Requests for comment/Italian admins acting without following wikipedia rules on user blocks

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. Looks like being stale

Hello everybody,

I've been pointed here by the English Admins ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Unblock_of_an_indefinite_block_for_Single-Purpose_Account_without_any_warning )

This is the whole story:

After editing a page inserting a link to a website I've been accused of being a Single-Purpose Account, and for this reason I've been issued a indefinite block. I'm not discussing the fact of being a SPA or not, what I want to point out is that the action taken by the admin should have been less stricter, since I've not been even warned nor blocked for a limited time as an "educational method".

You can follow my edits here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/Sbittante

I also have edits here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/sbittante but this is not relevant to this issue.

Now, what is funny is that by reading this: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Blocked_users_and_talkpage_access it seems that now when a user is blocked it is at least be possible for him to write on his own page so that he can at least provide explanations. Everywhere but in Italy ("in two months nobody complained except it.wiki")

I did my diligent work and tried to contact the admin (guidomac) who blocked me for explanations by email (since I can't even write on my own page) but he only wrote this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/Sbittante sono i tuoi unici edit su Wikipedia, dodici inserimenti dello stesso sito. Guido that can be translated as: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/Sbittante are your only edits on Wikipedia, twelve insertions of the same website Guido

I then contacted another admin (buccia) for an opinion, forwarding what guidomac sent me and my reply to him, however he replied with:

Utenza monoscopo il cui scopo è la promozione di un sito → blocco infinito. Il dominio del tuo indirizzo e-mail dice tutto. Il blocco è corretto. Ciao, Buggia

that can be translated as:

Single purpose account its only scope is website promotion → infinite block Your email domain tells everything. The block is correct.

I replied to buccia asking where this rule is written, since I did not find any evidence, he replied with:

Utenze create al solo scopo di vandalizzare e/o fare pubblicità vengono infinitate, è la prassi. Quello che fai su en.wiki non conta niente, conta quello che fai su it.wp. Per me la questione è chiusa.

that can be translate as:

Accounts created solely for vandalization and/or promotions will get permanently blocked, this is routine. What you do on en.wiki does not matter, it only matters what you do on it.wp. Question over.

Now I understand the amount of work that admins have to do, however I'm wondering if this Italian admin behavior is to be considered acceptable. Thanks for the cooperation, Stefano

You've 12 edits in total at it-wp, Stefano, and nearly all of them added weblinks to some articles. At multiple Wikipedia projects (like de-wp, for example) it is not uncommon to block such accounts if the weblinks were found to be undesirable. If you are interested in serious editing, you will have no problem to start freshly with a new account. --AFBorchert 19:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Italian_admins_acting_without_following_wikipedia_rules_on_user_blocks&oldid=2848687"