User talk:SkagitRiverQueen

edit count | edit summary usage

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. Note to all reviewing admins: Be aware this issue is under discussion at WP:ANI, and as of this writing there is unanimous support for this block. Block probably should not be reversed unless there is a dramatic reversal in the conversation there. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 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: 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. I've linked to this at the AN/I discussion, in case it affects anyone's opinion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 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. Declined. By posting any content to Wikipedia you have made that content public yourself and agreed that you do not WP:OWN it. Per WP:RTV, userpage deletion is a courtesy extended only to users in good standing, which you are not; moreover, talk pages and their archives are not deleted even in RTV cases. But you may yourself delete the current content of this page (except the declined unblock requests).  Sandstein  18:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry - but that's just not right. Rules are "discretionary" in Wikipedia. Surely, this "policy" can certainly have an exception once in a while, can it not? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Why should we make an exception in your case?  Sandstein  18:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Other than it just being the right thing to do with consideration to reasonable privacy regarding a medical issue, I have had people elsewhere on the internet already harass me off Wikipedia misuse content from my Wikipedia userspace. Yes, I may have agreed to WP:OWN, but never in my wildest imagination did I think that something I put in an unblock request about a medical issue would have to remain no matter what. Do I have to start quoting HIPAA? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Quote it all you want, but it doesn't even apply to Google Health, never mind Wikipedia.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC) It wasn't the letter of the act I was referring to, but the idea behind it. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC) That sort of thing works better when there aren't people around who work in healthcare IT departments. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I wasn't trying to get anything to "work". And FYI - I have been in the medical field in one form or another since 1979. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Is she allowed to collapse them? Equazcion (talk) 18:39, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC) Probably yes, but that makes little difference; user talk page are not indexed by Google in any case.  Sandstein  18:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I really can't see the harm in letting SRQ archive the comments into page history where they have to be searched for specifically if they are to be found. Just saying no is rather hard and uncaring and I think we can do better then that. Spartaz Humbug! 19:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Let her remove it for now. With the proviso if she makes a further unblock request at any point in the future that she provide a diff of the page with the past unblocks, explaining to the reviewing admin they might want to take a look.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 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) 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. Equazcion (talk) 21:24, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC) 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. --SkagitRiverQueen (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. Equazcion (talk) 21:42, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC) 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. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)