I understand that this may not be the most appropriate place to submit my complaint, and I apologize for taking up your time, but I have been unable to figure out where best to send my inquiry because every attempt I have made has gone without any of the issues I'm requesting comment on, being addressed at all and I feel as though this is an issue which has been in need of discussion for some time.
Please keep in mind that while I mention isolated issues, I submit this request in hopes that the scope will be considered beyond my personal instances because I have seen many other occasions where editors and even administrators have lost hope in Wikimedia, unable to enforce policy and guidelines due simply to being outweighed by those who are essentially enforcing the disregard for fair guidelines and policies. A study even went so far as to find that 30% of active editors who left Wikimedia attribute their leaving to other editors stubbornness and 23% directly attribute their living to being rudely mistreated.
I won't bother going into too much detail unless asked, as I believe those discussions have already taken place and I have archived them in one location
Very briefly, these are the issues I would like to discuss and I list them in the order which I think they are most important. For my request to be effective I ask that you please weigh them in this order..
- Several weeks ago another editor by the username Coin945 was blocked from Wikimedia Commons simply for taking my side in the discussion of my own blocking.
- While attempting to discuss my own blocking, and unblock request, I was directly ridiculed; even ridiculed, defamed, and insulted when I attempted to discuss the merits of my request. (I'm not talking about me just having taken offense, I'm talking about users actually talking about me with descriptive foul language).
- Even though I have had a account amongst the various Wikimedia projects for several years and am an active reviewer on en.Wikipedia with numerous high quality contributions, I was accused of being an imposter as well as accused of knowingly violating copyrights. My history could have easily been checked by looking at my global contributions.. there was absolutely zero merit to this accusation; and my contributions to Commons were already attributed with proper valid copyright notices but were deleted and deemed in violation of copyright again without any merit.
- I was originally blocked, and indefinitely for that matter, after several days had passed between the time I had listed several hundred images for deletion. Its also worth noting that I was indefinitely blocked by the same administrator who had been repremanded on their own talk page shortly prior for having deleted the images without reviewing them.
- If the administrator who blocked me deemed that my deletion request was worthy of an indefinite ban they would have banned me and never deleted the images. The fact that they banned me only after they themselves were repremanded for deleting the images leads me to believe that the only motivation for being blocked was based on revenge.
Each of these issues, in my opinion, violate numerous Wikimedia Foundation, and even direct Wikimedia Commons policies in their own right and were never addressed. I understand that what I did originally was controversial but I do not believe it in any way justified an indefinite block and all of the actions which followed. If I'm not mistaken, the purpose of a deletion request is to discuss the merits of the deletion.. there was never any opposition by the admin who deleted the images and later blocked me or anyone else.
I'd also like to point out it was not that long ago that Jimmy Wales himself was taking the same actions and this matter has only gone without any appropriate debate since then. I reference an article from 2010..
May 2010, Jimmy Wales personally deleted hundreds of images deemed to be obscene content of little to no educational purpose. Several editors protested in anger over the deletions and some deleted images deemed to have some degree of educational merit were restored.
Shortly thereafter he posted on Commons this statement:
Wikimedia Commons admins [administrators allowed to edit the site, including Wales himself] who wish to remove from the project all images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests have my full support. **This includes immediate deletion of all pornographic images. We should keep educational images about sexuality -- mere nudity is not pornography -- but as with all our projects, editorial quality judgments must be made and will be made** -- appropriately and in good taste....
I would have been in favor of a discussion about the proposed deletion first with a passionate written "speech" by Mr. Wales at the end to settle the dispute. The result of getting rid of nudity would still be the same but it would have been a neater situation, much like the King of Thailand saving the country from a military coup rather than the leader of the Khmer Rouge dictating their way.Assorg (talk) 10:36 pm, 7 May 2010, Friday (4 years, 4 months, 28 days ago) (UTC−7)
There are many editors who support Jimbo's actions (I'm one). Such editors normally wouldn't bother posting in a forumdiscussion like this because there is no point (Jimbo doesn't need more acclaim, and the OMGFREESPEECH people are having trouble listening atm). If any serious coup/RfC were held, there would be plenty of expressions of strong support for Jimbo. Johnuniq (talk) 12:53 am, 8 May 2010, Saturday (4 years, 4 months, 28 days ago) (UTC−7)
Gee, where do I sign up to be a palace guard? ;) I completely agree with Johnuniq. I wish Jimbo NEVER had uttered any comment about giving up any rights to anything, its one thing to voluntarily choose not to use power in any cases that come up, its another thing to actually make the declaration that he WONT use it or will give it up; I believe that any comments he made giving up rights or saying he wouldnt use them was a mistake. I dont believe the argument some have made at the village pump (proposals) that many editors wouldnt have started editing in the first place unless he had is a valid argument. We are here to edit an encyclopedia, we dont come to Wikipedia to have "power" in making new rules on how an encyclopedia should be made. Anyone who did come to Wikipedia for that reason is someone we dont need. Wikipedia would be drama free if all we were allowed to do was edit talk pages and articles and only Jimbo and the Foundation could do policy. Less editors sure, but many editors dont do actual editing anyways, they focus on policy pages and AN/I and drama filled stupid things. Wish Jimbo would start from scratch, I for one would abandon Wikipedia and follow him, taking the time to move all the articles I worked on/created with me.Camelbinky (talk) 11:05 am, 8 May 2010, Saturday (4 years, 4 months, 27 days ago) (UTC−7)
From what I can see, Jimbo was in a damned if he does and damned if he does't situation. I dont think there was the luxury of time. The Foundation is physically located in the U.S. and U.S. laws can shut it down if it comes to that. While Im sure you can and maybe should argue for the restoration of certain images... there existance is known I think youre being too hard. Id rather see this than the existance of the whole project threatened.Thelmadatter (talk) 11:24 am, 8 May 2010, Saturday (4 years, 4 months, 27 days ago) (UTC−7)
Most relevant policies, guidelines, and other official discussions
- Controversial Contributors, Not Vandals
- Wikimedia Commons Policy on Blocking
- Wikimedia Commons Policy on Deleting content deemed not-educationally-useful
- Wikimedia Commons, What Commons is not.. an amateur porn site
- User complains that bullying and name-calling are ruining the atmosphere of Wikipedia