This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new noticeboard pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. -- Darth Culator(Talk) 05:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
About a month ago I got engaged in a discussion with QuentinGeorge in this thread, and subsequently blocked by Havac, as well as blocked (apparently indefinetly) from the IRC channel by Darth Culator. Now I'm back, have xmas over with, and is here to throw the book at all three of them.
1) Regarding QG:
Admins are just users who have special powers, so I cannot really demand that he acts nicely just because he is one. But in this case he messed up. He first made an accusation that anyone with a mind to can check the validity of, and will find was false: I have not started any threads about "my beef with canon", nor did I start the one in question. Therefore, the warning he gave me was unnecessary, and based on a flawed premise. But more importantly, this page claims an admin should only use his powers in a preventive manner for the good of the site, never for punitive purposes. So, unless QG can demonstrate in what way threatening me with a block for something I haven't done qualifies as preventive, or at all for the good of the site, I call abuse of power. And it doesn't help matters that he and I have disputed over Canon issues in the past, and that he in this latest one decided to use his powers on me, the opposition, with an end result that removed my voice from the thread. It raises questions.
Still, all in all, QG is relatively innocent in this case, as he never actually did anything. But since he, as I will come to soon, was responsible for giving me the warning that got me banned, I cannot simply dismiss him.
2) Regarding Havac:
Havac never actually participated in the thread. All he did was ban me moments after my last comment. His given reason: "You were warned". He thus broke blocking policy by not clarifying his reasons, as stated here. Indeed, I'm still not sure what the real reason for my block was, which will lead to a lenghtening of this post in an attempt to cover the possibilities. It is decidedly a punitive rather than a preventive action to block someone without giving them the necessary info to improve themselves.
But more important is the fact that he blocked me in the first place. As I wrote above, QG's reasons for warning me were unjust and based on incorrect information. So, as one is to believe from "You were warned", I was blocked on faulty grounds. And as stated here: "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project". Unless Havac can demonstrate in what way my last post violated the warning I was given, in what way it severely disrupted the project, and whether the warning was good enough in the first place to heed, the history between Havac and me gives reason to suspect at the very least overzealous blocking practice, at worst admin abuse of power.
However, there is a second option. Perhaps Havac banned me for desruption. My tone in the thread in question was anything but friendly, particularly after being accused. But if this is the case, why did he not so much as leave a warning on either Culator's or QG's talk pages on account of their rudeness in the very same thread, when my rudeness was grounds for a block? Therefore, this surely cannot be the reason.
And a third option. It might have been that QG’s intent was to insure that I did not cause disruption by bringing my so-called “beef with canon” into the matter, even though I had no conceivable reason to until QG used it against me, and had not displayed any signs that could be interpreted as such. If this was the case, then me going ahead and exclaiming how I have come to see myself as understanding Canon better than the Wook big-timers, would indeed qualify as disrupting the thread in the manner I had been warned against, and given Havac ample reason to ban me, saying I had been warned. Everything would have made sense.
Problem is: THAT WAS NOT THE NATURE OF THE WARNING I WAS GIVEN!!! I always obey my admins, even when they are complete lunatics. Had I been asked to step off, as any admin interested in actually keeping the peace would have done, I would have, not least because I had nothing further to add to the discussion. In stead I go from fairly safe to knife-edge on the bandom scale.
3) Regarding Darth Culator:
Below my last comment in the thread, Culator left a mocking remark. This, again, isn't a huge deal, since he as a normal user with special powers is perfectly within his rights to be an ass to another user. However, when I went to the IRC after getting banned, trying to get a hold of Havac, I found only Culator. I made it clear to everyone that I was there to have my block contested, and Culator made a strange comment that neither Havac or anyone else would get to read my comment. Angry with his mocking remark, I called him a murglak for adding fuel to the fire when he is supposed to keep order. I was immedately blocked from the IRC, and more than a month later I still am. I cannot prove that Culator is responsible, but it seems likely. And if so, he will have to demonstrate in what way it is preventive rather than punitive to use admin powers on someone who is an ass to you -after you have been an ass to them. Furthermore, he will have to explain how he justifies blocking a user whom he knew needed IRC contact with his blocking admin to contest it (Havac doesn't have an email adress provided) for longer than the duration of the block itself.
If these three cannot demonstrate what I have asked, they will be in violation of this rule from the blocking policy: "Users requesting blocks should supply credible evidence of the circumstances warranting a block.". In that case I have two demands:
1) That the block, which I have wrongly endured, is erased from my permanent record, as I now find myself facing a permaban next time.
2) That these three are kept in check by the rest of the administration until they have proven an ability to wield their powers as a burden of responsibility rather than a means to satisy their own egos or as weapons in personal vendettas.
First and foremost, your links regarding policy are to Wikipedia pages. For the umpteen millionth time: This is Wookieepedia. This is not Wikipedia; this wiki is part of Wikia, which is not Wikipedia, either. For a listing of our policies on this site, please see Category:Policies on Wookieepedia. You will find in our blocking policy this sentence: Final discretion is left to the blocking administrator on a case-by-case basis. This was established as consensus at the last Mofference, and was proposed by me for such cases as yours. There has been little other than a constant disregard for the workings of this site from you, and a highly inflammatory "my way or the highway" attitude concerning everything you have an opinion on. When users disagree with you, you attack them, usually skirting the policy in order to avoid making direct personal attacks. But your intent is clear in such instances, I assure you. In your post above, you have made personal attacks. This is not a point of contention; you did this, and you have been made aware of the policy regarding personal attacks more than once. I have blocked you for only two months because it was decided that your actions rather than your intentions be the subject of this discipline. If you wish to avoid the final, all-encompassing ban that I get the sad impression is imminent following your return, do as you have said and obey your admins. No more insulting tones, indirect slights, or lengthy diatribes will be tolerated. If you wish to contribute to this wiki, my advice is that you contribute to the wiki, and not to the air of negativity to which you have contributed more than enough. Have a nice couple of months. Graestan(Talk) 01:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow...just, wow. We are not Wikipedia, like Graestan noted. So, I honestly don't care in the least what Wikipedia's blocking policy is. Why? Because we are not Wikipedia. We are Wookieepedia. We have our own blocking policy, and one which works very well for us. When I block someone, I don't consult Wikipedia to see if I, as a Star Wars admin, am within my rights—according to our policies, which Graestan linked too, "final discretion" is the key phrase. MRN, and I'm saying this as someone who has been on the receiving end of your negative attitude before, use your 2 month block to re-evaluate your attitude, and also what you want your role to be on Wookieepedia when your block is lifted. Honestly, you're heading with full steam behind you to a fate which another certain disruptive user found himself in—and if your attitude is the same when you get back, then you have no one to blame but yourself for getting permabanned; and I do not, nor will, have any sympathy for you and the situation you've made for yourself. To borrow some words from one of our admins who has been here since the beginning, Either shape up, or ship out. Greyman(Paratus) 03:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Following his last block, DarthMRN sent me the following message via Wikia e-mail:
Since it appears the validity of my arguments were dismissed on grounds that this is not Wikipedia, I feel I should direct your attention to the "Wookieepedia:Administrators" page, which contain links to both the "Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide", and "Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list", which combined are my proof for the references I cited. You honestly think me incompetent enough to cite proof from another site out of the blue?
Get it? My proof was found following links dictating Wookieepedia admin behavior, which I have not found any Wookieepedia equivalents of anywhere. Not even the in-site blocking policy provide any guidelines whatsoever on what the circumstances surrounding a block are supposed to be. And yet the linked Wookieepedia guidelines hold no weight?
Listen, the more I learn about the way this site is ruled, the more appalled I get. Apparently, there are a ton of norms which dictate what an admin can and cannot do, which only the admins have a right to change, and which isn't committed to writing anywhere for other users to read. And now I learn that making reasonable demands towards and complaining about members of the administration is grounds for a block in itself -without their merit being even adressed. And that extremely sound guidelines for admin conduct are thrown in the trash in favour of giving each admin soveregn power to do as he or she damn well pleases. How can it really surprise you guys that you are viewed as a Cabal? You're a friggin power elite, who admits anyone with the knowhow and a certain editcount to join your ranks, with complete disregard for their fitness as rulers, and then lets them loose on the community.
Why should you care about my views? You shouldn't. In fact, I don't think I will be coming back here in an editor capacity ever again, meaning I'm worthless to you. But if you care at all about the administration not beeing viewed as a Cabal, you might wanna heed my words and look closely at the system you are serving. You say my arguments don't hold weight because we aren't Wikipedia; then write a page outlining how an admin of this site should behave, because the Category you linked contain none, and alter the "Wookieepedia:Blocking policy", for ATM it says nothing you have claimed regarding the difference between Wook practice and Wikipedia practice. Also, remove the abovementioned links from the admin page, since they apparently hold no sway over a Wook admin.
The administration is currently a rotten construct which defines its own rules and limitations without regard for the community's voice, and have far too few members worthy of wielding such power. But at least the project grows. If more genuine concern for the singular user ever becomes a priority, I hope you guys will attempt to see what I see and remedy yourselves. But at the very least attempt to make the changes I have proposed, because had you not the power to block me and thus remove my voice, you would not have been able to cite any proof other than your own words in favour of your arguments. Chew on that. I mean it. Try to cite your arguments against me with anything tangible, without the power to just block me, and you'll see what I mean.
That both you and the three admins I singled out find your own words sufficient cause for use of powers is the very problem.
Good luck and good bye.
PS: Could you tell Greyman that he has some nerve comparing me to Jack Nebulax while at the same time accusing m e of personal attacks.
I did not immediately receive this letter, as it was sorted into my junk (bulk) mail folder, which I rarely check. However, after reviewing the contents of the missive several times, I have deemed it sufficient grounds for an infinite block against DarthMRN on my part. As you can see, it encompasses several of what I consider to be personal attacks, even though they are directed more at groups of users (i.e. the administration) than any user in particular. If MRN stays away from the wiki per his stated intentions, this is a non-issue, but as a preventative measure against futher disruption and troublemaking on his part, I have blocked him with an expiry time of infinite. Any administrators who wish to discuss this matter further with me should feel free to e-mail me or track me down on IRC. Graestan(Talk) 05:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You know, MRN does have a point. We probably need to update our administrative pages if they are still full of Wikipedia links and make clear what our administrator rights are. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)