As I wrote earlier here, my Wikipedia editor account was permanently banned because they did not like my posts about political bias at Wikipedia, and my suggestions to reduce it and make it more politically neutral.
I made several appeal requests, using the proper channels, in a completely formal tone, and all of them were denied. I explained that the reason for the ban, and the removal of my user page, was a vague "not here to build an encyclopedia", which I argued was untrue, and too vague to be a bannable offense.
Not a single one of the responses could site an actual bannable offense or breach of Wikipedia rules worthy of such a ban.
The response to my first appeal was this:
I made a new appeal request where I explained that I cannot address the reason for the block because no reason was given in the first place! The officially stated reason was "not here to build an encyclopedia", which is untrue, and too vague to address.
The response to this second appeal tried to give reasons, all of them false:
Unsurprisingly, I was indeed banned from the unblock request system. The officially stated reason:
Good luck trying to find those reasons as bannable offenses in any of Wikipedia rules. They aren't there.
As for "not here" (ie. "Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of discussion or activity"), it's once again a completely vague reason. What exactly "not here"? If Wikipedia's own policies cannot be discussed at Wikipedia, then where? What is the proper place to discuss Wikipedia's policies?
I think it's quite clear what the actual reason for banning me is: They did not like my vocal opposition to the political bias of Wikipedia editors, and my writing about it, and about removing political bias from Wikipedia (which just makes me think that my original user page essay, which you can find in my previous blog post about this, linked above, is all correct. All of it.)
Why can't they state the real reason for banning me, and instead resort to some ridiculous "you have 3 article space edits in 13 years" excuse (which nowhere in Wikipedia rules is cited as a bannable offense)? I think it's quite clear that it has nothing to do with the amount of edits, and everything to do with the fact that they don't like what I have to say about them.
I made several appeal requests, using the proper channels, in a completely formal tone, and all of them were denied. I explained that the reason for the ban, and the removal of my user page, was a vague "not here to build an encyclopedia", which I argued was untrue, and too vague to be a bannable offense.
Not a single one of the responses could site an actual bannable offense or breach of Wikipedia rules worthy of such a ban.
The response to my first appeal was this:
I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this timeThis is a completely generic copy-pasted response that doesn't address the reason for my ban at all.
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
I made a new appeal request where I explained that I cannot address the reason for the block because no reason was given in the first place! The officially stated reason was "not here to build an encyclopedia", which is untrue, and too vague to address.
The response to this second appeal tried to give reasons, all of them false:
Since you don't indicate that you want to edit any articles, I find no cause to remove the block. You can certainly be critical of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but that can't be the only reason you are on Wikipedia. It's also pretty clear from your edits that you were promoting a conservative political agenda instead of working collaboratively with other editors in a civil manner to improve the project. You only have 3 edits to the mainspace since 2006; hardly indicative of someone who wants to build an encyclopedia.I made a third appeal request indicating that the response to the previous one was full of lies and done on false pretenses: It claims that I did not indicate that I want to edit any articles, even though I did. It claims that I was "promoting a conservative political agenda", which is false (as I was promoting the removal of any political agenda and bias, and at no point anywhere have I advocated eg. adding a conservative point of view to some article). The number of edits I have done to articles is irrelevant, and a ridiculous reason to ban someone. Moreover, this administrator is demanding that I stop making any edits about policies (which is completely unsupported by Wikipedia rules) and threatening me with a ban from the unblock request system.
In my opinion part of being unblocked will require you to refrain from editing about policies as they relate to American politics and telling what you will edit about instead. If you aren't interested in that, I don't see a pathway to being unblocked for you. If you make further unproductive unblock requests, you will lose access to UTRS as well.
Unsurprisingly, I was indeed banned from the unblock request system. The officially stated reason:
The application of [[WP:NOTHERE]] is appropriate. You have 3 article space edits in 13 years. The rest of your edits are using Wikipedia talk spaces to argue that your POV is the neutral point of view. You should've spent more time editing articles.That's right. The officially stated reason why I'm completely banned from Wikipedia and from even making any unblock requests is that I have made "3 article space edits in 13 years", and that the rest of my edits are "using talk space to argue that [my] POV is the neutral point of view" (which is false; nowhere in Wikipedia talk pages have I ever argued about my own point of view or its neutrality; every single edit in talk pages have been about removing bias from the article itself.)
Good luck trying to find those reasons as bannable offenses in any of Wikipedia rules. They aren't there.
As for "not here" (ie. "Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of discussion or activity"), it's once again a completely vague reason. What exactly "not here"? If Wikipedia's own policies cannot be discussed at Wikipedia, then where? What is the proper place to discuss Wikipedia's policies?
I think it's quite clear what the actual reason for banning me is: They did not like my vocal opposition to the political bias of Wikipedia editors, and my writing about it, and about removing political bias from Wikipedia (which just makes me think that my original user page essay, which you can find in my previous blog post about this, linked above, is all correct. All of it.)
Why can't they state the real reason for banning me, and instead resort to some ridiculous "you have 3 article space edits in 13 years" excuse (which nowhere in Wikipedia rules is cited as a bannable offense)? I think it's quite clear that it has nothing to do with the amount of edits, and everything to do with the fact that they don't like what I have to say about them.
Comments
Post a Comment