User talk:Limin8tor/myveryfirstblocking

IP address: 216.165.27.182

   * Blocking admin: DragonflySixtyseven
   * Block reason: Colbert vandalism
   * Your account name (if you have one): Limin8tor
   * An explanation of why your block is unfair: Dear DragonflySixtyseven, I

think that an IP block with an indefinite expiration date is not a punishment proportional to the violation. I did not vandalize the Librarian page proper, I merely suggested how it should be changed and additionally I provided a citation in support of how and why I thought the librarian page should be altered. I am aware that I have only contributed to one other article on Wikipedia, but I feel given that I have no history of vandalism or any other violation of Wikipedia's policies, blocking me permanently without providing any warning or first imposing a punishment less severe than an indefinite block is not fair or suited to the violation committed. Additionally, I access Wikipedia from a connection provided by my University, and so by blocking my IP address you are also blocking access from my roommates as in my particular residence hall, everyone in the same room connects via the same IP address. Thus, I respectfully request that I be unblocked or at the very least, my block be given a finite, and hopefully brief duration. Thank you for your time and your attention. Sincerely, Limin8tor 04:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC) aka Andrew Benjamin.[reply]

I have unblocked you. Desperate times call for desperate measures so there may be some collateral damage in these cases. Yonatan ^talk 04:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did not vandalize the actual entry on Librarians, because the article was locked down. However, you damn well tried to, and you added the idiocy to the talk page. It's your fault that your roommates will be unable to edit Wikipedia for the next two weeks. Own up to it. DS 04:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   * IP address: 216.165.27.182
   * Blocking admin: DragonflySixtyseven
   * Block reason: "relatively harmless" is still harmful.
   * Your account name (if you have one): Limin8tor
   * An explanation of why your block is unfair:

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).

Limin8tor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's a sad day when people are blocked for suggesting edits and providing citations in support of them. Free speech is about making efforts to challenge differing voices rather than stifling them. Douglas Adams must be rolling in his grave at this blatant misuse of his words and satire, though it's possible he would find it humorous in an ironic sort of way. But I digress -- I did little to nothing wrong and if the administrators did not want to edit the article to reflect my suggestion, they could have simply ignored it rather than inhibiting my ability to contribute to Wikipedia. Moreover, despite having done nothing wrong, my roommates are being punished as well. Have we descended so far that we blithely punish the innocent so long as we punish the guilty along with them? Now if I so chose, I could long onto Wikipedia via a proxy and edit to my heart's content, but I will take a page from Socrates' book and serve the punishment handed down despite the fact that I find it to be unjust in deference to my respect for the administrators. However, I implore DragonflySixtyseven, or any other administrator to please reconsider this sentence in light of the arguments presented and the wit and good will of this dedicated Wikipedian. Limin8tor 05:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your ... wit ... is noted. However, we have a policy of zero tolerance for Colbert vandalism. There is no right to free speech on Wikipedia; it is a private encyclopedia project. — Sandstein 05:35, 25 May 2007 (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.

Currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Limin8tor. —dgies^t_c 05:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to very sincerely thank the administrators who have decided to discuss my blocking rather than summarily dismiss my argument. I sent this e-mail to Sandstein and I will add it here as further argument in support of my being allowed to continue contributing to Wikipedia: I understand full well that freedom of speech is not guaranteed by Wikipedia. However, a website that encourages and even depends on the collective edits of all members certainly carries the spirit of free speech. I refer you to Griswold v. Connecticut where Justice William O. Douglas found that while no right to privacy was explicit in the constitution, it was contained within the "penumbras and emanations" of the constitution, that it was inherent in the ideals and goals upon which The United States was founded. Likewise, I feel that free speech and collective cooperation are some of the ideals upon which Wikipedia was founded, and which I have been prevented from engaging in. This website encourages users to "be bold," "take it to the talk page," and "assume good faith." I did the first two and was denied the latter. My suggestion could have simply been laughed off rather than blown out of a proportion into a two-week block. I again, humbly request that my blocking be reconsidered. Thank you for your time and attention.

- OK. Wikipedia blocks are preventative, not punitive: if you agree that you will not make any more edits containing Colbert-related memes, I'm not opposed to unblocking you. (As regards your legal arguments, they are immaterial: I'm Swiss, this is an international project, the emanations and penumbras of a national constitution do not matter to us. Only our policies do.) Sandstein 07:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block length has been reduced to a day, you should be able to edit again in around 21 hours. -- John Reaves (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is 21 hours later and the error message tells me that now I have been autoblocked instead of the regular block I had before. Could anyone help please? Limin8tor 05:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]