User talk:Alan.ca/block

Complaint that I have violated WP:POINT

Moved discussion to admin's noticeboard Alan.ca 02:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for 72 hours, per the discussion on ANI and the many warnings you've received. Please use this time to think about what you've done and cool down. --Core desat 06:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coredesat, I have reviewed WP:BLOCK#Disruption and it clearly states that cool down blocks are discouraged. I think 72 hours is a bit excessive here. Alan.ca 06:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be noted:

Coredesat supported the RfA of dysysopped Chacor:

Strong Support. Chacor should not have been desysopped before. He's an excellent editor, with loads of experience as a normal user and an ex-admin, and I've worked with him a great deal. A lot of the oppose votes are unfounded (Chacor is not abusive, for instance...). --Coredesat talk! 17:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not to you. I have an IRC log that says differently, though. It's Chacor's call on whether it's made available or not. Note that he did subsequently apologise for part (but not all) of it. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, never mind, then, I struck that part out. I still think he could be a good admin, though. --Coredesat talk! 20:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

- That's not relevant here. --Core desat 07:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coredesat, I just want to get back to editing articles. If you read the discussion you will see that I was trying to get out of the conversation. It may just be a coincidence that Chacor asked an admin he knew to do the block, but either way, I have no intention of disrupting WP and I just want to move on. Alan.ca 07:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EXCUSE ME!?' I "asked an admin [I know] to do the block"? That is a ridiculous assertion and just shows that you're not here to work conducively with other editors. I'd like an apology. – Ch acor 07:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I just want to get back to contributing to articles. If there is a concern about my deletion proposals I have no problem agreeing to stay away from them for the 72 hours. Alan.ca 07:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is no longer about your prods, it's about your conduct. I would like to note to the admin who handles this unblock request to please read the ANI section linked. – Ch acor 07:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire ANI discussion started about my PROD tags. There is no point to continue the ANI discussion if I am not PROD tagging articles. Thus, there will be no opprotunity for argument on that subject which seems to be the basis of contention here, that is, my conduct in the ANI discussion. Alan.ca 07:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan.ca, you need to stop this disruption right now. You are making things bad for yourself. Do not post irrelevant information and personal attacks on your talk page. If you continue disruption on your talk page, I will have to lock it. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alan.ca (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

When blocked I was not editing any articles. I was responding to questions in an ANI discussion. I have not disregarded any requests to cease doing anything.

Decline reason:

User continues to disrupt by posting irrelevant information on his talk page while blocked. You need to cool down, Alan.ca. -- Aksi_great (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|I agree not to talk with or about any of the parties involved in this dispute. I just want to get back to contributing to articles.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I am inclined to grant your request. I'll consider this a self-imposed probation as a condition of your unblock. Should you re-engage in disruptive behavior any administrator may re-block you for either another 72 hours or longer.---J.S ^(T/C) 07:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: ---J.S ^(T/C) 07:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceyockey's comments

You placed the following on my user talk page (you referred to User talk:Alan.ca/block for reading and consideration):

Hi, I would appreciate it if you could review my statement regarding the block I received. If you could e-mail your thoughts on the statement I would appreciate it. User_talk:Alan.ca/block Alan.ca 08:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

First, you wrote this well after your block had been removed. Second, it is inappropriate for me to discuss this matter with you off-wiki. Third, after reading over the material you pointed to, I do not feel much sympathy for you. For instance, in the following passage, you make a veiled accusation of sock puppetry:

I don't think pointing out that Coredesat was a supporter in Chacor's RfA was inappropriate for me to post on my talk page after the block was so quickly issued for such a long time. In summary, I feel that the block was misapplied as there were plenty other avenues that were available. I find it suspicious that a user, Chacor, who has been de-sysoped for sock puppetry among other things, had a former supporter pop up and block my account.

In the following passage you suggested that you would just keep arguing until either being blocked or being told to stop arguing, which is not a positive indicator that you can contribute constructively to discussions:

If anyone had intervened in the AN/I discussion and said: Alan and Chacor, please stop arguing here, let's just move on. I would have been more than happy to withdraw from the argument.

Your being unblocked is a testament to the correct notion that blockage is not a punitive measure, not a recognition that you are correct in your arguments to date. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted here only minutes before Alan.ca was re-blocked --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my statement Ceyockey. I posted the note on your talk page because I am considering entering the dispute resolution process over the incidents surrounding my block. I made reference to your comments in my draft statement and thought it would be best to allow you to review those remarks before I submit the statement. I had requested that you respond by e-mail because the dispute is still hot on here and I don't want to aggrivate the situation by reopening the debate on my talk page. Alan.ca 05:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block reinstated

Hello.

I have been asked to independently review this situation and decide whether this edit constitutes a violation of your self-imposed probation. While in itself it's not exactly disruptive (although might be viewed as adding fuel to the discussion), the fact that you have subsequently taken it to Redux's meta talk page, certainly is. Therefore, I have reinstated the 72 hour block. You may of course request yet another administrator to review the block by placing an {{unblock|reason}} template on your talk page. Regards, М иша 13 14:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block shortened to 48 hours

Following our e-mail discussion, as well as some discussion with other admins on the topic, I've decided to shorten your block to 48 hours, including time already spent blocked - it will expire in 36 hours. However, the probation still applies for now. Feel free to bring up your suggestions for the verifiability policy on WT:V when the block expires, but if you are found to be disruptive in the future, you may be blocked again, pending administrator consensus. --Core desat 09:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I received your email, but it appears other admins are already working on your situation, so I decline to become involved as my internet time is limited this week. Thankyou. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat at a standstill. Redux left a neutral remark, Coredesat reduced the block time. I don't feel that I need to be blocked for any further time as I more clearly understand what is asked of me at this time, essentially 3 days of no discussion on this topic on or off the project. Alan.ca 12:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steward Redux's comments

Hi. Regarding your request on my Meta-Wiki talk page, I see that the situation has been looked into by several administrators, and the block has been lifted at this point. However, if you would like a review of the actions taken by the different admins involved, I would request that you start a Request for Comment, or, if you would like to keep it simpler, make a public request for comment on the English-language Wikipedia, in a venue such as the Administrators' Noticeboard. Regards, Redux 13:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block was reinstated because you successfully requested to be unblocked on the condition of letting the issue go and returning to normal editing of articles, but then attempted to contact someone (in this case, me) outside of Wikipedia. I see now that your block has been shortened following further talks between yourself and Coredesat. If you feel that the matter is resolved by this, wait until the block expires and go back to your normal business as usual. If not, then you can always do as I suggested above and request community review of the entire situation. But essentially, keep the discussions public and on Wikipedia, or people will end up perceiving your actions as an attempt to circumvent the discussions and the block itself, which will not earn you any points. Redux 11:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have been advised that I cannot discuss the matter after my block expires as that would constitute violation of some kind of probation. If you could help me clearly understand when I can discuss this subject I would appreciate it. Alan.ca 12:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My summary of events leading up to the block (Please do not comment in this section)

Attempts to resolve dispute

Statement

Previously De-sysoped user:Chacor reported me for misuse of PROD tagging to the AN/I. I subsequently entered into a open debate to respond to his concerns. I subsequently noticed that Chacor had gone through and removed all of the PROD tags on every article I had tagged. I posted a note on Chacor's Talk page pointing this out. Chacor responded by accusing me of threatening him by filing this complaint on the AN/I page. I was finding that this discussion had become more personal than about Wikipedia, so I attempted to refactor my talk page and split the discussion into the releveant sections by creating a discussion on WT:V and removing the dispute from my talk page. Instead of following my lead, Chacor responds on AN/I by claiming I am being disruptive for doing the move. Administrator user:Ceyockey advised Chacor to drop it as he could see that I was simply trying to move on. I advised everyone that I was just trying to move on and asked Chacor to please respect my wishes.[1] After another Administrator seconded my plan this brought an end to the problem for Dec 21/06.

Day 2, argument returns At 2006-12-22T10:45:50, user:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, known as Nick, reopened the matter on my talk page with this posting. His statement was rather professional, but he was asking me to cease and desist from further PROD tagging and AfD discussions. I, in fact, had not done any further PROD tagging, but I was participating in AfD discussions. I was concerned that he had threatened to block me and it seemed to be related to the Dec 21/06 discussion, so I transcluded the notice (2006-12-22T20:58:57) on to the AN/I board. Instead of letting a fresh set of eyes review the posting, Chacor was quick to get involved at 2006-12-22T21:13:14 by mentioning my alleged harassment of him and so on. At this point I was perplexed as to why Chacor was spending so much time commenting on the AN/I board as he is not an administrator. Once agan Ceyocky tried to bring the conversation back to WP:V policy, 2006-12-22T21:55:17. However, Chacor disregards this attempt and responds by stating that I should accept that I am wrong because 4 admins have disagreed with me. 2006-12-22T21:57:43. It seemed that no matter how hard I tried to discuss policy, it was always about who was right. This was further demonstrated when Chacor suggested I was accusing him of meat puppetry [2]. He further went on to accuse me of trolling and being irritating on the AN/I. [3]. I responded by encouraging him to participate in the policy debate. 2006-12-22T23:17:37 Realizing that this discussion was getting out of hand, I made an attempt to contact the user Nick on his talk page as he had posted the warning on my talk page. Chacor, monitoring my contributions, noticed this post and dragged it on to the AN/I page.2006-12-22T23:33:34
Coredesat joins AN/I Discussion: At this point, user:Coredesat, for the first time in this AN/I discussion, got involved by stating that I shouldn't be posting elsewhere, essentially rebuking my attempt to contact the original complainant and suggested that I be blocked from Wikipedia for 72 hours. 2006-12-23T01:10:37 You will note, he makes no reference to policy, nor does he make a personal request on my talk page for me to cease doing anything that would warrant a block. In fact, my only activity on wikipedia at this time was responding to the concerns in the AN/I discussion. Chacor responded by suggesting that I was a vandal for refactoring my talk page.2006-12-23T01:18:39
Block: Colin Keigher creates a motion to ban for 72 hours section. 2006-12-23T01:19:33. Chacor contributes by questioning: how long until Alan wikilawyers that WP:NOT a democracy?. [4] I responded by stating this would be a misapplication of the block policy and asserted that I was not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. [5] Chacor goes on to accuse me of not being Civl. [6] I ask for someone to intervene and Chacor responds by asserting that I am not acting in good faith. [7] Without any warning or attempt to discuss with me, at 2006-12-23T01:32:06 Coredesat arrives to block my account for disrupting wikipedia and multiple wp:point violations. Alan.ca block log I tried to contact Coredesat by e-mail, but he never answered me. Please review this short discussion on my talk page posted after the block. [8] I offered to abstain from communicating with the parties involved in the AN/I discussion and my second unblock request was answered within 10 minutes of the block. If anyone had intervened in the AN/I discussion and said: Alan and Chacor, please stop arguing here, let's just move on. I would have been more than happy to withdraw from the argument. I only felt compelled to argue on the AN/I page as I was concerned that I would be blocked. The discussion was very accusatory towards me and I felt that responding was neccessary to preserve my freedoms on Wikipedia. I don't think pointing out that Coredesat was a supporter in Chacor's RfA was inappropriate for me to post on my talk page after the block was so quickly issued for such a long time. In summary, I feel that the block was misapplied as there were plenty other avenues that were available. I find it suspicious that a user, Chacor, who has been de-sysoped for sock puppetry among other things, had a former supporter pop up and block my account.