You know what? Maybe you're right, maybe the guy has been a total ass with you for no good reason whatsoever. Let's leave it at that, for the sake of the argument, let's say you're "right" and he's "wrong".
Now that being said, if you're behaving like an ass, in my home, and I tell to gtfo, and you ask me "why should I"? And I reply "because I said so"... Well you can despise me, you can choose to stay, but then I'm going to be "mean" as in stuffs are going to fly your way for "no reason at all"
You can despise me for that, and guess who's going to give a fuck? Not me.
...
Not everything is open to negotiation. People aren't supposed to live up to your expectations. Deal with it.
"Because I said so" means fuck off, the guy isn't keen on negotiating essentially. Has he an obligation to negotiate anything with you, to begin with?
Good point. I was just about to reply him something similar. But for this specific case, I have looked into it and found out:
in my home
Regarding the metaphor, the administrator Westwall does not actually own Metapedia. He is just one of many other administrators. MediaWiki (Wiki software) calls them Administrator although Moderator would be a more fitting name.
as in stuffs are going to fly your way for "no reason at all"
In that case, you could get help from police or similar. Because if someone had bad intentions, they could just take the things you threw at him and steal them.
if you're behaving like an ass
That would be obvious. But in his case, why that category he added to the pages was wrong, was not obvious. (I speak German too and looked into it.)
"Because I said so" means fuck off
In this case, it referred to the category added to the page.
Has he an obligation to negotiate anything with [him], to begin with?
I just found the Metapedia administrator policy (de.metapedia.org), that states that if there is a conflict between a user and an administrator, a second administrator should be consulted.
Not everything is open to negotiation.
Indeed. Some things are obvious. But in this particular case, asking why that category doesn't belong here is a legitimate question.
Maybe, @Anon8 has something to add as well.
I forgot to mention examples where it is obvious that one is doing something wrong.
Has he an obligation to negotiate anything with you, to begin with?
He can either negotiate or leave me alone.
But I have violated zero policies of the site, and made hundreds of positive contributions within days.
Pretty much anything else I would say is actually already mentioned in @Handroid7's comment.
Westwall does not own the site. Administrator on MediaWiki is a misnomer. They should have called it moderator.
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?
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.
If every administrator was like Westwall, a project is doomed to fail.
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
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.
(post is archived)