Messieurs-Dames, With no reaction since Friday, my case for block-lifting is now buried in the crowd of messages in WikiEN-l, and I'm wondering if the many people here still have it in mind.
I'm pasting it below for an easier catch 'on the fly' by the interested wiki-admin, as it is to be found in my user Talk page as well (là : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:L%27Omnivore_Sobriquet .) The blocker was one Jayjg, who posted in wikien-l mere motivations, adressing a truncated version of my case, on 'points' that were indeed already adressed in the truncated part. (plus wild claims on the 'biographed''s behaviour.) That was Friday at 18:23 GMT, and it's pasted further below. Then one Sam Fentress (Asbestos) posted a comment somewhat favorable to my case, although furthering on the truncated version. Same Friday at 20:11 GMT, pasted further below. Then nothing, while I had finally my corrections posted here Saturday 14:27 GMT, which I paste at bottom although it doesn't add much, just saying to take my full text into account.
I must stress also that I had received no warning whatsoever prior to the block., which is an 'infinite' block.
In addition, I figure that I have no way of knowing whether the block is lifted, so I regularly hit some 'edit' button for a check. Do not resume imaginating 'fashions' about this, please. IP changes everytime, the last being 86.194.140.6
So here you are folks, I just wondered about the 'noisy silence' going on about my case here; in my view, it has been a fast misjugdment from one of yours, that could be settled swiftly. Yours, l'Omnivore Sobriquet ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// vendredi 16 décembre 2005 17:18 (i.e. 16:18 GMT)
[WikiEN-l] My complaint about being blocked.
My complaint about being blocked.
Friday, 16 December 05
Messieurs,
I would like to register here my full disagreement about being blocked from Wikipedia. This is unfair, and as I appreciate it, unjustified.
My IP address is 83.205.136.21.
My user name is "L'Omnivore Sobriquet", and on Wednesday 14th of Dec I got blocked at 22:03 (Wiki time), with the message :
"Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jayjg. The reason given is: revert sockpuppet"
Moderator Jayjg replied to my call for justifications with the single line :
"You appear to be a userid created solely for the purpose of reverting articles; that is what your edits consist of.
Jay. "
Today, I see to my dismay that a new 24hours blocking has been auto-generated.
I'm writing here to argue my case:
By the time of the 'block', my contributions to Wikipedia totalled to only. two. One last Sunday, one Wednesday. In no way this can be seen as a basis for a trend. Two occurrences cannot be held as statistical. I argue that my contributions, numbering to only two, simply didn't "consist of" any behavioural pattern. Mr Jayjg writes that I "appear" . "created solely for the purpose". based on a total of only two occurrences, hardly a basis for purpose guesses or appearance lectures. The line of Jayjg consists solely of his own guessings on invented trends.
More so, trends and fashions, guessed or not, shouldn't come into play when it comes to Wikipedia editions or users' accesses.
Denis Diderot boasted loud enough about it : encyclopaedias are not hair-dressers' salons. Hurt as any innocent blocked user should be, I acknowledge here challengeable Ancient Régîme ways, péroraisons, and short-lived privilege abuses.
However if explanations for my sole pair of independent editions may help, to erase the wrongful impression of - 'award-winning' - Jayjg, here they are:
Both related to the file titled "Israel Shamir" (actually, early on Sunday and before creating an account and logging in, I made an edit on American WW2 aircraft production, deleting post-war F-86 Sabre from the list, making a total of 3 contributions in all from my PC, and certainly not 'revert sockpuppetting'.) Both were reverts. After a lengthy read of the controversies in the correspondent 'talk' page, I viewed the introduction paragraph of 'JohD' as already demonstrated as superior to the version seemingly endlessly reverted-to by a couple of Wikipedians. Also, the behaviour of these few Wikipedians - Jayjg and Denis Diderot (??!!!) - had been exposed as being on the verge of vandalism, according to Wiki guidelines. My attitude has therefore been that 'the case is closed', that it's all well written and argued about in the talk page. There only remains to Wikipedia to let it show. My 'comments' just said that. A logical conclusion of the whole discussion page, as it reads. Therefore reverting was the minimal - yet justified - intervention, in order to let the hopefully virtuous Wikipedia process move on. So please do not be surprised, do not imagine hooliganism, if I simply feel very little need to invent some weak literature of mine and then to pour-in my low-key argumentation in endless talk pages, just to try to re-argue already well stated points. Hence the behaviour of those two first edits. "See talk" could have been a dryer comment for these.
Impressions, however corrected, shouldn't come into argumentation here. But humans always appreciate !
Please 'unblock' me at once.
l'Omnivore Sobriquet
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
from JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com
vendredi 16 décembre 2005 19:22
From: "l'Omnivore Sobriquet" omnivore.sobriquet@wanadoo.fr My complaint about being blocked.
Friday, 16 December 05
Messieurs,I would like to register here my full disagreement about being blocked from Wikipedia. This is unfair, and as I appreciate it, unjustified.
My IP address is 83.205.136.21.
My user name is "L'Omnivore Sobriquet", and on Wednesday 14th of Dec I got blocked at 22:03 (Wiki time), with the message :
"Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jayjg. The reason given is: revert sockpuppet"
Moderator Jayjg replied to my call for justifications with the single line :
"You appear to be a userid created solely for the purpose of reverting articles; that is what your edits consist of.
Jay. "
The userid made exactly two edits, both of them reverts of the same page, Israel Shamir. It made no contributions elsewhere, even to the Talk: page of the article in question, and certainly appeared to be a revert sockpuppet. Moreover, the subject of this article (Israel Shamir) has been consistently vandalizing it, in ways with which we have become all too familiar. He also appealed for friends of his to come and revert the article for him on a Yahoo group called Shamir readers:
From: Israel Shamir <ishamir@...> Date: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:12 pm Subject: Wiki ish314
Dear friend, if you have time, you may help to fight a small internet war over Wikipedia, a popular website with many links. Obviously it is as dominated by philosemites as any other media, and they consistently demonise me in the entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shamir When I, or some friends correct their most blatant lies, they change it back in no time at all. Afterwards, they refer to their own lies as if it is an objective source. Everybody can add, remove and edit any entry in the Wiki. I call those who has available time to make an effort and to re-conquer the site from philosemites. Shamir
Even if this editor is not a sockpuppet, I'm quite skeptical that this userid was created with Wikipedia's goals and policies in mind.
Jay.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
from : Sam Fentress (Asbestos) asbestos999@gmail.com
vendredi 16 décembre 2005 21:10
While I think it's quite likely that this user was recruited by Shamir, and also that he has edited before, I don't think one can say for sure whether he is a sock puppet -- you're better off having a developer check that.
But as for blocking because he came to Wikipedia with an aim in mind... if we blocked every user who arrived at Wikipedia because of a bone to pick or a view to push, we'd be down the vast majority of our contributors. The only applicable policy is WP:NPOV, and you don't get blocked for a first offence under that. I wouldn't ever unblock without knowing the whole story, but I don't think I agree with this block's reasoning.
Sam
On 12/16/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
[edited, same as above. l'O.S.]
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
from : l'Omnivore Sobriquet omnivore.sobriquet@wanadoo.fr
vendredi 16 décembre 2005 21:46
Objet : Re: [WikiEN-l] My complaint about being blocked. Now you cancompare...
hello, quick amendments:
"It made no contributions elsewhere, even to the Talk: page of the article in question" This has been well explained in the following of my message, it is a fine wiki-ethical usage all along. This is a truncation you're reading, rely on full version instead. (posted here 40 minutes before Jay's, your time)
"and certainly appeared to be a revert sockpuppet" It wasn't, and didn't appear as such then, as I explained in my message. Please don't resort to "it's our experience that..." kind of argument; we're not meant to guess. The number of possible logical cases of behavours identical to mine while not being a internet sockpuppet is so high that in 25000 years time one still wouldn't have digested it. That you are 'not used to forsee' such or such is of no importance, concerning the veracity of being a such said sockpuppet. It may change a bit for the explanation of Jay's behaviour yes, reacting to some 'well known pattern', well known by a particuliar 'Wikipedia' staff and time etc., but changes stricly nothing on whether it is actual sockpupetting, created solely for the... etc.
"Moreover, the subject of this article (Israel Shamir) has been consistently vandalizing it" Not at all. See talk, see history; Shamir just intervened some three or five times if memory serves, weeks or months ago, civil and compliant at that. In fact we have one, possibly multiple, swift reverts from Jayjg and/or this Denis Diderot fame-seeker (shame-finder) without one word of an explanation, I repeat, without one word of explanation.
"He also appealed for friends of his to come and revert the article for him on a Yahoo group called Shamir readers:" It makes no mention of reverts.
"Even if this editor is not a sockpuppet, I'm quite skeptical that this userid was created with Wikipedia's goals and policies in mind. > Jay." Black magic again.
I'm not wild-eyed by this all comrades, and Jay is not the devil incarnate. But I'm hurt and there should not be such a quasi-fetichist way for a wiki-reaction. So I'm waiting for good outcome, so I'm patient. l'Omnivore Sobriquet
----- Original Message ----- From: "JAY JG" jayjg@hotmail.com
[edited, idem - l'O.S.]