Hi, I would like to propose that the Wikipedia blocking policy was violated.
In summary, this is the situation. I posted once to Bektashi::Talk to discuss why freestylefrappe removed a certain section from the article. This was due to the Bektashi page being on the list of pages requiring moderation, and I wanted to add to the discussion.
freestylefrappe sent me a msg to the following effect on my talk page:
I suspect you are a sockpuppet of Aldirma's. However, in the offchance that you are not, if you go back and look at the different versions of the page you'll notice that he is trying to paste in the entire Bektashi jokes page. Assuming good faith, happy editing. freestylefrappe 04:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I responded to his msg to the following effect on his talk page:
I suspect you start all your messages with offensive accusations like "I suspect you're a sock puppet of so-and-so." That being said, no, I'm not a sock-puppet of Aldiramal or whatever his name is. If he is copypasting verbatim, then it violates copy-right and is not in line with this being an encyclopedia article. However, inclusion of a jokes section with paragraph explaining the role of jokes, and including one joke, would seem fair. Happy editing to you too.Wilgamesh
After this short exchange, Wikipedia indicated that I was "blocked for personal attacks" by freestylefrappe. Relevant IP info given below.
Any ideas? I suggest that freestylefrappe didn't like the fact that I pointed out his message implicating users being sock-puppets is HIGHLY OFFENSIVE, as reputability is the only thing sustaining most users' viability on wikipedia, and in a annoyance, moved to block me.
I would enjoy a discussion.
best, Wilgamesh
Your IP address is 128.103.96.115. Please include this address, along with your username, in any queries you make.
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
hideki yukawa wrote:
freestylefrappe sent me a msg to the following effect on my talk page:
I suspect you are a sockpuppet of Aldirma's. [...]
You really shouldn't take this as an insult. It says "I suspect you are..." and not "Clearly you are...". When people say something like that, they're not making it up out of thin air; they usually have grounds to believe this. They have a right to make mistakes every now and then and be wrong about it. Since, as you state, you aren't a sock-puppet, just continue as normal and everything will be fine. Just don't be reckless, or else people might conclude that you are trying to push an agenda, which in turn strengthens the belief that you may be a sock-puppet.
However, in the offchance that you are not, if you go back and look at the different versions of the page you'll notice that he is trying to paste in the entire Bektashi jokes page. Assuming good faith, happy editing.
Note how the user is explaining to you rationally and calmly how they arrived at their suspicion of you being a sock-puppet. They even explained to you how you can prevent yourself from appearing like a sock-puppet again. Lastly, they clarify that they are assuming your good faith.
It was unfair of you to say this:
I suspect you start all your messages with offensive accusations like "I suspect you're a sock puppet of so-and-so."
because there is no basis for you to believe this, and it's just polemics anyway, and not an attempt at helping improve the encyclopedia.
After this short exchange, Wikipedia indicated that I was "blocked for personal attacks" by freestylefrappe.
I agree this action was a bit harsh, but I find it understandable. Please note that "blocked" means temporarily (usually just 24 hours, I'm too lazy to chcek now). Cool down for that amount of time and then just come back and continue as normal.
I suggest that freestylefrappe didn't like the fact that I pointed out his message implicating users being sock-puppets is HIGHLY OFFENSIVE
I suggest that freestylefrappe didn't like the WAY you said it. You didn't just say "it's highly offensive", you wrapped it into an unncessary personal attack. (And he didn't implicate that you are a sock-puppet, only that he is suspecting it).
Timwi
Not liking the way people say things is no grounds for a block. This was a wrongful block, and I find it unfortunate that you took the time to scold this individual, but not the time to investigate the matter or unblock him.
Of course he could have spoken better in his reply, but blocks for personal attacks are controversial in the clearest of cases. If I said "F*ck off, you ignorant rat bastard" to someone on tbheir talk page, I would not expect to be blocked, and if I were I would appeal based on the block not having been in accordance w our policies. Admins should follow the rules more closely than anyone else, particularly when they are attempting to use these rules in order to punish others.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 11/2/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
hideki yukawa wrote:
freestylefrappe sent me a msg to the following effect on my talk page:
I suspect you are a sockpuppet of Aldirma's. [...]
You really shouldn't take this as an insult. It says "I suspect you are..." and not "Clearly you are...". When people say something like that, they're not making it up out of thin air; they usually have grounds to believe this. They have a right to make mistakes every now and then and be wrong about it. Since, as you state, you aren't a sock-puppet, just continue as normal and everything will be fine. Just don't be reckless, or else people might conclude that you are trying to push an agenda, which in turn strengthens the belief that you may be a sock-puppet.
However, in the offchance that you are not, if you go back and look at the different versions of the page you'll notice that he is trying to paste in the entire Bektashi jokes page. Assuming good faith, happy editing.
Note how the user is explaining to you rationally and calmly how they arrived at their suspicion of you being a sock-puppet. They even explained to you how you can prevent yourself from appearing like a sock-puppet again. Lastly, they clarify that they are assuming your good faith.
It was unfair of you to say this:
I suspect you start all your messages with offensive accusations like "I suspect you're a sock puppet of so-and-so."
because there is no basis for you to believe this, and it's just polemics anyway, and not an attempt at helping improve the encyclopedia.
After this short exchange, Wikipedia indicated that I was "blocked for personal attacks" by freestylefrappe.
I agree this action was a bit harsh, but I find it understandable. Please note that "blocked" means temporarily (usually just 24 hours, I'm too lazy to chcek now). Cool down for that amount of time and then just come back and continue as normal.
I suggest that freestylefrappe didn't like the fact that I pointed out his message implicating users being sock-puppets is HIGHLY OFFENSIVE
I suggest that freestylefrappe didn't like the WAY you said it. You didn't just say "it's highly offensive", you wrapped it into an unncessary personal attack. (And he didn't implicate that you are a sock-puppet, only that he is suspecting it).
Timwi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jack Lynch wrote:
Not liking the way people say things is no grounds for a block.
You seem to be thinking that I supported the block. May I remind you that I said this:
I agree this action was a bit harsh, but I find it understandable.
In hindsight, I shouldn't have said the last bit. I only said it because I think I understand what the blocking admin was thinking, not because I think he was right or anything.
This was a wrongful block, and I find it unfortunate that you took the time to scold this individual, but not the time to investigate the matter or unblock him.
I did not scold anyone, I was trying to be helpful. I recognise that you don't appreciate me trying to help, but the more people misinterpret my help as "scolding" the more I'm inclined to just think it's their own fault for assuming my bad faith.
From what I hear from people who have blocked or unblocked people, I get the impression that there is a high risk of getting scolded for it, and as a result I have so far never blocked or unblocked anyone, and I wasn't in the mood to get started.
Timwi
Timwi wrote:
From what I hear from people who have blocked or unblocked people, I get the impression that there is a high risk of getting scolded for it, and as a result I have so far never blocked or unblocked anyone, and I wasn't in the mood to get started.
Most of the times I have seen people scolded for blocking, it was because they were blocking pursuant to a situation in which they were personally involved. It's really best to have a third party handle blocks.