Hi,
I am writing here pretty much as a last resort. I have been blocked by an admin for 1 month, but despite repeated requests for an explanation as to which policy or guideline justifies my block, four admins so far have declined to answer this. I consider this to be a simple question to ask, and would expect no less than the ability for an admin to be able to justify the block by citing applicable policy.
Please can someone look into this?
I also am concerned that four admins have chosen to decline the unblock request without feeling it necessary to provide the explanation requested.
In a court of law it's mandatory that the accused is given their reasons, and the applicable statute or case law referred to. Is there no similar requirement for justice within Wikipedia?
I also think there should be a facility for admins who operate outside of the law (if it can be called that) to be able to face consequences for their actions by some higher governing body - does such a body exist?
Many thanks, R E Broadley (User:Rebroad)
Hi,
I am writing here pretty much as a last resort. I have been blocked by an admin for 1 month, but despite repeated requests for an explanation as to which policy or guideline justifies my block, four admins so far have declined to answer this. I consider this to be a simple question to ask, and would expect no less than the ability for an admin to be able to justify the block by citing applicable policy.
Please can someone look into this?
I also am concerned that four admins have chosen to decline the unblock request without feeling it necessary to provide the explanation requested.
In a court of law it's mandatory that the accused is given their reasons, and the applicable statute or case law referred to. Is there no similar requirement for justice within Wikipedia?
I also think there should be a facility for admins who operate outside of the law (if it can be called that) to be able to face consequences for their actions by some higher governing body - does such a body exist?
Many thanks, R E Broadley (User:Rebroad)
You seem to have been blocked due to disruptive editing see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Secretary_of_State_for_Business,_I...
Fred
R E Broadley wrote:
Hi,
I am writing here pretty much as a last resort. I have been blocked by an admin for 1 month, but despite repeated requests for an explanation as to which policy or guideline justifies my block, four admins so far have declined to answer this. I consider this to be a simple question to ask, and would expect no less than the ability for an admin to be able to justify the block by citing applicable policy.
Please can someone look into this?
I also am concerned that four admins have chosen to decline the unblock request without feeling it necessary to provide the explanation requested.
In a court of law it's mandatory that the accused is given their reasons, and the applicable statute or case law referred to. Is there no similar requirement for justice within Wikipedia?
I also think there should be a facility for admins who operate outside of the law (if it can be called that) to be able to face consequences for their actions by some higher governing body - does such a body exist?
Many thanks, R E Broadley (User:Rebroad)
You seem to have had numerous opportunities to address the reasons why you were blocked; admins appear to have not only given cogent reasons for declining an unblock, but have explained them, with appropriate links. In your position, it would seem your only recourse now is to email the Arbitration Committe for a final decision. In advising thus, I regard only the mechanics of the situation ; if your argument has merits, it's clear you have not convinced any admin to unblock you. Sorry, but [[WP:GAB]] is helpful in these circumstances.
[[User:Rodhullandemu]]
Hi Phil,
The only link I've been given so far is the [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing]] link. Have you seen any others, because I have certainly not.
If you have, please do let me know, and I'll try to find the place where it was mentioned. I apologise sincerely if I have missed this pertinent information.
My last 2 or 3 unblock requests have explained that the procedures mentioned in the guideline were not followed, so surely the block should not stand, should it?
Cheers, Ed
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Phil Nashpn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
You seem to have had numerous opportunities to address the reasons why you were blocked; admins appear to have not only given cogent reasons for declining an unblock, but have explained them, with appropriate links. In your position, it would seem your only recourse now is to email the Arbitration Committe for a final decision. In advising thus, I regard only the mechanics of the situation ; if your argument has merits, it's clear you have not convinced any admin to unblock you. Sorry, but [[WP:GAB]] is helpful in these circumstances.
[[User:Rodhullandemu]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:26 AM, R E Broadleyrebroad+wikimedia.org@gmail.com wrote:
My last 2 or 3 unblock requests have explained that the procedures mentioned in the guideline were not followed, so surely the block should not stand, should it?
I really hope there's more to your request for unblocking than "the procedures...were not followed". I would focus on explaining why exactly you're an asset to the project, rather than a liability. Nitpicking admins won't get you far (I hope).
Steve
Given that admins are supposed to follow wikipedia policy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ADMINABUSE#Administrator_conduct), I'd suggest that it the admins who have failed to do this that are the liability to the project. I am very concerned that many seem to get away with flouting policy, and it seems very rare that admin access is taken away from admins that do this. I believe my edits speak for themselves as to why I am an asset to the project, and also the fact that I follow Wikipedia's policies, as well as contribute to a wide range of articles.
Regards, Ed
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:26 AM, R E Broadleyrebroad+wikimedia.org@gmail.com wrote:
My last 2 or 3 unblock requests have explained that the procedures mentioned in the guideline were not followed, so surely the block should not stand, should it?
I really hope there's more to your request for unblocking than "the procedures...were not followed". I would focus on explaining why exactly you're an asset to the project, rather than a liability. Nitpicking admins won't get you far (I hope).
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM, R E Broadleyrebroad+wikimedia.org@gmail.com wrote:
Given that admins are supposed to follow wikipedia policy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ADMINABUSE#Administrator_conduct), I'd suggest that it the admins who have failed to do this that are the liability to the project. I am very concerned that many seem to get away with flouting policy, and it seems very rare that admin access is taken away from admins that do this. I believe my edits speak for themselves as to why I am an asset to the project, and also the fact that I follow Wikipedia's policies, as well as contribute to a wide range of articles.
Regards, Ed
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:26 AM, R E Broadleyrebroad+wikimedia.org@gmail.com wrote:
My last 2 or 3 unblock requests have explained that the procedures mentioned in the guideline were not followed, so surely the block should not stand, should it?
I really hope there's more to your request for unblocking than "the procedures...were not followed". I would focus on explaining why exactly you're an asset to the project, rather than a liability. Nitpicking admins won't get you far (I hope).
Steve
I have reviewed your edits before the block, the warnings you were given, and in my opinion the block was entirely justified.
I understand that you disagree that you're violating our policy and being disruptive. However, a large number of other editors and admins find your behavior to be disruptive and violating policy. Continuing to insist you have done nothing wrong indicates a profound disrespect for Wikipedia's community and our input on your behavior. You have been repeatedly warned, asked nicely to edit in a more friendly and collegial manner, and yet you return to abusive behavior insisting you have done nothing wrong.
The next step down this road is either an indefinite block by an administrator or a community ban. I urge you to reconsider how you engage in Wikipedia, whether you are tempermentally suited to participate in a collaborative community or not. If you can still see nothing wrong with your behavior, then I suggest you just walk away from Wikipedia before we take actions to force you away. If you can understand that you're doing something wrong and work with us to try and avoid repeating it in the future you hopefully can return to productive editing.
The choice is up to you. I hope that you will be mature and responsible about this and look at your own behavior more critically.
Not all of use would address this issue as aggressively as Mr Herbert. There are many times when admin actions are unjustified and game-players can easily create an appearance of consensus when there is none.
I've already commented on the justice or lack of this action earlier.? What might be useful is if you could create a synopsis of what you think occurred and why and what actions were taken, over the course of this situation and post it off-wiki with deep links.
When a flashlight doesn't work, shine a spotlight, see if that works.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message----- From: George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org; rebroad+wikimedia.org@gmail.com Sent: Wed, Jul 22, 2009 2:05 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] admins blocking but refusing to justify which policy orguideline applies
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM, R E Broadleyrebroad+wikimedia.org@gmail.com wrote:
Given that admins are supposed to follow wikipedia policy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ADMINABUSE#Administrator_conduct), I'd suggest that it the admins who have failed to do this that are the liability to the project. I am very concerned that many seem to get away with flouting policy, and it seems very rare that admin access is taken away from admins that do this. I believe my edits speak for themselves as to why I am an asset to the project, and also the fact that I follow Wikipedia's policies, as well as contribute to a wide range of articles.
Regards, Ed
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:26 AM, R E Broadleyrebroad+wikimedia.org@gmail.com wrote:
My last 2 or 3 unblock requests have explained that the procedures mentioned in the guideline were not followed, so surely the block should not stand, should it?
I really hope there's more to your request for unblocking than "the procedures...were not followed". I would focus on explaining why exactly you're an asset to the project, rather than a liability. Nitpicking admins won't get you far (I hope).
Steve
I have reviewed your edits before the block, the warnings you were given, and in my opinion the block was entirely justified.
I understand that you disagree that you're violating our policy and being disruptive. However, a large number of other editors and admins find your behavior to be disruptive and violating policy. Continuing to insist you have done nothing wrong indicates a profound disrespect for Wikipedia's community and our input on your behavior. You have been repeatedly warned, asked nicely to edit in a more friendly and collegial manner, and yet you return to abusive behavior insisting you have done nothing wrong.
The next step down this road is either an indefinite block by an administrator or a community ban. I urge you to reconsider how you engage in Wikipedia, whether you are tempermentally suited to participate in a collaborative community or not. If you can still see nothing wrong with your behavior, then I suggest you just walk away from Wikipedia before we take actions to force you away. If you can understand that you're doing something wrong and work with us to try and avoid repeating it in the future you hopefully can return to productive editing.
The choice is up to you. I hope that you will be mature and responsible about this and look at your own behavior more critically.
R E Broadley wrote:
The only link I've been given so far is the [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing]] link. Have you seen any others, because I have certainly not.
I think you can reasonably ask the ArbCom about this. "Disruptive editing" is only a behavioural guideline: it mentions "This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree." In other words there should be more to it than a vague assertion of "disruption".
Charles