I've recently been blocked and I feel it is unjustified and against policy.
This is how things went down:
1. I added content to many WP articles using content from ON articles and subsequently cited the ON articles as references. 2. These references were removed but the content left. I protested. 3. A discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uriah923/OmniNerd) was held to determine if the reference should be replaced and if content should remain. It was concluded that ON articles are not worthy of being used as references and that the content could remain. I conceded. 4. I opened discussions on four Talk pages to determine if some ON articles could be included as external links. No links were placed. 5. I was blocked by Taxman, citing linkspam and disruption.
The block certainly doesn't make sense to me, and it seems to be specifically prohibited in the blocking policy, as Taxman was directly involved in the dispute. Hopefully, someone will read this and be able to objectively evaluate the circumstances. As I see it, WP has nothing to lose from me being able to hold discussions on talk pages to determine if certain external links are appropriate.
There are more details in a conversation I had with Taxman on my talk page.
And ON would be? As for the policy, note [[WP:IAR]]. We're all allowed to ignore rules as long as it's reasonable for the situation, and you can actually defend yourself on it and not look like an idiot. And I'm not sure, but I think in the admin power policies, they say you *SHOULD NOT* use them in articles/disputes/whatever, but not that you absolutely must not. Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, but I tend to ignore those and do what is right for the situation..
On 9/17/05, Brandon Hansen buhansen@gmail.com wrote:
I've recently been blocked and I feel it is unjustified and against policy.
This is how things went down:
- I added content to many WP articles using content from ON articles
and subsequently cited the ON articles as references. 2. These references were removed but the content left. I protested. 3. A discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uriah923/OmniNerd) was held to determine if the reference should be replaced and if content should remain. It was concluded that ON articles are not worthy of being used as references and that the content could remain. I conceded. 4. I opened discussions on four Talk pages to determine if some ON articles could be included as external links. No links were placed. 5. I was blocked by Taxman, citing linkspam and disruption.
The block certainly doesn't make sense to me, and it seems to be specifically prohibited in the blocking policy, as Taxman was directly involved in the dispute. Hopefully, someone will read this and be able to objectively evaluate the circumstances. As I see it, WP has nothing to lose from me being able to hold discussions on talk pages to determine if certain external links are appropriate.
There are more details in a conversation I had with Taxman on my talk page.
-- -brandon User Name: Uriah923 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/17/05, Brandon Hansen buhansen@gmail.com wrote:
I've recently been blocked and I feel it is unjustified and against policy.
This is how things went down:
- I added content to many WP articles using content from ON articles
and subsequently cited the ON articles as references. 2. These references were removed but the content left. I protested. 3. A discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uriah923/OmniNerd) was held to determine if the reference should be replaced and if content should remain. It was concluded that ON articles are not worthy of being used as references and that the content could remain. I conceded. 4. I opened discussions on four Talk pages to determine if some ON articles could be included as external links. No links were placed. 5. I was blocked by Taxman, citing linkspam and disruption.
There is a reason that all the discussion was collected into one place, to produce one consensus. After a decision was reached which you didn't like, you continued to spruik your site on four separate talk pages, presumably to try to get around this consensus.
Your behaviour falls within the bounds of link spamming, and disruptive behaviour, and the block appears justified to me (although I am not an admin).
And it doesn't appear you are very well versed in the situation, either. So let's just leave it at that.