User talk:AmendmentNumberOne

“

sprotecting now, there is no legal threat, there has been no cease and desist, the foundation has not been contacted about this at all

”

— Jimbo Wales, edit summary to Advanced Access Content System, 3 May 2007

Hi, and welcome to my Talk page. If you are visiting to admire the free speech flag, please consider reading the rest of the page. I would like others to know what I have learned. That is, posting your opinion to a deletion review on Wikipedia can lead to being blocked indefinitely and without warning, as I have been.

Relevant users' Talk pages

Parts of the story are found on other users' Talk pages:

Yamla, reviewing admin
DragonflySixtyseven, blocking admin
JNighthawk, another editor

Blocked, unblock denied

Blocked by DragonflySixtyseven, with an expiry time of indefinite and account creation blocked, at 02:50, 2 May 2007:

single-purpose account that has served its single purpose

Unblock requested by AmendmentNumberOne at 03:16, 2 May 2007:

I do not believe I have done anything inappropriate to warrant the block placed on my editing privileges. My edits have been made in good faith and represent a legitimate attempt to communicate my opinion on the titular subject of an article that I feel is important to Wikipedia. I believe the blocking admin has incorrectly and without reason assumed bad faith on my part.

Unblock denied by Yamla at 04:16, 2 May 2007:

User clearly acting in bad faith.

Response to reviewing admin

Yamla, why do you believe I am clearly acting in bad faith? What reason is behind this belief? All I can say now is that it is incredibly frustrating that DragonflySixtyseven and now you have assumed bad faith on my part, and have used that assumption to censor my account. -AmendmentNumberOne 04:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the admonishment from single purpose accounts actively being ignored by DragonflySixtyseven in his blocking crusade:

There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with single purpose accounts. [...] Please note that any other use of this tag is highly discouraged as it can be interpreted as a personal attack that may lead to action being taken against you.

-AmendmentNumberOne 05:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say welcome to Wikipedia, but it looks like you've already been welcomed by the officials. Don't worry about being blocked though. I got blocked by an admin when I was about a month into this place because of a sarcastic comment. I hope you learn the same lesson I did though: Have multiple accounts, multiple IP addresses (A school/library or rotating address helps), and have friends who can back up what you say on here [power in numbers]. I'll bet I get banned just for writing this, which would ironically prove my point.

AmendmentNumberOne, your apparently deliberate attempt to get Wikipedia sued by posting information you know will cause the MPAA to target us is a clear indication that you have no business being allowed to edit here. --Yamla 13:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, you are mistaken. I do have an opinion about having an article title with that number and posted in contribution to the discussion at the deletion review. That was the right forum and there is nothing inappropriate about this. Your statement that I have been "posting the HDDVD/Blu-ray DVD decryption key number" is patently false. Even if I had done so, you then -- in contravention of explicit Wikipedia policy -- assume bad faith about what my intention would have been had I done what you falsely accuse me of doing. Yamla, I expect first a retraction of you false statements and second an apology. Understandably, I am angry. You, Yamla, should be ashamed. -AmendmentNumberOne 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to blocking admin

Acting on false information

DragonflySixtyseven posted on JNighthawk's Talk page:

That user was banned for making a lot of (now-deleted) articles containing the HDDVD string, and for tantrumming about how Digg was being an Evil Awful Censor

DragonflySixtyseven is completely mistaken. I have not created a single article containing that hexadecimal string nor anything remotely resembling that hexadecimal string. DragonflySixtyseven has falsely accused me of doing something I have not done and provided no evidence in support of the false and defamatory statements. Is this how an administrator on Wikipedia is supposed to behave? -AmendmentNumberOne 23:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part II

DS, you said:

Deleted articles don't show up in the contributions log. More to the point, I freely admit that I may have misspoken as to the precise nature of the infraction, but he showed up with a Frea-Speach (sic) name and immediately started fussing about in the HD-DVD Decoder String Deletion Review. A single-purpose account if I ever saw one, and I've damn well seen lots of them. DS 01:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What infraction have I committed? -AmendmentNumberOne 11:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, what have I done to warrant an indefinite ban? Without an answer to this question, why should I or any other potential editor take Wikipedia rules seriously? I find it preposterous that posting my opinion in a deletion review is grounds for being permanently blocked, much less labeled as a rule breaker. In fact, I can't find a single place on Wikipedia where this conduct is labeled as wrong. On the contrary, contributing to the discussion at deletion reviews seems to be actively encouraged. -AmendmentNumberOne 00:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy on single-purpose accounts

Here is Wikipedia's policy for single-purpose accounts, with emphasis added:

A single-purpose account is an account that only does one particular thing on Wikipedia, or only exists to push a single opinion (as opposed to regular editors, that tend to edit and discuss in a variety of areas). Such accounts are not forbidden, and indeed may be novice editors who will grow interested in other topics over time. Still, a single-purpose account may be a red flag for sockpuppetry. Experienced users are expected to assume good faith and be nice to these.

The blocking admin and reviewer have violated Wikipedia policy by not assuming good faith and by using the label of single-purpose account as though it were sufficient grounds for blocking. -AmendmentNumberOne 16:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I would appreciate it if any editor happening upon my Talk page and feeling as I do that the block here is based on false information and an assumption of bad faith, if such an editor would post a notice to the administrative notice boards to request on my behalf for the block to be lifted. Thanks in advance. -AmendmentNumberOne 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above request was based on Requests for administrator attention. But it looks instead like I am somewhere in the purgatory known as Appealing a block:What happens next. Purgatory because the block DragonflySixtyseven put on my account is indefinite. -AmendmentNumberOne 02:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the Appealing a block page:

For this reason, blocks will not usually be allowed to become a source of conflict; rather, consensus will be sought, by means of a fair and objective examination of the matter and of any policies alleged to have been breached.

It would be nice to know what policies or policy I have breached. The same page also says:

Users who are blocked are asked to use this as a chance to reflect, an opportunity to show their understanding and ability to act responsibly, and a period of time to let the matter pass and be learned from.

Considering the block is indefinite and DragonflySixtyseven won't point out what written Wikipedia rules or rule I have been alleged to breach, this can't really happen. -AmendmentNumberOne 12:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help still sought

Just noting that help is still sought, in whatever way possible, since it does not look like I have any options left. -AmendmentNumberOne 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting I have added an email account to my preferences. And while an email account should not be necessary to edit on Wikipedia, it looks like in this case it will be. -AmendmentNumberOne 22:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Letter to blocking admin

Via Wikipedia e-mail on Mon, 7 May 2007 at 23:16 (GMT):

Dear DragonflySixtyseven,

I am writing to discuss the recent block you placed on my account. Wikipedia's blocking policy requires "a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked." Your block reason was "single-purpose account that has served its single purpose." No Wikipedia policy exists against a single-purpose account. I understand from your response to JNighthawk that you did not like the content I contributed to Wikipedia at the time you blocked my account (you said "he showed up with a Frea-Speach (sic) name and immediately started fussing about in the HD-DVD Decoder String Deletion Review"). Please note that Wikipeida's Blocking Policy at WP:BP says, "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute."

I am asking that you kindly restore my editing privileges to Wikipedia forthwith or provide me with a clear and specific reason founded in Wikipedia policy for the indefinite (including account creation) block you placed upon my account. In other words, tell me what I did wrong.

With kind regards,
/s/
AmendmentNumberOne

Meh

Whatever. I'm too nice sometimes. You're unblocked. Don't screw up. DS 02:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I have blocked this account indefinitely for having no impetus to contribute to the encyclopedia at all. This was created solely to raise issues with the encryption key debate and has not made a single edit to any page outside of the Wikipedia or User spaces.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove comments from my talk page, Ryulong. I am trying to understand your justification for blocking my account indefinitely including username creation. I would appreciate if you would make clear what policy I have violated. I have not been able to find written policy stating not editing is grounds for blocking. You know from the complaint I made to the Administrative Noticeboard about the first incident and the comments on this page what the policy says about single-pupose accounts. They are not forbidden. The policy also says experienced users are expected to assume good faith and be nice to these. Being characterized as a single-purpose account does not mean I am not allowed to raise issues within the encryption key debate. Under Wikipedia policy, I can still participate even if I limit myself to my present area of interest. For the foregoing reasons and Wikipedia policy, I ask that you reverse the block. -AmendmentNumberOne 23:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment requesting unblock e-mailed to Ryulong. -AmendmentNumberOne 23:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you add an actual unblock request to this page also. Would you want to create the RfA about this whole incident, or would you rather I did? I'm not sure how compelling it will be, as I am a third-party to this whole issue. - JNighthawk 00:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My plan is to carefully exhaust all avenues of appeal before going to RfA. The template is next. If I disappear (this stuff is wearing me down) feel free to continue on without me. In any event, thank you for sticking with this for so long. Your comments have been invaluable. -AmendmentNumberOne 03:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was blatantly obvious that this account was solely used to have someone raise his opinion on the AACS encryption key's article at the DRV discussion. Since then, this account has made absolutely no progress in building an encyclopedia and has solely whined about how it feels that it was blocked out of process or improperly by originally DragonflySixtyseven and then myself. I see no reason that this account should in anyway be unblocked nor do I see that this case will even be heard by the arbitration committee as JNighthawk feels that my actions require such intervention. All of the material I removed from this talk page was solely added by the user AmendmentNumberOne and was involved in absolutely no other discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert my talk page in the future. Again, I am allowed to raise my opinion on an article discussion, even the review of a speedy delete. I was blocked moments after doing so and no reason in Wikipedia exists for this block. When finally I succeeded being unblocked and thus able to post outside my talk page, I brought the issue of the unfair block to AN/I. The matter was not resolved when you blocked me, using more or less the same reasoning as the original blocker. But even if the matter had been resolved, how soon after being unblocked do you require me to make an edit to a particular article? How soon after creating an account do you require me to make an edit to a particular article? Posting an opinion to the discussion on Wikipedia is not a policy violation. Wikipedia's blocking policy states as much, "Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia" (emphasis supplied). Please make clear what Wikipedia policy you believe has been violated in support of your block. -AmendmentNumberOne 02:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is assuming you are an abusive sockpuppet (abusive by supporting another's opinion) in violation of WP:SOCK. However in my eyes this whole thing makes WP:SPA look like policy rather then an essay. Funpika 01:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree then he is violating WP:AGF? WP:SPA is not policy, but WP:UN#Single-purpose accounts is. -AmendmentNumberOne 01:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self fulfilling prophecy

Blocking a user moments after they start contributing is going to have the effect of making it difficult for them to contribute. Reporting an incident on ANI and then being blocked for drawing attention to the situation, again in an appropriate forum, is beyond the pale. I wonder now what is the use, but here are some notes I made on how blocking policy could be improved after my initial experience:

Giving out blocks based on content disputes needs to have real consequences.

Declining an unblock request means fully supporting the block as though it were your own.

The ability to give out blocks that have an enduring effect needs to involve more than two administrators.

-AmendmentNumberOne 12:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you stick around or not (though I'd prefer you would), I'm going to be bringing this to Requests for Arbitration. There was a flagrant violation of admin powers and direct violation of Wikipedia policy. I doubt the arbitors will actually accept the case, though, as there seems to be an "us or them" attitude between the admins and everyone else. - JNighthawk 04:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this editor posts an unblock request, it will be reviewed. If you believe that all admins agree with one another about everything, try reading ANI for a couple of days :) (including the ANI discussion of the original block of this account, which was hardly unanimous). Regards, Newyorkbrad 11:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, or you or another admin could be bold and remove this egregious block. The reason why I talk about the "us or them" attitude isn't because I think *all* administrators are bad, but the fact that any administrator could call this second block a good decision is either flagrantly ignoring policy or siding on the side of an admin just because that user is an admin. - JNighthawk 00:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my full response above to all of this malarkey.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments left for the blocking administrator on his talk requesting further input on the basis for this block. Newyorkbrad 02:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block review

unblock|The reason given for the block is that I am an SPA (single-purpose account) and I have not contributed to mainspace articles. SPA's are not a violation of Wikipedia policy. See Single-purpose accounts. The purpose of blocking is to "to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." See Blocking policy. Not contributing does not harm Wikipedia. In fact, I have contributed to discussions of content and policy on WIkipedia. From the blocking policy: "Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia." Since my participation has been part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia and no policy violation exists, I ask that I be unblocked.

I believe the second block was unjustified, and would unblock this account. Posting to ANI for additional views. Newyorkbrad 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, tho I'm not an admin or anything, I thought I'd throw in my 0.02 $. --Haemo

Just to let you know there is now an ongoing discussion of the validity of your block going on at WP:ANI. You might want to follow the discussion there. If you have any comments you want to add to the discussion, I would encourage you to post them in a new section here. --Selket ^Talk 15:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, my initial reaction upon reviewing this block was that it was not sufficiently supported by the blocking policy or by evidence. Rather than act unilaterally, I posted about this unblock request to WP:ANI here to ascertain whether my views accorded with consensus. Several views have been expressed, by both admins and non-admins, but unfortunately, no consensus appears to have been reached one way or the other. As in any on-wiki discussion the quality of the arguments matters more than the numbers; but numerically, for what it is worth, there was a slight preponderance of users opining against the block.

This leaves me to exercise my discretion as the reviewing administrator, and my conclusion remains that the reblock is without sufficient foundation to stand. My reasoning is as set forth in the ANI thread. Accordingly, I am granting the unblock request and unblocking this account, with the hope that this editor will proceed to make valuable contributions. Newyorkbrad 21:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I find insufficient foundation for this block. See discussion above and at ANI. Newyorkbrad 21:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Request handled by: Newyorkbrad 21:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument continues [1]

A thread was started by another user about the incivility that was shown to you, insted its mostly about you. I did not know if you had noticed it. Ok keep your head and continue to act as civily as you have and this should blow over and you can get on with editing "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". Hypnosadist 02:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]