Uncle G, if this is not an adequate response to your request, then please contact a higher administrator for a dispute resolution. I have complied with your request 100%.

Pontius Ethics

Wait a minute....Modemac brought the dispute to me, on my talk page. What exactly is going on here? I want a third party dispute resolution immediately. Uncle G, I'm not sure what your purpose is, but I'm starting to wonder if it's ethical.

More Harrassment from more of modemac's crew -- Phloighd

You have a heck of a lot of gall to talk about what's "ethical," sir. After knowingly vandalizing pages and getting called on it, you attempt to intimidate people in some pathetic attempt to get your name more publicity or some twisted thing. The shame of it all is that your ideas aren't all awful and you might have something to contribute if you weren't acting like an ass all the time. If you want to be respected ever again, drop all your current nicks, think of a new one, and stop being a dilweed. Phloighd 14:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)