User talk:SkagitRiverQueen: Difference between revisions
on second thought it's not proper to remove sections of discussion this way. we came to weigh in on your question which anyone can do. selectively removing the stuff you dont like is improper. want this restoration at least on record. |
|||
Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
{{od}}So...is there a final decision or is the above just opinion/input waiting for a final decision? The longer the information above is there, the more vulnerable and open to harassment I become online because of it. Anyone? Please...? --[[User:SkagitRiverQueen|SkagitRiverQueen]] ([[User talk:SkagitRiverQueen#top|talk]]) 21:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
{{od}}So...is there a final decision or is the above just opinion/input waiting for a final decision? The longer the information above is there, the more vulnerable and open to harassment I become online because of it. Anyone? Please...? --[[User:SkagitRiverQueen|SkagitRiverQueen]] ([[User talk:SkagitRiverQueen#top|talk]]) 21:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
:I think it's important that your unblock rationale stay up so that people know the situation and claims relating to it immediately. I'd personally be fine with you collapsing them and Sandstien seems to think that's ok, and you can also rest assured that Google won't index it. My opinion on the fairness of having to keep that stuff up is, if you didn't want the information publicized you probably shouldn't have put it up here. Placing personal info in the hopes of gaining the sympathy vote is always going to be a double-edged sword, and you're going to have to live with that decision now, IMO. <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000080">'''Equazcion'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|'''<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>''']]</small> 21:24, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)</font> |
|||
:I already know what your opinion is on this becuase you already made it clear above. There are two others who have stated they feel it would be fine to remove it - one of them being an admin. It's a decision I'm looking for, not a repeat of an opinion already expressed. And...why do you continue attacking me and alleging I was doing something I wasn't? I'd really appreciate it if you would knock it off because your seeming vindictiveness and need for retribution is just not helpful at all. --[[User:SkagitRiverQueen|SkagitRiverQueen]] ([[User talk:SkagitRiverQueen#top|talk]]) 21:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::1, I didn't express my opinion on this yet. The only comment I made was to ask if you were allowed to collapse them. 2, no admins have stated that opinion above, as far as I can see. <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000080">'''Equazcion'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|'''<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>''']]</small> 21:42, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)</font> |
|||
:::Sorry, I was confusing your other negative comments about me already expressed ad nauseum over the last several months with the other negative comments above. Oh, and I guess you didn't look close enough - Spartaz is an admin. --[[User:SkagitRiverQueen|SkagitRiverQueen]] ([[User talk:SkagitRiverQueen#top|talk]]) 21:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::Let me see if I've got this right; you used your Aspberger's to launch accusations of ''discrimination'' against Sarek. And you want the information you freely offered (knowing it's a public site) to be removed because it could cause off-Wiki harassment of you? [[User:Doc9871|Doc9871]] ([[User talk:Doc9871|talk]]) 21:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}Please leave my talk page. Your comments are not welcome here. --[[User:SkagitRiverQueen|SkagitRiverQueen]] ([[User talk:SkagitRiverQueen#top|talk]]) 21:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm having trouble getting Spartaz' rights straight. Maybe he is an admin. These communications aren't really making me feel any more sympathetic to your situation though. <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000080">'''Equazcion'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|'''<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>''']]</small> 21:52, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)</font> |
|||
:::::Honestly, I really don't care what you personally think about me, E. You've been nothing more than a thorn in my side since December. You never have anything nice to say to me, never anything helpful. You've been doing everything you can for three months to see me gone from Wikipedia - and you've accomplished your goal. so, unless you have something positive to add, I'd prefer that you - along with Doc and his other Wiki-buddies - would just leave me alone. I owe the lot of you absolutely nothing. --[[User:SkagitRiverQueen|SkagitRiverQueen]] ([[User talk:SkagitRiverQueen#top|talk]]) 21:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ec}} Well, I think that's pretty debatable. I don't think you've done anything but accuse those who criticize your actions of one manner of inappropriate behavior or another. In the end you got banned by unanimous vote, so I would think these accusations could stop. The criticisms were warranted, you could perhaps acknowledge that now. ''Everyone'' here's can't be against you. Or maybe you believe that, I don't know. <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000080">'''Equazcion'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|'''<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>''']]</small> 22:03, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)</font> |
|||
<!-- |
<!-- |
Revision as of 22:31, 22 March 2010
Current discussion |
Always remember... first assume good faith... Wikipedia is meant to be a work in progress; there are no deadlines here... ...and because life is uncertain, eat dessert first!
March 2010 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for continued inability to edit in a collegial fashion, as shown in the discussion up to here. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
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).
SkagitRiverQueen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: This isn't the first time I have been blocked by Sarek as a punitive, rather than preventative, measure. It's also not the first time he's blocked me for doing nothing more than another editor involved in the same discussion WITHOUT also blocking the other editor. I opened myself up to him on a personal level through a private email on March 14 about how I have Asperger Syndrome and that some things - like inferences and certain other responses and behaviors - are part of why I edit and communicate the way I do. I asked him to look into Asperger Syndrome so you could better understand what I was talking about. I'm assuming from this latest over-the-top block that he didn't bother to read it. He regularly turns a blind eye to what other editors around me are doing that relates to how I am communicating with them and they get off with not even a slap on the wrist. Sarek has been targeting me for weeks now and this is just another example of his bias against me. I believe Sarek is a bad administrator and has once again misused his authority where I am concerned. Further, I believe that blocking me for a year while already knowing I have a condition that hinders my communication abilities with others (among other things that would relate to how I edit) is discrimination based on a handicap. A block for this incident [1] is not worthy of a year-long block, nor is it worthy of a block at all, IMO. I have asked Sarek for help and to explain a few things to me here and there and now and again and he has balked at doing so. This is a clear case of targeting, discrimination and abuse of administrative authority. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Decline reason: WP:NOTTHEM, Also, this block currently has unanimous support at ANI. Sandstein 22:01, 21 March 2010 (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.
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).
SkagitRiverQueen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I'm requesting again to be unblocked after taking some time for introspection and developing a plan for when I am no longer under a block - this plan includes conduct that I intend to implement as long as I am editing in Wikipedia. (1) Avoid communication and conflict at all costs with any editors with whom I have had conflict before. (2) 1-revert rule. (3) Limit all communications with other editors to be about edits, not editors. (4) When conflict appears to be arising, go elsewhere - whether that be within WP or away from Wikipedia for a while. (5) If I note that an editor with whom I have not had conflict before could be a potential problem in my Wikipedia-realm, I will apply points 1 and 4. (6) Get a mentor (if possible and/or available). I understand that I have been blocked because of a lack of collegial editing - and I have read the comments from those who have supported the reasons for this block at AN/I. My only comment in regard to those who believe I can never change and become a collegial editor is that they are wrong. I can change. I am a very strong-willed person who, even at a half-century of age, is always willing to learn and change what I do - especially if others feel what I do is harmful to others. I enjoy Wikipedia and have never intended to hurt, nor want to go on hurting, this project. After reading the many comments at AN/I, I can see that my actions have been more far-reaching than I ever imagined. And this needs to end. I am submitting this request with all sincerity and humility. Thanks for considering it. Decline reason: I'm afraid it's too late for that. Despite what has been said in the conversation below, there does not seem to be support for the idea of reversing this block, rather there is an unusually high level of support for keeping it in place. This has gone beyond a mere block and can now be considered a community ban. A single admin can't overturn that decision. If you wish to appeal this further your best course of action is to take a significant amount of time, at least a few months, off of Wikipedia. Then either post a new unblock request here or email the ban appeals subcommittee. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2010 (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.
Request{{adminhelp}} Requesting that the block template on my talk page be removed - there are things I have written in my unblock requests that I do not want to be made public (e.g. my references to Asperger Syndrome) and this is the internet and I don't want any joe-schmoe to read what's there and use it against me elsewhere within the world-wide-web. Also, I don't see the necessity to keep the block information public since the block is for such an extended period of time. Since I will not be in Wikipedia, I will not be monitoring my talk page. I would also like my talkpage archives deleted. Frankly, I don't trust others (whether they be Wikipedians or not) to not use what's on my talk page and in my archives against me during my absence. I think this is a reasonable request and hope you will be kind enough to respond as I've requested. Thanks.
So...is there a final decision or is the above just opinion/input waiting for a final decision? The longer the information above is there, the more vulnerable and open to harassment I become online because of it. Anyone? Please...? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
|