Forum:Appealing a block?

Dear Admins


 * I recently had a POLITE discussion at http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Gavyn_Sykes#Shield_generator:_Movie_vs._game_mechanics with another user 'VT-16' about a disagreement over their editing of the page http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Gavyn_Sykes, as they removed established information that had been in place and approved by admins since 2006. If you look at the discussion you will see I was at all times the more polite, understanding, and willing to compromise, of the 2 parties.


 * What happened next seemed to spiral from unbelievable to deplorable. I reverted the edits by VT-16 NO MORE than 3 times, and was then faced with threats by him of "Don't make me get the admins".  We therefore went to the above Talk page, but during this talk the article was locked IN THE NEW INCORRECT STATE by admin Graestan with dictatorial comments from him such as, "I'm not going to unlock the page until... otherwise the version I saw it at remains for the next month"!  This reminded me of the way my head teacher used to talk to me in college and was far removed from the core prinicples all users (even admins) should follow on Wikia.com, including 'always be polite'.  Still, I remained nothing but courteous as you can see at http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Graestan/archive3#Gavyn_Sykes and was full of 'please' and 'thank yous' and compromise suggestions.


 * Someone I thought was an admin as they acted like one, 'AdmirableAckbar', then suggested that if me and VT-16 couldn't agree, "I'd suggest ... asking others to give their input".


 * I therefore - with absolutely honourable intentions and good faith - checked this sites FAQ on how to go about 'asking others to give their input', like I had been directed to do. Your wikia tells me to create a Consensus page in the forum, stating the arguments for and against, then asking users to vote.  I therefore diligently spent and hour of my life creating a very nice page outlining both sides of the arguments, using direct quotes from VT-16 to forward on his argument as fairly as I possibly could.  I fully thought and still think this is correct and how it is supposed to be done, and the page went live at http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:CT:Should_Gavyn_Sykes%27_main_achievement_be_restored_to_his_article%3F  I hope you can see it and see how balanced I tried to make it.


 * I then went to VT-16s talk page to tell him to check the consensus post and make sure he was happy with the wording. I clicked 'Edit page', and to my horror I was told I had been blocked for one year quoting "Gaming the system to prove a point (WP:POINT): gross violation of WP:POINT"!  I have checked that rules page and not a single thing on it relates to what I did.


 * Also to my complete shock, after checking the consensus article I had spent so long on, it had been deleted by the same admin 'Graestan' quoting "-- 1.2 Nonsense". What?!  Nonsense?  It was direct quotes of 2 sides of a discussion, created because I had been told to, in order to amicably resolve a polite disagreement!


 * This was followed by the admin and 1 user who disagreed with the discussion I was trying to bring to the masses, in engaging in childish 'having a good laugh about it now we've got rid of him' kind of behaviour, with comments from your admin openly displayed on VT-16s talk page along the lines of, 'Well you won't have to worry about him for a while' wink-wink nudge-nudge etc. This made them obviously feel very clever and powerful, but is in fact an open and public display of bullying which is a serious offence.

Are these the actions of a fair community website that you hoped to create? Are these what it expects from 'admins'? Where did Graestan 'assume good faith'? Where did he 'be polite'? Where was he 'helpful'?

I did not receive a single warning - just blocked outright after years of trouble-free membership. To my knowledge I have NEVER received a warning for behaviour. Constrastingly VT-16's own talk page paints a clear picture of his history of problems getting along with anyone onthe site: "Seriously, just cool it, before someone takes exception and blocks you ... You have been blocked from editing for one week per policy ... Stop the abusive language ... You have been blocked from editing for two months for abusive language in edit summaries ... I'm only going to tell you this once, and then you get a good long time-out if you do it again: STOP CREATING ARTICLES BASED SOLELY ON INFORMATION YOU GET FROM TFN POSTS ..." etc. Yet I have received no warnings, and have been blocked for A YEAR for doing what another user asked me to do?!

I am devastated and very angry that one human being is treating another this way. Graestan needs to realise and be told that he is not just dealing with pixels on a screen, but that there is a real person at the end with real points and real feelings. He should be reminded of the principles to 'assume good faith' and 'be polite', and should also be reminded that he should act online just as he would if he were standing face to face with me or anyone in the street. In 'real life' he would not hear me present a carefully thought out argument politely for one hour, then shout at me "NONSENSE!" and slam a door in my face! Wookieepedia exists in the real world, and his actions should be no different.

However I feel I know the real reason he took such wrong and extreme action. I sincerely feel I am being bullied by this admin. My claim is that the reason he has taken this action, is because he originally agreed with the other party VT-16 in the disagreement by locking the article to VT-16s edit, and he is afraid that if my consensus request remained up, that other users would also agree with me - and therefore against him. He feels this because my point in the deleted consensus page is a very strong one (I hope you can read it - if not I can copy it below). As a result he is afraid his position in the disagreement will be shown to be wrong. He cannot handle that due to some clear power issues he has, (some might call people who behaviour in a similar fashion, 'little Hitlers'), and therefore protected himself by deleting the consensus that another high up user suggested I seek, and by blocking me to slam the door in my face and ensure I don't pose a risk to his reput ation again. This is a blatant abuse of power. As such I am considering taking the matter to Wikia.com's co-founder Angela Beesley. I completely respect that your intentions personally are only good, but Wookieepedia are putting admins in power who are abusing that perceived power, and siding with users who have proven track records of major problems.

I am not the only one. Here's just one example from Graesten's talk page: "You Rat Bastard! I spent an hour typing up that page and you deleted it within 30 seconds! Jedi026 18:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)". There seems to be a trend for him being somewhat... harsh.

I would ask you to please kindly:

1) Unblock my account 'Ewik' - I have clearly done nothing intentionally wrong and only what another admin asked me to do. I realise this is exceptional, but so was my blocking. "Your block ID is #63050. Your IP address is 90.213.2.55."

2) Investigate Graestan's actions as I feel strongly that his inclusion as an admin, his actions, and the dictatorial manner he talks to 'those below him' as he sees it, gives your site a bad name. I am quite certain it is he who should have been blocked, not me.

3) Then we can discuss the consensus.

I look forward to your reply and hope I will not have to argue this case any further, and that you will be able to see that what I write is correct and fair. Thanks for your time and thanks in advance for taking a common sense approach to this =)

I cannot appeal the block at Wookieepedia itself, because I have been blocked and therefore cannot email any admins or post on the community pages (which in itself is a ridiculous policy, as it says 'you can appeal a block', when you can't - except here - which I am).

Regards, Forest W.

Discussion
I trust Graestan. I'll bring this to his attention in case he feels he has something to say. Really, you should have posted this at Wookieepedia. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 17:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You obviously haven't read my post above fully. I clearly stated "I cannot appeal the block at Wookieepedia itself, because I have been blocked and therefore cannot email any admins or post on the community pages".  That seems to be the problem - too many busy admins not reading things fully, and as a result the less well known user is just 'assumed to be wrong' because he is less well know, despite the specifics of the case. You said it yourself, "I trust Graestan", yet you haven't read my post fully to determine whether in 'real life' you might trust me more.  It's just a shame. --Ewik 17:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, you sure are arrogant if you think you can claim to know what I read or didn't read; no wonder nobody likes arguing with you. Firstly, this is a Wookieepedia problem and not a Wikia problem. Secondly, you can edit without logging in in a day or so, so yes, you can edit Wookieepedia and appeal there. Thirdly, I'm helping you. Fourthly, personal blogs can never be used as sources in Wookieepedia. Fifthly, I'm just trying to make Wookieepedians such as Graestan aware of the situation, since Wookieepedians don't always come to the Central Wikia. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 17:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you did read me say "I cannot appeal the block at Wookieepedia itself" it is just odd you replied with "you should have posted this at Wookieepedia". It also looks like you haven't read the issue in question. We all agree that the blog isn't to be used - the issue in question is whether Sykes storyline in the game should stay in the main article as it has done for 3 years.  I'm not being arrogant, it just 'appears' that you aren't reading properly - but that's fine, I know you guys are busy.  I'm just a bit upset about this issue, to get a reply immediately siding with Graesten after I have clearly demonstrated that he shouldn't have blocked me, is a bit - well not nice is it.--Ewik 17:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what disrupting a wiki in order to make a point is? I'll tell you. Creating an account called BulliedEwik is disrupting a wiki in order to make a point! Not only are you arrogant, you're a sockpuppeteer. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 17:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)