WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

410

Thankfully, Westwall (de.metapedia.org) is no buerocrat on German Metapedia, just a plain Administrator.

Westwall is very hostile and just blocked me from Metapedia again.

Disclaimer: Westwall usually makes good contributions on the Wiki, but how he treats fellow contributers is utterly unacceptable!

Before explaining what happened, first:

My (common) opinion about the phrase _“because I said so”_.

I despise the kind of person that considers “because I said so” a legitimate argument. “Because I said so” is such a highly obnoxious phrase. It helps nobody, it is not even a logical argument, no constructive criticism; it's just blank excision of power.

In fact, I tend to instantly despise people who say “because I said so” (if not meant as a joke). No exaggeration. The phrase “because I said so” instantly tells me a lot about one's personality.

Every school teacher in my life who commonly used the obnoxious phrase “because I said so” had a lot of other despicable personal traits and belonged to the hated school teachers among my class mates, which is no co-incidence.

This is not just my opinion, but many people I know personally share this opinion.

What happened

(Rough translations)

  • Westwall advised (de.metapedia.org) me to “stop with this (de.metapedia.org) nonsense” (creating a category on lists of websites excluded from the Wayback Machine).
  • I asked (de.metapedia.org) what exactly about that category he considers nonsense, and explained that some readers might be legitimately interested in it.
  • His reply (de.metapedia.org): “BECAUSE I SAID SO”.
    • I already despised Westwall, but this obviously re-inforced it. Yet I stayed civil all the way to the end.
    • His reply also stated: “You have no clue about our structure of categories.”
  • My constructive reply (de.metapedia.org): Then I suggest creating a page to explain that structure, so I can constructively learn from it. Also, I would like to know what one more administrator has to say about it.
  • His reply (does not even address my reply): **“I don't think I wasn't clear enough. But because you repeatedly neglected administrator's instructions [debunked in next reply], I am blocking you for four weeks to think about your behaviour and your general nastinesses. Have a nice weekend [sarcasm, obviously] and good free days.”

[I got blocked for four weeks.]

My replies (de.metapedia.org) afterwards are too long to translate (I don't quite feel like it right now), but you can use Google Translate for it.

I suspect that Westwall, who personally despises me, just started this discussion so he can find an excuse to get me out.

I hope that the more civil administrators Thore and Hyperboreer can sort it out.

Thankfully, [Westwall](https://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Westwall) is no buerocrat on German Metapedia, just a plain Administrator. Westwall is very hostile and just blocked me from Metapedia again. Disclaimer: Westwall usually makes good contributions on the Wiki, but how he treats fellow contributers is **utterly unacceptable!** Before explaining what happened, first: # **My (common) opinion about the phrase _“because I said so”_.** **I despise** the kind of person that considers “because I said so” a legitimate argument. **“Because I said so” is such a highly obnoxious phrase.** It helps nobody, it is not even a logical argument, no constructive criticism; it's just blank excision of power. In fact, I tend to **instantly** despise people who say ***“because I said so”*** (if not meant as a joke). **No exaggeration.** The phrase *“because I said so”* **instantly** tells me a lot about one's personality. Every school teacher in my life who commonly used the obnoxious phrase ***“because I said so”*** had a lot of other despicable personal traits and belonged to the hated school teachers among my class mates, which is no co-incidence. This is not just my opinion, but **many people** I know personally share this opinion. ## What happened (Rough translations) * Westwall [advised](https://de.metapedia.org/m/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Anon9&diff=1238383&oldid=1236921) me to “stop with [this](https://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Kategorie:Auf_Sperrliste_der_Wayback_Machine) nonsense” (creating a category on lists of websites excluded from the Wayback Machine). * I [asked](https://de.metapedia.org/m/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Anon9&diff=1238390&oldid=1238383) what exactly about that category he considers nonsense, and explained that some readers might be legitimately interested in it. * His [reply](https://de.metapedia.org/m/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Anon9&diff=1238413&oldid=1238390): **“BECAUSE I SAID SO”**. * I already despised Westwall, but this obviously re-inforced it. Yet I stayed civil all the way to the end. * His reply also stated: “You have no clue about our structure of categories.” * My constructive [reply](https://de.metapedia.org/m/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Anon9&diff=1238476&oldid=1238413): Then I suggest creating a page to **explain** that structure, so **I can constructively learn from it.** Also, I would like to know what **one more** administrator has to say about it. * His reply (does not even address my reply): **“I don't think I wasn't clear enough. But because **you repeatedly neglected administrator's instructions** [debunked in next reply], I am blocking you for four weeks to think about your behaviour and your general *nastinesses*. Have a nice weekend [sarcasm, obviously] and good free days.” [I got blocked for four weeks.] My [replies](https://de.metapedia.org/m/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion%3AAnon9&type=revision&diff=1238540&oldid=1238534) afterwards are too long to translate (I don't quite feel like it right now), but you can use Google Translate for it. I suspect that Westwall, who personally despises me, just started this discussion so he can find an excuse to get me out. I hope that the more civil administrators *Thore* and *Hyperboreer* can sort it out.

(post is archived)

[–] 2 pts (edited )

Only things you can rely on to make your case, is what the rule book regarding moderation ("the Law") says... And what "past jurisprudence" in similar cases are, if any available...

Of course you mustn't have infringed upon any rules to begin with, that goes without saying

The rest is irrelevant (how really (or supposedly) positive your past contributions have been for instance, that's subjective also, btw)

Do you have a link to the rules/"rule book" moderators must abide to?

[–] 2 pts

The link is this (de.metapedia.org) (German).

Feel free to use Google Translate.

Their Administrators (functionally moderators) are volunteers, as far as I know, and not a part of the site staff.

[–] 1 pt

Their Administrators (functionally moderators) are volunteers, as far as I know, and not a part of the site staff.

Correct.