User talk:Ytf2

There were admins which stated they would unblock me

Which renders me "indefinitely blocked" on the other account, and not banned. Please unblock me, or you are violating policy. If you do not believe me, go re-read the policy. Ytf2 (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't did they? You weren't unblocked were you? Did I miss that? Until an admin bucks the lack of consensus to unblock you, you are effectively banned. Did you even read what I wrote on the AN? Never mind the attacking you are doing to Gwib, which has only multiplied the reasons you should be banned. - EchoBravo contribs 21:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what the policy states. If there is an admin who states they would unblock me (which there were... several...), the user remains blocked if there is not consensus, but is only "blocked", and not "banned". I would also like to remind you of another part of the policy - that all indefinite blocks must be manually taken away after a certain time-period. Please go see policy.

And also, please try to recognize writing styles when jumping to the conclusion that the commons incident was specifically me. Secondly, even if i was doing what you said (which i only did part of), that wiki is irrelevant to this one - again, see policy. You see, while I was blocked, I had lots of time to research all the different policies, and it was made clear to me that I am perfectly allowed to use this account. Ytf2 (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a semantic argument you are going to lose. They mean the same damn thing. An indef block is a ban until that block is lifted. No administrator has lifted the block, it doesn't matter that they said they would, they haven't. Read en:WP:INDEF. - EchoBravo contribs 21:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"No administrator has lifted the block, it doesn't matter that they said they would, they haven't." - wrong. An indef block is not the same as a ban. An indef block, for a start, cannot be indefinite, and has to be manually removed after a while. Secondly, a block is to an account. A ban is to a person. I am banned on EN, but blocked here. I am therefore not able to edit at all on EN, and not able to edit on my old account here, but what I am, according to policy, allowed to do, is edit under another account. I am not banned on this site, if that is what you are trying to imply? If you are, I think it would be a good time to request mediation from Jimbo, don't you? And the same applies to if you protect my page. Ytf2 (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to what Archer said on the AN, no, i am not on a ban. There is a difference between that, and an indefinite block. Must I repeat myself to explain it again? Ytf2 (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EchoBravo admitted that a ban is different from an indefinite block when he said "the difference between a ban and a block is semantics". The semantics of a ban means that there was community agreement that you are not welcome here. The semantics of a block is supposedly preventative. I believe EB has abused his administrative power (blocking you, protecting User talk:Inkpen2, and calling you "banned" without consensus. --Jonas Rand

Thank you for helping Jonas. I have already stated that any further continuation of this abuse, and I will be inviting in mediation from the mediation commity and mr.Wales. I however, hope it does not have to come to this, but will be more than happy to do so, should the policies continue to be twisted in such a manner. Ytf2 (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mediation committee here at simple English Wikipedia. I am not sure whether telling Jimbo about this (and he is not on Simple). My ban has not been reviewed thoroughly or fairly, the only discussion was the ban discussion. When someone told me to wait some months in December on IRC, I sent a letter to all active WP administrators, who are supposed to have a frequently-checked e-mail address set, waiting for a response. Today, I am still waiting for a discussion and a fair review of my ban.

You, I believe, also have an unfair ban, because although your ban was discussed, some erroneously (especially EchoBravo) claim you are under a ban, when that can only happen by the community's agreement ("community ban"), Arbitration Committee ("banned by an ArbComm ruling"), and Jimbo Wales. Here, the only one that can happen is the first, which did not happen. Yours was not even decided by majority rule, let alone community consensus, that is, unless team CABS (Creol, Archer7, Browne34, and Snake311) are "the community". Thus is the flaw I have realised in this place as well. Your work is great and amazing, and I don't see why they won't let you edit. I want to know what they want you to do, other than leave. If your behavior was caused by the BDD, and it is now under control, why won't they let you in? You don't seem to be engaging in that behavior. I will start a thread on my own ban. For some reason, when I told Gwib to start a thread about my ban (because he's the only admin whose e-mail I know), he never didn't respond. --Jonas Rand