Pfagerburg~enwiki (talk | contribs) |
→Request Unblock: we do not want your off-wiki disputes here |
||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
::::::::I really wish we could have had this discussion a week ago. I tried, asked you for discussion, mediation, arbitration. But all you ever said was "no comment." You '''NEVER''' said I had to explain any edits to JVM-related articles until another admin unblocked me. Now we're finally having a discussion. I am eager to continue it. [[User:Pfagerburg|Pfagerburg]] 15:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC) |
::::::::I really wish we could have had this discussion a week ago. I tried, asked you for discussion, mediation, arbitration. But all you ever said was "no comment." You '''NEVER''' said I had to explain any edits to JVM-related articles until another admin unblocked me. Now we're finally having a discussion. I am eager to continue it. [[User:Pfagerburg|Pfagerburg]] 15:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::You can answer me however way you see fit. How I dis/like your comments or lack thereof, is hardly pertinent. Again, we do not want your off-wiki disputes here, so if you're going to focus on Merkey... [[User:El C|El_C]] 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
El_C, I have requested to be unblocked, and tried to discuss the block with you. I believe there are several reasons for you to lift the block: |
El_C, I have requested to be unblocked, and tried to discuss the block with you. I believe there are several reasons for you to lift the block: |
Revision as of 15:37, 12 June 2007
Request Unblock
Here is a copy of the e-mail I sent last night to User:El C
- Block ID: 522743
- IP address: 71.33.208.250
- Blocking admin: El C
- Block reason: Abusing multiple accounts: no comment
- Your account name (if you have one): Pfagerburg
- An explanation of why your block is unfair:
Jeff's response to my comments only proved the point; anyone who disagrees with him is automatically a disruptive troll.
The reason given by the Admin, "Multiple Accounts," links to a page on Sockpuppetry. I am not a sockpuppet of anyone, and did not see any requests for Checkuser to establish sockpuppetry.
I post from my DSL connection at home, which rotates IP addresses from time to time, so perhaps this is part of the cause for confusion. I always edit under my user name, and only from this one account that I have, so the label of "sockpuppet" is inappropriate.
Did you read the edits that Jeff scrubbed from his user page? Please point out the problems, as I thought that, given the circumstances, it was quite polite and well thought-out. I *would* like to see him contribute to the Cherokee articles. I *would not* like to see him trashing the pages of various people and groups he does not like, particularly, in the case of Eric Schmidt, when his "inside information" crosses the line into outright libel.
Please do explain; I'm willing to have a dialogue with you over this issue, and find a way that we can resolve the problem. If mediation or arbitration is required/requested, whether by you or by Mr. Merkey, I'm willing to enter those processes as well.
The entry on Jeff's talk page which is the apparent reason for my blocking is:
[[1]]
I'd also like to point out that Jeff's revert comment in the history includes the statement "This account was warned already" which is, to the best of my knowledge, untrue. How and when was I warned?
Have a look at my contributions, [[2]], and you can see that I made all of two comments about Jeff's activities on WP, substantially the same content, one on the Community Sanction Noticeboard, and then later on his talk page after he was re-banned. My other contributions relating to him have been to his bio or the discussion, and have been thoroughly vetted by several other editors, including Jimbo Wales himself - check the diffs. And, I have an older (and much smaller) set of contributions to some technology articles that interested me.
I do not understand how 2 comments, one pre-Jeff-ban, and one post-Jeff-ban, can be considered "disruptive trolling," especially since I do support his contributions to the Cherokee articles, if he can just get along with others instead of immediately launching an attack on anyone who disagrees with him.
There are plenty more things I'd like to say about this whole situation, but I think it's best to end my participation in it. Here's my proposal to have editting privileges (not rights) restored: I will not make any edits to User:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey or User_talk:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey. Any other edits on other articles will of course adhere to relevant policies regarding verification, reliable sources, and so on.
Shall we discuss it? Pfagerburg 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Pfagerburg~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
No response from El C to my e-mail, no response to this post on my user page. I would like another admin to look into this now, please.
Decline reason:
No unblock yet, referred back to El_C, block reason was abuse of multiple accounts, not trolling. Please await further checks. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Pfagerburg 15:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll ask El_C again. I take it you are content to go with the "no trolling Jeff" approach here? Guy (Help!) 11:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- No comment. El_C 11:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Guy, for looking at this. There is a valid question as to whether I was trolling or not. In fact, part of my point was that anyone who disagreed with Jeff was automatically labelled a troll, no matter how they phrased their disagreement.
- For a decent example of trolling, look at the dialogue on Ben-w's talk page regarding his block and unlock. Ben-w wrote "how can we miss you if you won't go away?" on Jeff's talk page, got blocked, and then was unblocked with the admin referring to the block as "a little draconian."
- I wrote something rational, well-thought out, and open to discussion, as opposed to just poking him with a stick, but I'm still trying to get El C to answer my e-mail or say anything other than "no comment."
- However, rather than argue whether I truly was trolling, I'm just going to point to my statement above that once unblocked, I will make no edits to the two pages I already listed. Call the comment on Jeff's page trolling if you like, but accept that it won't reoccur.
- Now, if the reason is "abuse of multiple accounts," where was the request for Checkuser? The timing of the block coincides with my second edit to Jeff's talk page and his comment "remove trolling by disruptive account. Block requested of account Pfagerburg. This account was warned already." I dispute Jeff's last sentence, and request to be informed as to when and in what manner I was "warned already." Pfagerburg 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Likely, Merkey was refering to this warning (issued due to this edit). El_C 11:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see that as a warning, at least not in the formal sense of the word. It was related to another user's edits, not something Merkey wrote. I can see the other editor's point of view, and agree that "vandalism" was not the correct term.
- Whether that was the warning or not, the block reason you listed was sockpuppetry, and yet in your conversation with Guy, you said that it was "for a seemingly unhealthy fascination with Merkey." That doesn't sound like sockpuppetry to me. Review the edits I made, and observe that many of them were made to the talk page, to discuss the issues with the bio article. Does making edits to an article, coupled with a discussion on the talk page, qualify as "unhealthy fascination"? In that case, you might want to look at some of Jeff's edits to articles about Mormons. POV and COI, to say the least. And after he said he wanted to "focus on becoming a trusted editor in the area of Native American articles and content."
- I've already offered to stay completely away from Jeff's user page and his talk page as a condition of being unblocked. Pfagerburg 22:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I note, however, that you did not offer to stay away from his bio or pages he frequently edits. Odd, considering that 20 of your 30 edits were about Merkey in some capacity or another. Feel free to comment. El_C 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- No comment. Pfagerburg 15:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I must insist. El_C 15:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- No comment. Pfagerburg 15:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Did you like having your question blown off with a simple "no comment"? Now that I've made my point, I will be happy to discuss the issue.
- I asked you repeatedly to discuss the block, and had very few tools to compel you to discuss with me. But now you insist that I discuss the unblock. Please forgive me for not AGFing, because all of your "no comment" responses up to now have coloured my perception. And so whether it's grounded in reality or not, I believe that you will re-block me if I do not discuss this with you. Nothing like a power imbalance, huh?
- I have not offered to stay away from the bio or articles he repeatedly edits precisely because I won't do that. Do you remember his ridiculous proposal to prevent a certain list of accounts from editting any article within 96 hours - before and after - he did? One of the admins who smacked it down said it would allow Jeff to effectively DoS anyone by simply making minor edits. You're asking me to self-impose that; if Jeff doesn't want me saying anything blanaced about Mormons, he just keeps editting that article, and according to you, I have to stay away from that article.
- If I see something that fails WP:V, I will say so. If WP:RS is absent, I will also say so. And especially when he violates WP:BLP, I will have something to say about it, such as the Eric Schmidt article.
- Now, that said, am I about to go revert Guy's changes to the bio, where he removed several sources? No. But I may discuss it on the talk page. One source is very biased, and maybe should be removed, but lwn.net seemed like an OK source. If the official court document is hosted on socfacts.org, does the bias of scotfacts.org somehow make the official verbatim court document biased as well? Those are issues for the talk page.
- I really wish we could have had this discussion a week ago. I tried, asked you for discussion, mediation, arbitration. But all you ever said was "no comment." You NEVER said I had to explain any edits to JVM-related articles until another admin unblocked me. Now we're finally having a discussion. I am eager to continue it. Pfagerburg 15:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- You can answer me however way you see fit. How I dis/like your comments or lack thereof, is hardly pertinent. Again, we do not want your off-wiki disputes here, so if you're going to focus on Merkey... El_C 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
El_C, I have requested to be unblocked, and tried to discuss the block with you. I believe there are several reasons for you to lift the block:
- The block is against policy. Looking at WP:BLOCK, I don't see "unhealthy fascination" listed as a valid reason for blocking someone, particularly an indef block. If it is a valid reason, then you should check out Merkey's "unhealthy fascination" with Mormons, Eric Schmidt, James Mooney, and "fake wannabe Indians."
- The block reason is incorrect. The block reason you gave is sockpuppetry, but when JzG asked you to clarify, you confirmed that it had to do with Merkey, not sockpuppetry.
- You commented on the ratio of edits about Merkey versus the total number of edits. So you would have noticed that many of those 20 edits are to the talk page for his bio, discussing content that should or should not be put on the bio page. I wasn't aware that discussing content qualified as an "unhealthy fascination."
- Since the block came about as a result of me making a comment on Merkey's user talk page, I've already offered, and still make the offer, to make no edits to Merkey's user page or user talk page.
- I've tried repeatedly to discuss this with you, but until I got another admin involved, your only response was "no comment."
Instead of ignoring my request, I'd like for you to discuss it with me, preferably on my talk page (where I can still sign my comments), but if it gets a faster response on your own talk page, that's fine, too. 71.33.208.250 19:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Block evasion is not permitted. Please refer to unblock-en-l for unblock requests beyond this page. El_C 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Oops, forgot a few things, all relating to the blocking policy.
"The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behaviour. Administrators should consider:
- the severity of the behaviour;
- whether the user has been blocked for engaging in that behaviour before."
I've already offered to prevent the behaviour. And I have not been blocked for that behaviour before. Therefore, indef seems inappropriate.
"Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them. Administrators may also notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page. It is often easier to explain the reason for a block at the time than it is to explain a block well after the fact."
As I pointed out above, the reason you provided was incorrect, by your own admission.
I was not provided any courtesy notice on my user talk page; I found out I was blocked only when I went to edit an article, and the only explanation was "no comment." 71.33.208.250 20:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- No comment. El_C 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'll overturn the block if El_C continues to refuse to address the matter. --Hemlock Martinis 04:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to discuss this with you, but your only response has been to ignore my e-mails and delete my attempts on this page to discuss it. Therefore, I have raised the issue on the administrators noticeboard. 71.33.208.250 04:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Again, block evasion is not permitted. Please refer to unblock-en-l for unblock requests beyond this page. El_C 10:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)