Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:57, 22 April 2015

Before reading anything else

Some parts of the text below, under "Current Appeal" and "Regarding your block", refer to various policy extracts I had posted on this page. Bbb23 has removed them, so now a lot of it doesn't make any sense. For a complete understanding, please locate the old version, because I took a lot of time to research and collate it all here, so I could be sure I was making the right points. Bbb23 has his reasons, but I'm afraid "remove multiple sections that parrot policy" doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If he understood why they were there, he would surely have left a note at the very least, but I cannot know what his thought process was. Links won't assist you - it was a collation of multiple disparate paragraphs and even single sentences, chosen for their relevance to the various issues and events without meandering off topic, as so many of them seem to do given their broad scope. It's superficially easy to see why the block was placed, but if you've come here to review my appeal you can't do so properly without the extracts, as they contextualize the whole incident and give light on the future direction I would take. At least that's how I see it. What Bbb23 sees, and what he meant for reviewers to see, is a mystery to me. Without clarification from him this appears to be going nowhere fast, but he seems content to confine himself to removal. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Previous appeals (included under protest, at least the first one anwyay, which was obviously not meant to be taken seriously)

Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry for disrupting Misplaced Pages. I came here to improve the article on Gunther Holtorf. Having read this BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8703/index.html I thought it would be a valuable addition to Wikiepdia to put some of that into the Misplaced Pages article https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gunther_Holtorf&oldid=651511593, which appeared to be below par at best when compared to the BBC piece. Obviously I was wrong. Obviously on this collaborative project, it doesn't matter if you spend many hours of your free time reading, interpreting and adding information from that BBC article and creating a much better one https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gunther_Holtorf&oldid=656850534 I was obviously completely wrong to be angry at Drmies ripping out half of that work on the basis it was made up/promotional "facebook chit chat". And it was obviously myself who was being impolite in that interaction. I'm so sorry for "vandalising" the original poor article in my anger. I can see now why the few minutes that message remained on Misplaced Pages would have been every bit as damaging to your reputation as having my facebook chit chat version in place for the few minutes it was allowed to exist as well. I am truly shocked at my failure to realise that the way people collaborate on Misplaced Pages is that one person spends hours on adding material, another spends seconds removing it, and the thanks and praise should go to the latter not the former. I'm so sorry also for not living up to your high standards of citing sources, I see now the error of putting the BBC link at the bottom under a heading called References and clearly identifying that it covered everything, obviously I was not counting on experienced Misplaced Pages people like Ian not noticing that. I must do better next time with my few hours of rigourous training. And finally I am extremely sorry for trying to improve the version you restored it to https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gunther_Holtorf&oldid=656852120 . I tried to take your advice to heart, and remove all the bits of that version that I know were wrong having read the BBC source, and were also pretty poorly worded for an encyclopedia. My efforts were clearly so bad, so disruptive, so vandalistic https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gunther_Holtorf&oldid=656854756 that the original version just had to be restored I guess. I'm sure all my fellow Facebook chit chatters would be suitably embarrassed if they were ever caught trying to add the most basic information to this article or trying to remove the most basic errors. Lastly, I'm extremely sorry for calling Drmies a jerk, he's clearly an extremely nice and thoughtful person. It is of course entirely my fault for not understanding the minimalist form of communication he decided to employ on me. I am of course totally negligent in not realising which part of my improved version was made up or promotional as he claimed. Oh what a foolish and reckless person I was for calling this man an explorer. And even though that's quite literally the only piece of information I even remotely came up with myself rather than relying on the BBC source, I'm sure it's entirely my fault for not going to Drmies to politely ask what else I had made up. I'm sure he had a very long list of inventions, distortions, promotions and general chit chat crap that I had added, it must have just got lost in the post.

Decline reason:

No sensible reason to unblock given. If you apply again do not give us a wall of text, and avoid both sarcasm and irony. --Anthony Bradbury 13:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The Gunther Holtorf article is poorly written, 95% incomplete, and more importantly wrong on several points of fact. As I appear to be the only person here who cares about that, and has actually researched the subject enough to expand the article, I should be unblocked so I can get on with that task. It's a complete disgrace that such an epic journey gets such a poor writeup here. And no, Drmies, he's not my uncle and I'm not here to promote his memoirs. Have you ever considered just how arrogant and condescending you come across as? If it is deemed to be disruptive to get angry when someone like Drmies treats me with such complete and total disrespect as he did, and continues to do, then I guess I'll have to try and not let him aggravate me and work around him, if he insists on continuing to block improvements. How long that lasts depends on how willing he is to explain how my version is the trash he claims it is. So far it seems to be the case that I should simply accept his judgement. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There's nothing in this request that indicates that you understand why you were blocked. See also WP:NOTTHEM. OhNoitsJamie 16:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If you need a specific reason, I suppose I got blocked for replacing the article with a message, that's really all I can see is indicated by the 'disruptive editting' page - point making as it's described there. But I don't see how me saying that is any different to me saying I got blocked because I got angry and reacted poorly? Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

What edits would you make if unblocked? PhilKnight (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

For context, the appeal text that sat here and was ignored since last night (and replaced an even wordier one previously):

I want to improve the Gunther Holtorf article based on the BBC source I found (and was clearly identified in the article as a Reference), plus any others I might find in future. That's the short version anyway - I gave a detailed reply 16 hours ago, but have deleted it in case 'wall of text' was the reason it was being ignored. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)}}

Current appeal

Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I've quoted a few passages of Misplaced Pages policy below that demonstrate that this block is harsh at best, and when taken together in context with what Drmies was doing, manifestly unfair (since he hasn't received so much as a warning). But I have read and understood these rules now. I have already said multiple times that replacing the article with a message and calling Drmies a jerk was wrong, it obviously won't happen again. All I am interested in is improving the woeful ] article, and I will do so in a way that fully complies with these rules. But I am entitled to some understanding and consideration for my poor behaviour given his actions which provoked it. I am a new editor, yet he is experienced, so if anything he is more culpable since he cannot claim to be unaware his actions were wrong. Had he approached me respectfully, had his actions been in line with the rules quoted below, I never would have reacted the way I did, and therefore this block would not even exist. If Bbb23 is unwilling to move this appeal along by explaining what else it is he think I might do to damage Misplaced Pages if unblocked, or why I would not present such a risk in 4 days time when it will naturally expire anyway, then I'm afraid I can no longer Assume Good Faith and must instead assume the purpose of it is to punish me (contrary to the rules), or it is otherwise designed (along with Drmies' attitude and actions toward me) to simply dissuade me from being here at all (which is just plain wrong). I am not a threat to the integrity of Misplaced Pages information, contrary to Drmies' unproven accusations. Indeed, he is the only person out of the two of us who added false information by not properly reading the source (he did not start the map after retiring, and he did not make money from it before retiring), or who removed significantly important information (such as any mention of his wife), to that article in recent days. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I've quoted a few passages of Misplaced Pages policy below that demonstrate that this block is harsh at best, and when taken together in context with what Drmies was doing, manifestly unfair (since he hasn't received so much as a warning). But I have read and understood these rules now. I have already said multiple times that replacing the article with a message and calling Drmies a jerk was wrong, it obviously won't happen again. All I am interested in is improving the woeful ] article, and I will do so in a way that fully complies with these rules. But I am entitled to some understanding and consideration for my poor behaviour given his actions which provoked it. I am a new editor, yet he is experienced, so if anything he is more culpable since he cannot claim to be unaware his actions were wrong. Had he approached me respectfully, had his actions been in line with the rules quoted below, I never would have reacted the way I did, and therefore this block would not even exist. If Bbb23 is unwilling to move this appeal along by explaining what else it is he think I might do to damage Misplaced Pages if unblocked, or why I would not present such a risk in 4 days time when it will naturally expire anyway, then I'm afraid I can no longer Assume Good Faith and must instead assume the purpose of it is to punish me (contrary to the rules), or it is otherwise designed (along with Drmies' attitude and actions toward me) to simply dissuade me from being here at all (which is just plain wrong). I am not a threat to the integrity of Misplaced Pages information, contrary to Drmies' unproven accusations. Indeed, he is the only person out of the two of us who added false information by not properly reading the source (he did not start the map after retiring, and he did not make money from it before retiring), or who removed significantly important information (such as any mention of his wife), to that article in recent days. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I've quoted a few passages of Misplaced Pages policy below that demonstrate that this block is harsh at best, and when taken together in context with what Drmies was doing, manifestly unfair (since he hasn't received so much as a warning). But I have read and understood these rules now. I have already said multiple times that replacing the article with a message and calling Drmies a jerk was wrong, it obviously won't happen again. All I am interested in is improving the woeful ] article, and I will do so in a way that fully complies with these rules. But I am entitled to some understanding and consideration for my poor behaviour given his actions which provoked it. I am a new editor, yet he is experienced, so if anything he is more culpable since he cannot claim to be unaware his actions were wrong. Had he approached me respectfully, had his actions been in line with the rules quoted below, I never would have reacted the way I did, and therefore this block would not even exist. If Bbb23 is unwilling to move this appeal along by explaining what else it is he think I might do to damage Misplaced Pages if unblocked, or why I would not present such a risk in 4 days time when it will naturally expire anyway, then I'm afraid I can no longer Assume Good Faith and must instead assume the purpose of it is to punish me (contrary to the rules), or it is otherwise designed (along with Drmies' attitude and actions toward me) to simply dissuade me from being here at all (which is just plain wrong). I am not a threat to the integrity of Misplaced Pages information, contrary to Drmies' unproven accusations. Indeed, he is the only person out of the two of us who added false information by not properly reading the source (he did not start the map after retiring, and he did not make money from it before retiring), or who removed significantly important information (such as any mention of his wife), to that article in recent days. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Regarding your block

A bit of patience would go a long way. I wouldn't recommend further appeals, or statements like "I'm afraid I can no longer Assume Good Faith," as both could make you look extremely impatient (not a trait we need here). I also recommend you drop the stick regarding Drmies. No one has reverted Drmies's reverts because there's a general agreement that "the content you added was totally conversational, unverified, chatty, and very unencyclopedic."

Yes, general references are cited at the bottom, but inline citations are preferred because "The disadvantage of using general references alone is that text–source integrity is lost, unless the article is very short." That's why WP:CITE has about ten times as much about inline citations as it does general citations (and why we even have a whole page about inline citations). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Patience is one thing, especially if it's clear one knows what it is that is being waited for. Being expected to sit here and twiddle my thumbs, even though it's now clear that at least three people know I am waiting for a response and I have given all the information I have, is just taking the mick. I would liken that to ritual humiliation. If my answers are not sufficient, then why leave the appeal open? As for general agreement, are you sure? A far more likely explanation to me is that Drmies' slurs against my version have been taken on trust, and nobody has checked to see if he was right. Let's take a couple of examples - if you have read the source, to take one glaring example of things he slashed out, do you agree or disagree that an encyclopedic article would have no mention of his wife? And if you have read the source, would you agree the one sentence Drmies added that was his own to replace my writing, contained basic factual errors that actually misrepresent the source? Since he cannot possibly have found a single thing in the article that was not supported by the source provided as a general reference, I can only conclude he added the claims about me adding unverified information (and elsewhere of misrepresenting sources) to 'sex up' the rather less serious and entirely subjective issues of tone and 'encyclopedic'ness, which really are not so serious as to require the hostile and wholly inadequate approach he took, as per everything quoted above. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If your answer to my question was that you wanted to edit other articles, I would have spoke to the blocking admin about an unblock. From my perspective, it's better that you take a break from editing the article where you reacted poorly. PhilKnight (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand that perspective. That article is the only article I came here to edit, it's the only one I have researched to be able to edit. A break won't change my outlook on what happened - only Drmies altering his approach to me and retracting his false accusations of source misuse/making facts up will. If the price other editors have to pay for being falsely accused by Drmies and reacting poorly to it, is to be told they need to take a break from the article they came here to edit, then what message does that send? And obviously me editing other articles is no measure of how I will react in future (unless Drmies follows me and does the exact same things). Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact if I had just waited another four days and said nothing here, I'd be allowed to edit that article anyway. This whole system of blocks and appeals here seems to be poorly designed and poorly executed - the intentional absence of Bbb23 from this page is obviously causing more confusion and doubt than is warranted given the short period of the block and the lack of any real prevention if the person doesn't understand it enough to file a successful appeal, and so it just expires anyway. It really does just look like it was designed for punishment and/or to force me to go away without having to actually formalise it, from my perspective. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

And lastly, to point out the obvious, if Bbb23 had wanted to simply stop me from editing that one article, he surely could have without blocking me from all articles, hence your request would probably have been futile anyway as this can't have been the reason, even if I had given the correct answer. Do you see how this process makes no sense for anyone here compared to the alternative of simply waiting a week, unless/until Bbb23 provides more information? Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Having made a determination earlier, I will not now make another. But I will make two or three points. As you point out Bbb23 has stayed away. This is usual; a blocking admin will not release a block he has imposed, and will not usually discuss it either. A block is not punitive, but preventative. Your block of one week is, I would say (having not spoken to the blocking admin), designed to give you time to consider your editing. To stop you from editing permanently either an indefinite block or full protection of the article would have been needed, and neither was appropriate or desirable. And lastly, I would seriously recommend that you desist from sniping at admins, either Drmies (who, before you ask, I do not know personally) or anyone else. We are all trying to preserve and improve the encyclopedia, and it helps if we all appreciate this.--Anthony Bradbury 17:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If it's normal for blocking admins to ignore requests for more details on their reasoning, then I question the logic of the entire appeal process. You are left to guess at his reasoning, the other reviewer also appears to have been guessing at his reasoning, and I of course am still none the wiser. I still don't even know if he considers the last edit I made to the article disruption or not? And on a point of fact, he is not staying away - he's actually still here, not to explain evidently, but to simply delete text I put on the page, even though it was placed here precisely to help reviewers understand my appeal. Is it normal for blocking admins not to explain why they obstructed the blocked editor from appealing? I cannot follow the logic of it at all, if this is not intended to simply be a week long punishment.

If your speculation on his reasoning is on the money, then all I can say is that I have considered my editing, and I have concluded that, given Civil and Assume Good Faith, I am absolutely entitled to be angry at both the actions of Drmies, and the one-sided approach others have taken since. I did not express that correctly, of course, but the anger and frustration over that is still going to be there in a couple of days time. And this is not sniping at Drmies, I am highlighting, with evidence, exactly how in this case, his attempt to "preserve and improve the encyclopedia" was not remotely successful. You are essentially saying I should Assume Good Faith with him, while totally ignoring the fact he did not do so with me. Or at the very least, I should not be upset at the dichotomy. Is that right?

Through his attitude and actions, Drmies has given the impression that he would rather I just leave and go back to Facebook, even though I have spent hours researching the article, with the goal of improving it. And it's a basic fact that out of the two of us, he is the person who introduced factual errors to the article, and removed basic encyclopedic information, while trying to portray himself the superior encyclopedist. And once this block expires, I intend to say that directly to his face, in as nice a way as I can possibly muster. If Bbb23, or anyone else, thinks Misplaced Pages benefits by Drmies not being told that until a week has passed since it occurred, or indeed that he should not be told this at all, then I'd be very much interested to know why. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock