User:Yskyflyer/Block Complaint
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Since I was unblocked I have not yet complained the the User:Jdforrester because I do not know how to approach an arbitrator who I feel is acting inappropriately. I will need to rewrite my complaints as suggestions. |
Contents |
[edit] The issue
This is what I was talking about. User_talk:Ed_g2s#Fair_use_uncyclopedia This was the reply form the user. User_talk:Yskyflyer#Unenecyclopaedia The person who blocked me is an Arbitrator but did not once visit my talk page. He did however respond to my e-mails. [1] I have since Apologized for 2 of my 3 edits and my edit summaries. I however still feel. I feel the only reason I got in troubles was because I went out of my way to make my edits very undisruptive. For instance I linked to all my edits so they can be easily reverted and not pass under the radar. (This was used against me to find the questionable edits). I had not involved any bystanders. This was only against one user, and my point was so mild that the user unfortunately agreed with my edit (Hence my edits were a catch 22. If the person didn’t like my edit they would be more civil about removing fair use images and if the person liked my edit I didn’t offend anybody.) WP:Point is about making edits that nobody would agree with just to make a point. My point was not an extreme. My page was a sandbox and one of my edit was to his sandbox. One edit was a fair use flag and my page was also used to illustrate the company I was talking about. Another edit was a screen shot and that was just plainly a fair use image and the least defendable. My point was he should not remove fair use images until he removed all of his. I felt it would be less destructive for him to revert those three documented changes that to have the numerous other user have his changes on their page without even knowing it and latter having to find and revert it themselves. If he wasn’t massively removing images without talink to users and received sacral complaints and only apologizing after the fact I had to act quickly to save the numerous other user from becoming part of this mess. I Know what I did was not the best thing in the world. It's hard to type out jokes and friendly teasing without them being read seriously. I felt rushed to make my point because I noticed the user was making allot of edits and had been asked to stop several times. I didn't realize that user was an admin (Because I expected an admin to notify me if they edited my). The person who blocked me had met the user I supposedly offended so their was a conflict of. I could have conducted myself better but I still feel a block was inappropriate. I mean the arbitrator didn't even ask me why I felt I had to do what I did. Although I made a WP:Point what I did, did not create the problems that WP:point is trying to prevent. Nobody had to go back and cleanup my mess. I didn't have many other options to express my frustration because the user has already received numerous complaints.
Unfortunately their is a difference in what the Original Wikipedian believe Wikipedia is for and what the new wave of Wikipedian believe it is for. Wikipedia has a life of it’s own. Wikipedia is to large to be strictly controlled from one man and his others. Wikipedia is a Beaurocracy WP:NOT and their aren’t blanked rules. If the user disagreed with my edit he should discus it with me not block me.
Maybe I could have just linked to the images that were a fair use violation or added a ":" so the images remain their as a link and i know my edit summaries could have been more friendly but it did not warrant a block. If i am blocked i want to see the orange notification that i have a new message and read it to say I am blocked. I don't want to find out i have been blocked when I am writing a response to the issue. many/Some Wikipedian believe that someone who creates an image cant have the image as fair use and give permission to . Please not i did not revert the edit i was protesting because I was trying to get the user who removed the image to see my point and revert it. This user had removed images from numerous user pages without evaluating why they are there in some Absolute (robot voice) "This is a fair use image on user space, Delete Delete Delete Delete"
This is the page i was protesting.
I figure if Everyone is having a problem with one user that user should be taking precautions not to offend people. Saying “I don't have time to leave a message on a talk page” (not a quote he said) is unacceptable. I personally believe the user who blocked should not be an admin, let alone an arbitrator, however that user was appointed by the great founder himself so i can't really make a good argument. The longer you are around the more conflicts you get into. Blocing peopople becose of a metaconflit is not acceptable. (Nether was parts of my edit)--E-Bod 19:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Basically I felt i was not Disrupting Wikipedia but rather one user who was massily disrupting user space while refusing to talk with users. After the fact
A block was not appropriate because it prevented my form resolving the issue I was blocked for. It has frustrated me enough that I no longer want to go back and redit my comment with an apology. Being silenced is a horrible feeling. I am used to having the right to speak and be heard and the obligation to listen to others.
Another issue is that When you block somebody the Blocker almost craves power. They will tell thou that they will unblock you iff you admint what you did was wrong. This Policy is unacceptable because then Unsisere people will lie and say they know wat they did was wrong
I feel one should only be blocked when there is reason to suspect they will repeat the offence. Admins shoed assume good faith.
I have not yet went back to complain to this user because how can I complain to an arbitrator.
[edit] The letter i wrote for the user but i have not sent
I worite this after i was unblocked but latter decided not to send it after i found out that user was an arbirtrator. Jimbo wales aponted him abitrator so who am i to tell him he doesn't understand our policies
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jdforrester&action=edit§ion=new
I have had my TEA and I am I have spent a lot of time writing this so I am Now prepared to defend myself Against your Ill-founded Block [2].
First off I will not Argue that what I did to get Blocked was proper, however, I only am arguing that you had no right to block me for my action.
- You had a conflict of interest and should have notified another admin to block me
- You Did not 1) Warn me Prier to Blocking me 2) Notify me of your Block
- Your Argument that
- You are evidently sufficiently familiar with the policy to not need a warning
- Is Unacceptable because WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy
- Your Argument that
Yes I am “sufficiently familiar with the policy to not need a warning” Because I Know the Policy very well. And regrettably, I may know my policy more than you do.
[edit] Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy
In particular, Wikipedia is not a system of law. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines (see Wikipedia:Wikilawyering). Our dispute resolution process exists to mediate and arbitrate disputes between users, not to enforce judicial remedies.
- The Edit I was Protesting went against Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The user, who happed to be an admin and your friend, had received several complaints about similar edits and it falloed lo
[edit] Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
In this situation, it may be tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they object to. These activities are generally disruptive: i.e., they require the vast majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up after the "proof".
In general, such illustrative edits are not well-received and are strongly opposed by those who believe them to be ineffective tools of persuasion. Many readers consider such techniques to be spiteful and unencyclopedic, as passers-by are caught in the crossfire of edits that are not made in good faith, and which, indeed, are designed to provoke outrage and opposition. As a general rule, points are best expressed directly, without irony or subterfuge. Direct statements are the best way to garner respect, agreement and consensus.
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Wikipedia:Interpret all rules Wikipedia:Use common sense Wikipedia:There's no common sense Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages#…but don't be reckless! User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles M:Foundation issues Commons:Image:Jimbo_mtg_card.jpg Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset Wikipedia:Policy trifecta Wikipedia:Five pillars Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
WP:AIV Vandals should not treated better than I am
