User talk:Astronautics~enwiki/Sam Hocevar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Response from Sam[edit]

I find it amazing you have time to do such research, and not manage to answer a simple request: give evidence of GNAA Popeye's repeated vandalism that led to his reblocking.
The RFC was my own initiative, and was suggested to me by Susvolans on the village pump, after two weeks of you ignoring questions. Let me assure you that none of this would have happened if you had given honest answers. I see no reason to lie about the RFC being my own work; if GNAA Popeye had been involved from the beginning, obviously he would have signed the RFC, and he would have spotted factual mistakes in my quick analysis (like the fact that none of his contributions were vandalism; you actually pointed me to one afterwards). I also later publicly admitted that the RFC was not the best way to solve the issue. I find it rather dishonest to quote only bits of a whole conversation; for instance, you could have quoted discussions from before the RFC (Nov 12 CET 2004):
15:42 <+sam> Popeye: is your Wikipedia account still blocked?
15:42 <@Popeye> i think so
15:47 <@Popeye> You have attempted to edit a page, either by clicking the "edit this page" tab or by following a red link.
15:47 <@Popeye> Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Arminius.
15:47 <@Popeye> The reason given is this:
15:47 <@Popeye> reblocking, was blocked due to repeated vandalism-->Silsor
15:47 <@Popeye> yes
15:47 <@Popeye> still blocked, unable to defend myself against losers on my own user page
15:47 <@Popeye> for something I didnt even do
15:47 <@Popeye> I never vandalized "silsor"'s page
15:47 <@Popeye> they are trying to supress my views
15:47 <@Popeye> and they know it
It is also very dishonest from you to depict me as wanting to troll the whole Wikipedia community. I am a part of the Wikipedia community as much as you. I did three times as many edits as you. I feel insulted. You have no right to presuppose my motivations, especially on the grounds of a conversation that happened after two weeks of trying to communicate with you, without success. See for instance my attempt at defending the Wikipedia community (of course it is quite hard to argue on IRC, especially for a non-native speaker like me who has to think longer about grammar and spelling, so it's far from a panegyric of the community, but anyway) (Nov 12 CET 2004):
15:58 <@Popeye> Once again wikipedia has verified my conviction that they are nothing but a bunch of crypto-fascist barebacking louts
15:59 <@Popeye> You know why I was originally banned? I posted a link to a GNAA press release on the GNAA talk page
15:59 <+sam> well, it's sad that a few crypto-fascist barebacking louts gave you the idea that they're all like that
In fact I feel tricked by you into having to resort to every possible legitimate means to communicate with you, and getting such non-answers and attempts to decredibilise me, while in fact it's your actions that are being questioned.
Anyway you are only making it obvious that it was easier for me to find GNAA Popeye on IRC and have a discussion with him about the issue than it was to get a response from you. If there is someone you should blame for my opinion to be now a bit biased, it's only you, for being an issue dropper, like you quoted above. For instance I learned that he was blocked within one day of being on Wikipedia for being a sock puppet (which he obviously wasn't). After only one recorded act of vandalism and several blocks from various admins, I can understand he was pissed. Your reluctancy to explain the real reasons for his reblocking only expose the fact that he was not reblocked for repeated vandalism, because there had simply not been any repeated vandalism when he was permanently reblocked.
On second thought, I suppose you are joking. If you really thought I was a troll, you would have blocked me already. After all, my history also has one illegitimate edit. I will not object to this page's existence, though, despite the false accusations you are making on it. One more thing: I am under the impression that you are thinking I am from the GNAA (mostly because of your commit log when reinstalling the RFC at its place): I am not, and have never been. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 01:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Response to newest gratuitous attack[edit]

Only one person was even remotely disturbed by the link, and when I apologised to him, he stated he was "just a little bit surprised, that's mostly it." I also told him that I would remove the link later. This is hardly the massive Wikipedia trolling you are trying to expose, and even less reason for vandalising my userpage four times. You know, that hello.jpg link will not appear as offensive depending on who is seeing it. --Sam Hocevar 01:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)