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)
 * In addition, it's hard to read your original argument when you keep amending it, usually after I remind you of a few important points, such as the fact that you can appeal at Wookieepedia. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 17:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't sockpuppeting - that is me having to create a separate account in order to email another admin. I clearly am not pretending to be a different person because 'Ewik' is used in both usernames!  Sorry I thought that was very obvious.  The page about blocking at Wookieepedia needs improving, as it is the cause of that issue you are blaming on me.  It says, "You can either wait for the block to expire, or contact Graestan to resolve the problem that led to the block."  No, you can't.  It is impossible for me to email Graestan, and I was not aware until you just told me that I need to log out for 24 hours in order to do so - but even then, unlogged in users can't email admins so the article is still confusing.  "If after discussing the matter with Graestan you believe the block is unfair, you may appeal the block."  Again it doesn't say how to do this, as when I tried to post, it wouldn't let me as I was blocked.  This is confusing to everyone except admins, and is why I had to create that second account.  And if you check the history of this page, you will see I never changed the thing you 'reminded me about' - so I am afraid the proof on this page's history proves that point wrong.  Michael, the last thing I want here is another argument with you.  Your replies to my post above were I am sure intended to help, so I thank you for that.  Let's move on - there is a more important issue at hand, which is an admin abusing his power and blocking a user for a year without warning and when the user has done nothing wrong by posting a consensus vote on request of another user.--Ewik 17:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not getting unblocked. I lessened it to three months already yesterday, but what's going on here is gross disruption, just like that which you engaged in on Wookieepedia, and you've pretty much sealed the deal with this nonsense. I'm not going to read the novella you've posted here or anything else you're going to write; you'll just have to wait it out. Perhaps in that time you can come up with a compromise, or a solution that doesn't involve only getting your way and not satisfying other users. Graestan ( Talk ) 17:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ewik, please see the email I just sent you in reply to yours. To repeat what I said there: This is a matter for the Wookieepedia admins, who are aware of the situation. -- sannse (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First up, thanks for taking the time to come here and talk Graestan.


 * Secondly, I had no idea you had lessened it to 3 months until now, so again that is a step in the right direction for us both.
 * Thirdly what happened in a little-viewed talk page at Wookieepedia was a polite discussion, not "gross disruption". Graestan, in your heart I know that you know that is a huge exeggeration.  The entire discussion had not one word of abuse, was full of attempts from me but not VT-16 to compromise, and was all in good faith.  "Gross disrpution"?  Absolutely not.  MORE IMPORTANTLY, the discussion went on so long because you asked us to 'talk it out' in your own talk page request!  If you had not done so, the discussion would have ended after 3 paragraphs!  ALL I have tried to do here is what you guys wanted.  You know that to be true.
 * Fourthly, you say I need to come up with "a solution that doesn't involve only getting your way and not satisfying other users". Graestan, can we be honest here - I already did that.  Either it was not read and that is why you are saying I didn't, or has been forgotten, but I will quote from the Talk page:
 * "I hope you are able to agree on a compromise here ... Can we make friends and agree ... to help you out, clarify the [ref] tag for each of the 2 mentions of 'destroyed the shield generator', so that at the bottom of the page it very clearly explains to everyone: "As seen in the climactic scenes of the game Battle for Naboo. It is disputed whether or not this is mirrored in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace". Is that an acceptable compromise to you?" Having read that, I just cannot understsand why you now say I need to find a solution that isn't all about getitng my way.  Especially as I tried to create a balanced Consensus vote so that 'the community' could decide who 'got their way'!  It would have taken you 5 minutes to read that consensus properly, yet it was deleted within 45 seconds of my posting it.  Having spent an hour of my life on it, that was incredibly impolite of you to do.
 * I have proved everything I am saying, but still you are throwing your weight around with impolite comments such as, "you're not getting unblocked"! You ask me to do things, I do them, then you block me for doing them, and then tell me I should have done them!  Is anyone else here confused? :-S
 * If you have a suggestion of what I should have done differently, I'd be interested to hear it as I don't think there is one. The policies of this website state that in the event of a disagreement it must be taken to a consensus.  You have broken that policy by preventing me from doing so, and that is the issue we need to resolve.  How can we get the consensus up?--Ewik 18:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, I don't care one way or another about the original issue, which was the talk page. I've only glanced at it once.
 * Second, posting on Central to appeal your block is a bad idea; one, because they won't help you, two, because all it does it make you look like you're shamelessly spamming Central. There is a right way and a wrong way to request an unblock, and this isn't it. Hopping on a soap box self-righteously to protest the injustice of it all should be reserved for melodramatic movies, not Wikia. Making personal attacks and calling into question the character and trustworthiness of the administrator is also not a good way to politely request an unblock. Please don't talk us about "throwing your weight around with impolite comments" if you're going to refer to us, the administration, who are volunteers who try our best to maintain and improve Wookieepedia, as "little Hitlers."
 * Next, don't cite talk page flaming as examples of how admins might abuse their powers. That comes with the job, and had you done your research and seen why that user's page was deleted, I think you would agree it was well worth it. (For the record, it was creating a page that was completely unsourced, full of fanon, and had no merit for existence on Wookieepedia&mdash;it was an essay on that user's opinion of the Force).
 * Thirdly, as a word of advice, attaching emotional significance to online activities is not generally a good idea.
 * Fourthly, the "gross disruption" that Graestan mentioned and which you assumed referred to the talk page, is actually in reference to your posting here. And those same postings have extended your ban.
 * Fifth, there is no fifth.
 * Sixth, as I stated before, your actions here have only served to further extend your block, due to your violation of our no personal attacks policy. You're now banned infinitely for cross-Wikia trolling, sockpuppetry and other offenses. This is final and no amount of pleading with us is going to change it. Lest you misconstrue my intentions as being rude, I'm a third-party administrator in this case, and I'm only posting to make things explicitly clear, both to you, and to other Wikia members who happen across this forum. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 18:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Very clever - I make several good points and prove your wrongdoing and abuse of power, and you extend the block to "infinite". That seems INCREDIBLE, seeing as my post started out by thanking you twice and at least trying to point out that I had in fact done everything you had asked.  Look - it's all above in black and white as proof you mixed the whole thing up, rattled my cage, then blamed me for being rattled! ^.  There is really no talking to some people *sigh*.  You clearly enjoy your power Graestan, and enjoy using it against people who are your complete equals in the real world, but happen to have a different opinion.  It must make you feel very BIG when someone disagrees with you and shows your wrong actions, to be able to 'block' them.  I personally cannot relate to such bullying behaviour, but if it fills some sort of a void for you, then good luck to you.  I hope you and yours are proud of your behaviour, policy breaking, impoliteness, lack of good faith, and inability to have a civil discussion with an equal human being.  Good luck with your self-perceived 'greatness' of being a bureaucrat on part of a science fiction Internet site!  Wow, impressive!  Lol.  And as for the page in question, leave it how it is if you want, I am past caring.  If you want Wookieepedia to be full of erroneous inconsistent articles written by a user whose Talk page is full to the brim of warnings for similar mistakes and abuse, that is up to you.  Wookieepedia won't have much of a reputation before long, and we will all know it was down to Graestan's lack of ability to read sensible polite talk discussions properly and respect fellow users.  Back then I was the politest person on here, but now - in self-defence only - I may appear much less so.  Know only what order those events happened in and that I was polite first, then was attacked, and only THEN became less polite.  Good luck to you in life with your 'policies' Graestan.
 * Atarumaster88, I only posted here to request the unblock because of the aforementioned bug/inclarity of the Wookieepedia page on requesting unblocks. I won't repeat how it tells you to do something not apparently possible - it's all quoted already above. So no, I am not spamming Central, I was doing the only thing your systems would let me do AFAIK then. The problem with deleting an entire page someone spends an hour of their life on should be obvious, and if nothing more, I hope admins take away from this debacle that one 'thought' for the future. Put yourself in my shoes - if *I* asked you to write me an essay on 'freedom of speech' and you put your heart into it for one hour, then handed it to me hopefully, then I tore it up in your face without even reading it properly --  well you'd prolly want to punch me squarely in the face. That is the equivalent of Graestan's behaviour - it is NO different. MY work was irretrievable, and admins need to realise that is just a very unfair way to behave. Yes I know you volunteer freely and all that, but something draws you to decide to become an admin, but whilst choosing to, you mustn't forget these aren't just pixels on a screen - there are real people behind them. Admins keep getting it wrong - admittedly because anything below my first post above has muddled up matters. You stated "the "gross disruption" that Graestan mentioned and which you assumed referred to the talk page, is actually in reference to your posting".  So you are saying that he banned me yesterday for something I did today?! Wow he can time travel too.  This is what I mean - nobody reads properly, and just takes action against the lesser known user.  You also didn't read the 'little Hitlers' comment properly that you took personally.  If you did there is no way you or Graestan could have taken it to be aimed at all admins in general!  Ridiculous.  I know 100% Graestan was however the one in the wrong, because I was the only one fully aware of both sides, and I can walk away with my head held high in that knowledge, whilst hopefully his conscience will return to resolve this in his head at some point in the future, on whatever day he has reason to consider his past treatment of real human beings with a passion for what they believe in.  I don't need to justify why I was a huge fan of Sykes, or how playing that game helped me through a very difficult time in my life.  I know it was important to me, and that is all that matters.--Ewik 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to suggest this page be locked and/or deleted, as this 'community' is clearly not capable of discussion or accepting freedom of speech.--Ewik 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)