User talk:Allassa37

Welcome!
Hi Allassa37! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Wareon (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Terry Bean AN discussion
Just noting that I have moved your discussion of the Terry Bean article from Administrators' noticeboard to the appropriate venue, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You can find it at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Terry Bean. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please review WP:ASPERSIONS before making broad and extreme allegations against editors without any evidence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, such as suggesting neutral edits based in reliable sources. It is not appropriate to make baseless accusations against the many uninvolved administrators who stepped in to stem significant past disruption (which is visible in the page history and logs), of trying to cover up crimes and so on. If you truly believe that editors are engaged in some sort of bad-faith cover-up, present your concerns and evidence as I instructed above at ANI or a similar venue. However, it seems that you are upset that Bean's page was not been updated as thoroughly as you might have liked, and are coming up with conspiracy theories about cabals and cover-ups without any factual basis. That is not acceptable. It would be a far more productive use of your time to just suggest the edits you think ought to be made; as is clear from the response to your noticeboard post, there are plenty of editors who are willing to help address outdated pages. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Here, I am referring to things you have said and done. Your paragraph extensively criticizes me, or by implication others ('disruption') Sauce for the goose. I suspect you feel free to criticize others, yet not follow your own 'rules'.   Everything you said in your above paragraph is biased and distorted.  You mention "baseless accusations" but you so far have merely ASSUMED they were "baseless".  You investigated nothing.  You are completely new here.  We are not obliged to assume, or even take your word, that you have adequately researched the past misconduct of 'all' sides.  I suspect you were called her to 'put out a fire'.  How long have you been monitoring this page? Who called you?  Names?  Expose evidence of why you arrived here.   Also, while you don't identify what you called "significant past disruption", I suspect the reason all that became necessary is that people were improperly  'protecting' the article from the addition of content some 'protectors' did not want to see added. Some people, I suspect, were simply not tolerating the addition of embarrassing, yet accurate, material.  You are taking a side simply by calling it "disruption", when in fact the actual "disruption" is obstruction of free editing of the article, that has gone on for 7 years, as I can see.  You also hurl a term, "conspiracy theories", when actually you have no evidence whatsoever that the problem IS NOT what I claim.  More likely, the editing has continued to be obstructed precisely to inhibit new, embarrassing information from being added.  But that wouldn't work, unless simultaneously people were 'neglecting' to follow the edit-request situation you imply is available.  You should explain exactly who was responsible for handling editing, especially since you have admitted the article was 'neglected'.   I think everybody who is inclined to request edits knows 'the fix is in', the edits they request simply won't be made.  If you are now claiming otherwise, I think it is your responsibility to demonstrate that edits actually occurred, including edits the 'protectors' likely wanted to impede.   You also rushed in to 'protect' against my attempt to stop the obstruction of the editing, obstruction which you cannot properly defend merely by vaguely referring to other "disruption" in the long past.  Even you admitted that this article page has been neglected, which constitutes a malicious act when it is intentionally done in coordination with blocking other editors from editing what you admit is a 'long-neglected' article.  'long-neglected' simply isn't accidental in this case.  It has been astonishingly deliberate and persistent.    Explain yourself to the victims here, as well as all those that have been so thoroughly discouraged by design. Also, your having deleted material from the Talk page is an attempt to tamper with the record. Other people who will eventually read that tampered record won't see the actual events and problems which you are helping to conceal.  In addition, it is malicious to ban somebody from editing a Talk page, as you did, especially if they have already issued a complaint about the misconduct I am referring to.  I should have been able to pursue this matter on the ANI, to show that there was indeed a problem that other people are trying to conceal.  This problem needs to be discussed. How many times, in the last 7 years, did somebody else attempt to expose this problem?  Were their attempts deleted from the record then, too, just like you did to my effort? Allassa37 (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not going to copy my entire reply to you everywhere you have copied your message to me, but here is a link to it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

NOTHERE
We've tolerated your nonsense long enough. I removed [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Bean&diff=1022077467&oldid=1022062722] your latest rant since you explicitly said you don't actually care about improving the article instead you just want to rant and advance your insane conspiracy theories while attacking editors who are actually here to improve Wikipedia. If you're not here to actually try and improve the encyclopaedia then fuck off. Per WP:NOTHERE, you will be blocked if you continue to waste your time ranting instead of proposing improvements. Frankly I find your attitude utterly disgusting. You claim to care about victims but you clearly don't since as I mentioned you explicitly said you don't care about improving the article despite you being the one who claimed victims were being harmed by it. Instead you're just here rant and rave about insane conspiracy theories, achieving nothing for the victims you claimed were being harmed but furthering whatever personal motivation you have with your insane rants. Utterly disgusting to use the plight of victims in that manner. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am being harassed by Nil Einne and GorillaWarfare for discussing the corruption involved in article Terry Bean. Both of these people 'magically appeared' on that article's Talk page following my complaints.  Neither addressed my numerous objections.  Both failed and refused to explain why they had just arrived, seemingly unannounced, so soon after my objections.  I checked, and I could find no indication at all that either of them had ever contributed either to the Terry Bean main article nor the Talk page.  I suggest that they were called in by those people who were watching and helping to protect the article Terry Bean from being edited to include well-sourced embarrassing and criminal allegations, as well as civil lawsuit information, that can be found quite easily by:    Google   ' "terry bean" "oregon" '.     Each raised specious objections that violate ordinary editor's rights to add well-sourced information from reliable sources that simply casts a shadow over Terry Bean, who was re-indicted in 2019 on charges of child-rape and numerous other offenses.   Allassa37 (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * My warnings to you about casting aspersions, and the brief block, clearly have not sunk in, so I have blocked you indefinitely. If and when you understand that that is not acceptable in this community, feel free to appeal using the instructions above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is your wild misconduct that should be considered "not acceptible in this community".  Too bad you decided to join the Cabal.  Allassa37 (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing indefinitely. for making personal attacks towards other editors. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: I'd like to initiate a complaint in the Administrator's Noticeboard, or another appropriate location, but cannot because I have been maliciously blocked.
Wikipedia has, probably intentionally, a 'coarse' method to deal with people the Administrators want to make "go away". Sure, they can 'ban' people, but that prevents those people from raising valid complaints and exposing corrupt Administrators who have abused their authority. Certainly arguably, an editor should be able to raise complaints against Administrators and other editors who are, themselves, engaged in misconduct. Despite the age of Wikipedia, however, they have not seen fit to provide an actual mechanism to expose misconduct while simultaneously being banned, quite possibly for specious reasons. They cannot address this problem: They cannot allow people who allege they've been wrong, to speak. Have you ever heard the saying, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat all problems as if they are nails". The only thing Administrators and colluding editors can do when they are caught violating WP rules is to obstruct the complaint mechanisms of anyone who notices that corruption. Allassa37 (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've revoked access to this talkpage because it's continuing to be used as a platform for personal attacks and for nonsensical accusations of collusion and conspiracies. Acroterion   (talk)   02:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)