Talk:Wikipedia arbitration committee/A.Z.

This place
Now we have a place to discuss/study my case! I think it would be good to start by writing a neutral explanation of what happened, so I started writing one, but it is not complete and detailed. I think maybe the neutral explanation could later also become an article at Wikinews, but I would have to study what are their notability criteria first. I won't be able to contribute much in 2008 because I'll be on a wikibreak. Artur 02:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The blocking administrator wrote, "You have also engaged in ruleslawyering and arguing hard against blocks of pro-pedophilia editors, including Dyskolos." <-- Do you think that it is possible for a pattern of editing to be so disruptive that it can justify a ban, even if any couple of individual edits by themselves do not justify a ban? --JWSchmidt 02:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought that justification for my block was so absurd that I wouldn't even have to address it in my appeal. Dalillama addressed it on the administrators' noticeboard and gave a concise explanation of why it's absurd. Dalillama said: "This is as if the US government prosecuted defense attorneys for Gitmo detainees because they asked to see the evidence against the detainees." Arguing hard against blocks is just not a reason to block someone! It would be shocking for me if you considered it to be.


 * Yes, it's possible for a pattern of editing to be so disruptive that it can justify a ban, even if any individual edits by themselves can't justify a ban. I would be willing to scrutinize my entire history of edits along with the community, and consider the impact that they all had on Wikipedia, should Dmcdevit have exerted his right to argue before us that it would be best for the project that I stopped editing. If the community decided that I should stop editing, I would voluntarily stop editing, and the people that argued hard against my ban wouldn't be banned because of that. If the community decided that I shouldn't be banned, then the people who argued hard for my ban wouldn't be banned because of that. Artur 02:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are many seemingly absurd events that arise from social conventions. We all have to make decisions about which conventions we will adapt to and which ones we will resist. Some editors come into conflict with the social conventions that exist at wiki websites and some of those editors get blocked from editing. I'm not sure that it is practical to have a wiki community spend large amounts of time discussing blocks. Administrators generally get to use their judgment and then if other admins question the block there might be some fruitful discussion. Once a group of administrators decides that they are tired of dealing with perceived disruption from a particular type of editor then it can become "dangerous" to keep arguing about the matter. If admins are tired of dealing with pedophilia advocates, they are also likely to get tired of dealing with advocates for previously banned pedophilia advocates. Wikimedia projects are not the place for advocacy of topics when such advocacy disrupts the projects. I suppose there are some people who are simply not able to understand that Wikimedia projects have defined missions....we say "everyone can edit" but that does not mean "you can edit in any way you want"....you really have to edit so as to support the goals and mission of the project. Editors who cannot figure this out are going to be "invited to leave" and most of the wiki participants will just sigh in relief when that happens. Sure, sometimes resistance and protest can change things, but social changes are usually slow and painful. To a significant extent, a corporation like the Wikimedia Foundation is going to be constrained by the laws in the country where it is incorporated. I suppose some people might view disruption of Wikipedia as a way to work towards social change, but if you go down that path you have to be realistic about the likely consequences of your actions.....being blocked for disruption should be expected. You might find all of this "shocking" or "unjust", but people are trying to get work done at Wikimedia projects, not provide a soapbox for advocates of social change. --JWSchmidt 17:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are not the place for any advocacy. You can't advocate homosexuality, democracy, tolerance, chololate-eating, or anything in the articles, and I didn't do it. Dyskolos too wasn't advocating anything, as far as I know. What do you mean, disrupting Wikipedia to work towards social change? Who did this? If you mean including your own personal opinions and arguments in the articles, then I'm against that too, and I didn't do it. If Dmcdevit thought I was being disruptive, and my editing was bad, he could block me, but he should allow the community to discuss the block if they wanted, and allow them to decide whether to keep me blocked or not. While the community could choose to ban someone without even discussing it, and it does it all the time with vandals, the community never chose to ban me, with or without discussion. The community is questioning my block, and I have no doubt they will eventually unblock me. Administrators are not supposed to have any more authority than non-administrators. Editors can question blocks too. Artur 22:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "What do you mean, disrupting Wikipedia to work towards social change?" <-- Some of the Wikipedia users who have been banned because they advocated pedophilia indicated that they felt they should be able to advocate pedophilia at Wikipedia for various reasons, including because they felt that anti-pedophilia sentiment is misguided. I think there are editors who use Wikipedia as a soapbox and as a part of a wider effort to change the way people view pedophilia. I have not looked at all of the edits from the Dyskolos account, but it seems that it was basically a single purpose account: from the first edit to the last it did things like make biased claims about sources in an attempt to promote an agenda and otherwise disrupted Wikipedia as part of a group of editors who were pedophilia advocates. --JWSchmidt 01:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I asked Dmcdevit why he had blocked Dyskolos, and he didn't answer. Then he blocked me for asking those questions. Neither Dmcdevit nor you have shown what Dyskolos did that was wrong. Dmcdevit didn't even warn Dyskolos that he didn't like his editing pattern and felt he should be blocked. He didn't allow Dyskolos to appeal his block as everyone else (except to the few editors that are part of the Arbcom, who don't even bother to reply to you when you appeal the block and ignore the questions that you ask them!). He didn't even try to discuss the issue with Dyskolos, nor with me. I won't try to find on my own edits that could be thought to be evidence of Dyskolos using Wikipedia as a soapbox when they actually aren't so I can show you why you are wrong. That would be quite weird. The people who accuse other people of doing wrong things such as using Wikipedia to promote an opinion are the ones who should prove what they're saying. Artur 04:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The block statement on the Dyskolos account seems fairly clear to me. I have not made an in-depth study of the Dyskolos edit history, but my short look at it provided me with no reason to question the blocking administrator's action. When someone is blocked for a disruptive pattern of editing, the "proof" is the edit history. "Proof" is just evidence that someone finds convincing. What is going on when some people (say, a group of administrators) find evidence convincing and other people do not? In this case, I think administrators take a dim view of editors who push for distorted interpretations of cited sources and who make attempts to give undue weight to minority points of view. Of course, advocates for minority points of view can find themselves in disagreement with administrators over what constitutes undue weight and disruptive editing. After a long period of continuing disagreement, administrators can become bored with discussions, stop communicating and just act quickly to remove sources of disruption. Is this optimal? Probably not, but I'm not sure what else can reasonably be expected from volunteers who would rather spend their time on positive things than dealing with persistent sources of disruption. --JWSchmidt 05:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)