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