[WikiEN-l] Abusive Blocking

Fri Apr 22 19:38:33 UTC 2005

--- John Bradley <john at ontobus.co.uk> wrote:
> You haven't provided either the date of my alleged 3RR breach by Viloet 
> Riga or any explanation of why one person is allowed to corrupt data and 
> not another.

Why on earth should I? In the first instance, it does, to me, sound like a
smokescreen to distract attention from your own childish behaviour. Moreover,
providing a random link to an archive page is not sufficient. If you want to
present a case, go and put in the hard work of diffs, links etc. Remember all
the effort we went to to list your bad behaviour in your Arbitration case? We
didn't just make ethereal statements that "Irate is bad", we *documented* your
tantrums. If you wish to have anyone pay attention to your own claims, you're
expected to do the same.

> Is it simply that you believe you speak on behalf of God?

Why do you feel it necessary to bring my faith into this discussion?

> How is my bias showing? What biases are they?

You have questioned my honesty based on your assumption that I'm 1) "posh"; 2)
privately educated; and 3) a practising Christian. That sounds like prejudice
to me.

> I have noting that you belong to several sections of society not known for 
> there honesty. You statements are all based on your faith that you are right,

You have no idea about me. Why do you think I'm "posh"? What do you know about
my education?

> It is unimaginable to you that you are wrong. 

I'm quite prepared to consider that I might be in the wrong. It would, however,
be in the face of criticism from someone other than yourself -- I don't have
any confidence in your judgement. However, all the objective evidence suggests
that you are wrong. I trust the Wikipedia community's collective opinion, and
that opinion has, to date, exclusively condemned your behaviour, and not mine.
Remember the RfC against your conduct that was certified by nineteen users? The
ArbCom ruling? This is rational evidence here, not faith.

> The same kind of fact free faith you take to church on Sunday.

Again, why do you need to have a go at my faith? I've never brought it into our
discussions, but you bring it up just to attack me with it. I'm afraid it makes
you sound like quite a bigot.

> As you say cheap shots.

See above.

> Anyone who assumes that spelling and grammar 
> are indicators of intelligence is someone rather shallow.  

You claimed I have low intelligence (and your claim had bad spelling and
grammar). But regardless, I've claimed nothing about your intelligence. Sadly,
you appear to take "agreeing with John Bradley" as an indicator of
intelligence. I would suggest that's more than shallow.

-- Matt
[[User:Matt Crypto]]

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 