Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.5K

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)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (11).
[–] • 0 pt

https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Metapedia:Content_guidelines

Examples of Topics Suitable for Metapedia

>Ideology and philosophy.

>Pro-European people, parties, movements, literature, events, web pages etc.

>Historical events relevant to the pro-European struggle. For example the Reconquista, the French Revolution, World War 2, non-European invasions of European territory (Ottoman, Moorish and Hunnish invasions).

>Mass media: Foreign control, anti-white bias, left wing orientation. Articles outlining the owner structure and obvious anti-European bias of the mainstream media.

>Alternative music. Synthwave, neofolk, ambient, dark wave, folk metal, black metal, nationalist rock and other genres with pro-European tendencies.

>Traditionalism, ariosophy, European and Indo-European traditions etc.

>Religion. In particular the indigenous European religions, but also other religions.

>Physical anthropology and genetics. IQ-studies, eugenics, racial differences and such.

>Personal improvement. Articles on topics and books related to personal improvement.

...

Where does "creating a category on lists of websites excluded from the Wayback Machine" fits here?

I fail to see, personally, so that doesn't really plead in your favor, to begin with

[–] • 2 pts

I just took a look at the German version (de.metapedia.org), which is much longer.

Apparently, that Wayback exclusion category is neutral according to those rules. It certainly doesn't breach any rules.

[–] • 1 pt

Indeed. It is neutral!

Westwall, although a productive editor, is a hostile butthole. I can't stand him.

He harms Metapedia through his utter hostility.