R E Broadley 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]]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:26 AM, R E Broadley<rebroad+wikimedia.org(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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(a)gmail.com> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>rg>; rebroad+wikimedia.org(a)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 Broadley<rebroad+wikimedia.org(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l