Part of the problem I see is that Cool Cat has been before the
Arbitration Committee. There were problems. We don't need more
problems. You are creating more problems. What you are doing is
destructive in that context. I blocked GNAA_Staos yesterday
indefinitely. He did a lot of stuff over a long period of time
including publishing personal information regarding his victim. See
Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Need_help What you did is
much less and does not deserve a block of that nature unless you are
doing a lot more than engaging in minor TROLLING. But it was
trolling, trying to stir up trouble. However, sounds like your block
was excessive.
On Jan 5, 2006, at 6:29 PM, Kevin Mulligan wrote:
Hi,
I've just received a block from Wikipedia of "indefinite duration"
by the user Essjay. I was blocked for trolling on the user Cool
Cat's talk page[1] by leaving a joke userbox and then making a
mildly offensive comment as he proceeded to "feed the troll". In
this comment I admitted to trolling and user Essjay saw this as
grounds enough to ban me immediately for an indefinite period.
Essjay left a comment[2] on my talk page stating that he had
blocked me "in line with the Arbitration Committee's ruling that
simple vandals and others who engage in overt, easily demonstrable
vandalism can be blocked immediately."
I accept that I did wrong by trolling on Cool Cat's page but what I
did was not vandalism but a very minor personal attack, which is,
according to Wikipedia's policy, to be treated in an entirely
different manner. In fact, it states clearly under on
[[Wikipedia:Vandalism]], under the "What vandalism is not" heading
that personal attacks are not vandalism. The Wikipedia Blocking
Policy itself states that for personal attacks should only be
considered in "extreme cases" and goes on to note that the practice
is always controversial.
The Blocking Policy itself goes on to say:
"Logged-in users that do essentially nothing but vandalism may also
be blocked for the same time periods. However, user accounts that
perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be
blocked in this manner.
Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism."
I have had my Wikipeda account since early 2004 and have since made
over 1200 edits[3], and my edits to Cool Cat's talk page are the
first which can possibly be considered as misconduct.
Considering all of the above I am very disappointed that I have
been treated this way by Essjay. It seems to me as though he has
acted in gross violation of the Wikipedia policies as far as my ban
is concerned. I should like it to be revoked or be given a reason
why it should remain there rather than the alternate avenues of
resolution, as suggested at WP:NPA, be explored.
Regards,
Kevin Mulligan
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cool_Cat/Archive/
2006/01#New_user_box
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%
3AKevin_Mulligan&diff=34042009&oldid=34037875
[3]
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Kevin
+Mulligan&dbname=enwiki_p&machread=1
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.13/221 - Release Date:
1/4/2006
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l