[WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support

[Sam Korn]

On 2/27/06, VeryVerily <veryverily at gmail.com> wrote:
> Or forever.  Anyway, hey just added the 4 month thing.  But there's no
> guarantee
> they'll go through with that.  Last time, they asked me to wait six months,
> and I
> voluntarily left for a year.  The escape clause that I be in no
> "interpersonal
> conflicts" is of course one I may be unable to meet, given how prone
> users are to pick fights here.

I don't imagine the current AC (I cannot speak for past committees,
though I fully expect they would say the same) will penalise you for
other people causing conflict with you.

> Anyway, one main issue is that they refuse to say what a revert *isn't*,
> though
> I specifically asked for them to clarify this, and I was already (wrongly)
> blocked twice for supposedly "reverting".  In the absence of such clarity, I
> feel, probably correctly, that I can be blocked at any time because
> an edit I make resembles in the page history, with or without my knowledge.
> I believe Geni made some apt comments on this mailing list about how it
> feels to be constantly blocked.

If people abuse the AC decision to block you spuriously, I expect the
AC will have some very clear things to say on the matter.

> Also, this restriction prevents me from doing RC patrol, counter-vandalism,
> or defending myself against the next stalker that attacks me (and there's no
> reason to think one won't).  Moreover, the AC ruling puts me in a bad light,
> in
> essence depriving me of legitimacy in the eyes of the community, with no
> justification.  It implies that I'm an unreasonable user, which I am not and
> never
> have been.

I believe we are giving you the chance to show yourself to be a
legitimate user.  That is my intention.  I am certain that none of the
AC considers reversions of vandalism to count in your ruling.  I
personally undertake to unblock you if anyone blocks you for reverting
vandalism.

> Perhaps the most frustrating thing is that no one has told me what I've done
> wrong or,
> rather, no one has told me why my account of the edit histories in question
> is
> not adequate for them.  Many of the cases where they accused me of
> misbehaving are so clearcut that really the AC should apologize for
> attacking
> me on those points.  But not a peep has been uttered about what I raised.

Visit not the sins of the father on the son.  I was myself not a
member of that committee, and do not consider myself responsible for
the decisions, whether they were right or wrong.

> In essence, they ignored every point I made.  I wasted my time preparing a
> solid
> case thinking I would get a fair hearing from the current committee, and
> have been
> basically told to get stuffed.  How would that make you feel?

We have undertaken to look at your case again when we have some more
evidence to base our actions on.  If you can manage four months of
good editing (and I see no reason why you cannot), your restrictions
will likely be lifted.  That doesn't fulfill my description of "get
stuffed".

--
Sam