Hi Genesjs. It's me, PsychoShark fro Sonic News Network.
The reason I'm contacting you here instead of over on SNN is because I'm currently unable to do so, as Journalistic decided to infinitely block me over a mild scuffle.
Allow me to explain to you what led to my blocking and banning and why I think these penalties should be lifted and eased-up-upon, respectively.
Three days ago on chat some of us were talking about how the Confederate Flag is not necessarily a symbol of racism, but rather a symbol of cultural heritage.
So, BlueSpeeder played around a bit by changing his Avatar to the Confederate Flag. We all shared a good laugh about it.
Then I, in the jist of all this Flag-Avatar-Fun changed my avatar to the ISIS Flag.
After a while Speeder changed back to his old avatar, but I decided to keep the ISIS Flag Avatar because I kinda' liked the way it looked.
I know that ISIS kills people and stuff, but I just gotta' love their flag design with it's white circle and black background. Iunno, I'm a sucker for black and white designs.
Now, everyone at chat at the time knew that I didn't mean anything criminal by it, they knew I was just using it because I liked the design.
The next day, I logged onto chat again, and Journalistic was in there that day.
I told him that I didn't really think it was criminal behavior that it condoned, because I know that there are two sides to every war and ISIS is just on the other side than the US is.
But Journalistic didn't agree with my view and told me again to change my avatar.
I then suggested the idea of changing it so that it featured the US Flag on the top half, and the ISIS Flag in the bottom half.
This way it would not be condoning criminal behavior, but simply be symbolizing the conflicts between the two opposing sides in a neutral fashion.
Again, Journalistic didn't agree with me, and he asked me once again to change my Avatar.
By the time all of this had happened, about 15 minutes had passed. Journalistic said that if I didn't make a change within the next few minutes he would ban me from chat. He gave absolutely no mention of the ban being 'Infinite'.
My usual avatar is stored on a USB drive, and it would have probably taken me a while to go find it. So I decided to just search the web for a new avatar instead.
Because Journalistic said he wanted me to take down the ISIS FLAG avatar, I thought it'd be funny to replace it with a picture of Osama Bin Laden smiling as a joke. It wasn't a flag anymore, it was just Osama Bin Laden. Hah-hah-funny.
With that little joke over, I got serious and began searching to pick out a real avatar to use.
So, I decided to change my avatar to this cute picture of the character Salamon from 'Digimon'.
I went back to the Wiki to make the change, only to find that Journalistic's patience had run dry and that I had already been banned from chat infinitely and blocked from editing infinitely.
I was absolutely baffled by the fact that he would ban me INFINITELY over our scuffle. Sure, ban me from chat for a month or two, but banning me INFINITELY? That's just ridiculously out of proportions.
But what I found to be just plain odd is that he would block me from EDITING. Seriously, banning me from chat for a while is completely reasonable, but why block me from editing?
Blocking someone from editing is for people who vandalize pages, like if someone changed [ [ Sonic The Hedgehog ] ] to [ [ Sonic The Boner ] ] or something like that, and I had done nothing of the sort.
Anyways, I found that I couldn't even edit my own talk page, so I had to go to my page on Gravity Falls Wiki to change the avatar.
Journalistic had a page on Gravity Falls Wiki as well, so I tried to contact him there and inform him that since my Avatar had been changed there was no longer any issue and therefore no need for any banning.
But Journalistic, stubborn as he is, would simply not listen to reason.
And that's why I've come to you, Genesjs. I know you're a sensible guy, and I'm sure that you'll be able to see this reasonably.
I understand why other people thought that using the ISIS Flag as an avatar was inappropriate, and made the decision to change it BEFORE my block, I simply couldn't find a replacement-avatar by the time of Journalistic's brash actions.
I simply do not think that an infinite-ban or an infinite-block is a reasonable penalty for what transpired.
I'm not saying that I don't deserve to be penalized, because I know that I do, I'm just saying that the penalization that was dealt was completely out of proportions.
I ask you to restore my rights to edit pages, as I had committed no acts of vandalism on any pages.
As for chat, I still think that being banned infinitely is an unreasonable consequence. Now I understand that what I did was inappropriate and don't expect to have my ban immediately lifted, but I ask that it be changed to a temporary time-frame. A month or two, I believe would be a just consequence. Maybe three. Does that sound about right?
Sorry for the late response -- I've been busy. I'm looking into this right now. At the very least, I'll see if I can lessen your sentence, because the overall context of the situation doesn't fully agree with me. I'll keep you posted whenever I have anything to share. Just be aware that I can't make any promises here -- meaning that if any parties I were to discuss this with feel your ban is entirely justified and I can't sway them to think otherwise, then there's nothing I can do from that point on. The situation you described to me resulting around currently controversial topics doesn't help matters. Either way, I'll see what I can do.
I just got done talking to Journalistic about this issue. He says he's gonna consider shortening your ban. I do have a few questions regarding some of what you told me, however -- but that will have to wait for another day, when I can respond, possibly tomorrow. Have a good day.
Remember when I said that there were blatant insults to James Holmes and a user got called a "jack@$$" by an admin? I know Holmes did a terrible thing, and I would insult him IRL, but insults aren't the answer on SNN. The fact that users insult people who aren't users or family (that we know of, anyway) but can't insult users on SNN seems like we're making ourselves better than them.
Also, I know Wikia is community based, but if you're going to make a rule, you might aswell make it consistent.
If you see instances where Users/Admins are making personal attacks against other Users, you report it to other Administrators. It isn't SNN's job to monitor any criticisms made towards people who are in no way related to the SNN community, as we have no jurisdiction over what people say about others OUTSIDE of SNN, nor is it SNN's job to monitor what people say about others who show up on SNN only to cause trouble, as they've done nothing to earn any protection from SNN's NPA Policy, or any other policy for that matter. The NPA policy is a rule that was made to follow by SNN members, and it's states that on the site you don't make personal attacks against your fellow Users. That does not, in any way, say that SNN thinks they're better than anyone who isn't a part of SNN's community. Also, why're you coming to me about this? I wasn't the one who blocked you.
I'm coming to you becasue you asked me on the site discussions, and I don't plan to come to anyone about my block, cuz I agree that I should've been. (Though not for 3 moths.) Also, in the first sentence of my first point, you'll see that I said that I was sure you guys didn't mean to be arrogant, it just comes off that way.
Also, I know it's not SNN's job to protect users with the NPA policy and that they've done nothing to earn it. I never said that. What I did say, however, was that we should improve the NPA policy so that they are. Yes they're not affiliated with SNN (as far as we know) but regaurdless, it is still a personal attack against someone, and the rule is inconsistent becasue of that. IMO, it's just not fair to not be able to insult SNN users, but for us to perfectly fine with insulting other people.
You're missing the point, Froggy. It isn't our job to censor everybody who says anything bad about ANYONE. That's ludicrous. We can only makes rules regarding only SNN because, again, we have no jurisdiction over what SNN members say about whoever if they aren't a part of SNN in any way, or have done absolutely nothing to earn any respect from SNN's community. I'm sorry if you think that makes us come off as arrogant, but in reality it's making sure that everyone on the site gets along. As far as I'm concerned, the NPA policy is fine as it is.
I'm not trying to censor everybody. We can all have opinions. I just want to censor personal attacks. Also, what about the rule in question that sais don't lie? I went to the page and saw you're in support of it. Isn't that also ludacrous to find every lie? There's probably not many, but like I said, I haven't seen many places where personally attacking non SNN users happens.
I agree that it's very likely we won't catch every user doing that, but all I was suggesting was that if we do happen to catch someone doing that, we do something about it. Saying that i'm trying to say that I think we can catch everyone is like saying minor edits are pointless because there will always be minor things to change.
Yes, they haven't done anything to earn it, but they should need to IMO. It's not like we're going completely out of our way to enforce something. If we see it, we give a user a warning/block them. That's it. It's really not that hard as far as I know.
I see no such rule that says "Don't lie" on SNN's policy page.
If there's hardly any issues where SNN Users are making personal attacks towards one another, then what are you complaining about? If it isn't a real issue, then why do we need to improve the NPA policy?
Whether anyone new to SNN wants to earn protection/privileges from our policies is their business, not ours. If they come on to the Wiki solely to break the rules then as far as I'm concerned they don't deserve to be protected by our NPA policy or any other policy. And no, SNN isn't going out of it's way to enforce it's NPA policy, you are. You admitted to me that personal attacks towards other users hardly ever happen as it is, from what you can see, so I see no logical reason to improve something if it's already doing it's job just fine. The only reason I can see why it wouldn't is if Users didn't report anything if they saw any rule-breaking occuring. In cases like that, it isn't the NPA policy's fault, it's the User who decided to keep his/her mouth shut instead of helping enforce the policy.
Your arguments are failing to convince me that there's any real flaws with the NPA policy. You'd be better off either trying to make arguments about actual problems with the policy, or trying to convince someone else to see things from your point of view, because as of now you're not going to get any support from me on this.
"Don't lie" was part of Bullet's suggestion in the site discussions. I saw you support it.
Also, how exactly am I going out of my way? It takes like 2 minutes to type these messages, which is barely any time at all. Also, it doesn't happen that much, but it still does. I usually don't see religious debates in places that have absolutely nothing to do with religon, but does that mean that it isn't annoying? Of course not. It's still worth enforcing IMO if it happens, and again, i'm not going out of my way by taking about 5 minutes to make a site discussion, and 2 to make arguments.
If you're certain you're not going to be convinced, then fine, i'll stop messaging you, but at least let me know you've read this.