Arbitration Committee to accept case against Right Honorable Frimbley Cantingham, 15th Viscount Bellington-upon-Porkshire
Arbitrators are currently evaluating a case request against an administrator, the Right Honorable Frimbley Cantingham, 15th Viscount Bellington-upon-Porkshire, for misuse of the tools.
The case was opened following a long thread on the administrators' noticeboard last week, regarding a large volume of reverts across multiple pages which culminated in a long string of blocks from the viscount, alleged to have been made in breach of admin policy (chiefly WP:INVOLVED).
The blocks, issued by Porkshire on Wednesday morning, took place after a series of revert wars with users on a variety of pages, such as Oliver Cromwell, Church of England, Anglicanism, House of Tudor and Ireland.
2023-06-30T12:11:20 ViscountXV ( talk | contribs) blocked 132.61.64.123 ( talk) from the page Church of England with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ( WP:NOPURITANS)
Viscount Bellington-upon-Porkshire was quite active in the early days of Wikipedia, when administrators were appointed directly by the King; he wrote many articles, and some of his essays (like WP:NOPURITANS) are still cited to this day. However, in recent years, his editing history has become sparse; his last logged admin action was in 1661.
Porkshire has said in his defense that he is "Truley shocked to see such Heresie and Contumelious behaviour amongste the Scribes", and questioned the basis upon which the Committee drew its mandate.
Hast thou not reason then to bee ashamed, ye followers of that scoundrell Cromwell, who doth think himself high and mightie, yet is but a usurper of the throne? Verily, his deedes are steep'd in deceit and treachery, casting a shadow upon the land and tarnishing the noble historie of our monarchie.
Thou speakest of his so-called religious principles, but what godly man would dare to lay claim to such wickedness? Cromwell, that hypocrite of the highest order, did cloak himself in pietie, yet his actions betray his true nature. He espoused the ideals of godliness whilst trampling upon the sacred rights of kings, seeking to deny the divine right bestow'd upon them. And thou hast encouraged this Vandalisme of the highest order!
No learned lawyer will affirm that an impeachment can lie against an Administrator... I woulde know by what power I am called hither. I woulde know by what authority!
At press time, the Committee was standing at a 7–2 majority to accept, with two arbitrators recusing themselves on the basis that this bit wasn't funny enough to publish.
Arbitration Committee to accept case against Right Honorable Frimbley Cantingham, 15th Viscount Bellington-upon-Porkshire
Arbitrators are currently evaluating a case request against an administrator, the Right Honorable Frimbley Cantingham, 15th Viscount Bellington-upon-Porkshire, for misuse of the tools.
The case was opened following a long thread on the administrators' noticeboard last week, regarding a large volume of reverts across multiple pages which culminated in a long string of blocks from the viscount, alleged to have been made in breach of admin policy (chiefly WP:INVOLVED).
The blocks, issued by Porkshire on Wednesday morning, took place after a series of revert wars with users on a variety of pages, such as Oliver Cromwell, Church of England, Anglicanism, House of Tudor and Ireland.
2023-06-30T12:11:20 ViscountXV ( talk | contribs) blocked 132.61.64.123 ( talk) from the page Church of England with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ( WP:NOPURITANS)
Viscount Bellington-upon-Porkshire was quite active in the early days of Wikipedia, when administrators were appointed directly by the King; he wrote many articles, and some of his essays (like WP:NOPURITANS) are still cited to this day. However, in recent years, his editing history has become sparse; his last logged admin action was in 1661.
Porkshire has said in his defense that he is "Truley shocked to see such Heresie and Contumelious behaviour amongste the Scribes", and questioned the basis upon which the Committee drew its mandate.
Hast thou not reason then to bee ashamed, ye followers of that scoundrell Cromwell, who doth think himself high and mightie, yet is but a usurper of the throne? Verily, his deedes are steep'd in deceit and treachery, casting a shadow upon the land and tarnishing the noble historie of our monarchie.
Thou speakest of his so-called religious principles, but what godly man would dare to lay claim to such wickedness? Cromwell, that hypocrite of the highest order, did cloak himself in pietie, yet his actions betray his true nature. He espoused the ideals of godliness whilst trampling upon the sacred rights of kings, seeking to deny the divine right bestow'd upon them. And thou hast encouraged this Vandalisme of the highest order!
No learned lawyer will affirm that an impeachment can lie against an Administrator... I woulde know by what power I am called hither. I woulde know by what authority!
At press time, the Committee was standing at a 7–2 majority to accept, with two arbitrators recusing themselves on the basis that this bit wasn't funny enough to publish.
Discuss this story
This is a long-overdue comeuppance for Bellington-upon-Porkshire! I remember his behavior during the First Infobox Crusades, back before Wikipedia's online version. Rather than use the Talk parchment, he stole the infobox letter presses and threw them in the trash! Of course, he claimed that he didn't know that this was prohibited because the carrier pigeon with the contentious topic notification never reached him. When challenged about that, he started an RfC, which of course was held locally in his village where all his friends were, and because of the Plague no one else who tried to travel there to !vote survived. That bastard got away with so much. A huge fan of portals, too. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 14:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- LIKE!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Portals?! And no one burned him at the stake?
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 17:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- LIKE!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Being under contentious topics, this should have been resolved through a CT ban decades ago. I'm shocked at how the Arbcom -- which everyone knows very well has existed since the last century, much before Wikipedia came into existence -- agreed to take the case with a 7-2 majority (You know it. it's tough to calculate the percentage majority in such cases; it would have been simpler to have an 8-2 majority and write "with 80% majority"....) Sounds good, right? I can see your heads nodding in agreement... Thank you. I am out of here.
Lourdes 04:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- LIKE Buckshot06 (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- (p.s: I want "Like" buttons on every comment so I can see how many have liked any comment. Can someone point me to the guy who coded this project? No, not him... the right guy...)
Thank you for this piece of art, it made me smile.— The Editor's Apprentice ( talk) 05:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Me too!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Discuss this story
This is a long-overdue comeuppance for Bellington-upon-Porkshire! I remember his behavior during the First Infobox Crusades, back before Wikipedia's online version. Rather than use the Talk parchment, he stole the infobox letter presses and threw them in the trash! Of course, he claimed that he didn't know that this was prohibited because the carrier pigeon with the contentious topic notification never reached him. When challenged about that, he started an RfC, which of course was held locally in his village where all his friends were, and because of the Plague no one else who tried to travel there to !vote survived. That bastard got away with so much. A huge fan of portals, too. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 14:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you for this piece of art, it made me smile.— The Editor's Apprentice ( talk) 05:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply