Explanation of my ban from Wikipedia

General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Explanation of my ban from Wikipedia

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:02 am

Since this is a matter of some interest and a lot of the conversation about it has been disjointed and scattered, I wrote up a post on Medium all about my ban from Wikipedia by ArbCom.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Explanation of my ban from Wikipedia

Post by Auggie » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:17 pm

Nice work! Hopefully you get a lot of readers.

Proabivouac
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Explanation of my ban from Wikipedia

Post by Proabivouac » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:14 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:02 am
Since this is a matter of some interest and a lot of the conversation about it has been disjointed and scattered, I wrote up a post on Medium all about my ban from Wikipedia by ArbCom.
This roundup is hopelessly compromised by the failure to name the relevant adminstrator. From this I conclude that you want back in, and are under the mistaken assumption that holding back will win you points. They will never let you return, not freely. Perhaps only under draconian restrictions so another administrator can ban you a week from then and they can say, we tried letting him back, it didn't work out.

More broadly, the reason they demand that you not name names is because once you have agreed to that, you can't do anything about the situation. If you do name names, you are the devil, not just his advocate. If you don't, they ignore you. If you manage to find some other way of tweaking them as you have, they'll hold that against you regardless of whether there's a rule against it.

Basically, you've trashed what should have been the central point of your piece for nothing. There is no way for a reader to evaluate whether your claims of conflicted editing were valid, or whether you engaged in pointless harassment as they alleged. There is no reason for readers to think any of this important. If you want a second opinion, you're going to have to post the evidence, naming the perpetrators and his/her friends. And no, this won't get you unbanned, but at least you might have the satisfaction of bringing someone to justice and showing how corrupt the arbitrators are.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Explanation of my ban from Wikipedia

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:29 pm

I honestly just wrote this so that it could be all put in one central location where people who are not familiar with my situation can catch up without tracking down a bunch of random discussions all over the place. None of it is intended to be an exposé on the administrator nor to make people take my side. My reasons for not saying anything are again that I gave my word to that person. At the same time, I don't think anything the administrator has done is quite so serious as to warrant the inevitable wave of attacks the administrator would face. Like I've said before, I do not break any of the site's policies to reveal the admin, since saying the username I reported is not a breach of any policy. However, this is the kind of thing that could cause serious damage to this individual's reputation and I would be wary of doing that regardless of any rules or promises.

Proabivouac
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Explanation of my ban from Wikipedia

Post by Proabivouac » Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:37 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:29 pm
At the same time, I don't think anything the administrator has done is quite so serious as to warrant the inevitable wave of attacks the administrator would face…However, this is the kind of thing that could cause serious damage to this individual's reputation and I would be wary of doing that regardless of any rules or promises.
I'm having trouble understanding how these two things work together. Perhaps he/she has done something which many people would find very disreputable, but you don't personally view at that way, or something like that?

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Explanation of my ban from Wikipedia

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:37 pm

Proabivouac wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:37 pm
I'm having trouble understanding how these two things work together. Perhaps he/she has done something which many people would find very disreputable, but you don't personally view at that way, or something like that?
There are other factors involved. I don't think ArbCom's response has helped matters at all in that respect. Should this be revealed some day, then I do not envy this admin at all for what will likely result. What I will say is that I don't think the concerns mentioned publicly by ArbCom are really the ones they should be treating too seriously. One of the concerns may well resolve itself in the aftermath.

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: Explanation of my ban from Wikipedia

Post by Flip Flopped » Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:23 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:37 pm
Proabivouac wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:37 pm
I'm having trouble understanding how these two things work together. Perhaps he/she has done something which many people would find very disreputable, but you don't personally view at that way, or something like that?
There are other factors involved. I don't think ArbCom's response has helped matters at all in that respect. Should this be revealed some day, then I do not envy this admin at all for what will likely result. What I will say is that I don't think the concerns mentioned publicly by ArbCom are really the ones they should be treating too seriously. One of the concerns may well resolve itself in the aftermath.
Can you at least detail what you think ArbCom ought to be addressing in this situation.

You have consistently claimed that you don't want to break your word, and I am persuaded that this motivates you to a large extent.

Do you want to return to editing Wikipedia? If so, do you think that will ever be possible? Also, if so, why?

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Explanation of my ban from Wikipedia

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:48 am

Flip Flopped wrote:
Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:23 am
Can you at least detail what you think ArbCom ought to be addressing in this situation.
Not sure what you mean by that one. Should you be asking what I think should happen to the admin, then the only thing I am certain about is the admin should no longer be an admin and some form of public disclosure of a conflict of interest should be provided.
You have consistently claimed that you don't want to break your word, and I am persuaded that this motivates you to a large extent.
As I said, I don't have to break any rules to reveal it is who I reported. No outing is required. Stating "I reported [insert username here]" is not gonna count as outing. The idea I am holding back to avoid an "outing" claim is misguided. Outside keeping my word there aren't any other reasons to hold back. More reasons exist to break my word, arguably.
Do you want to return to editing Wikipedia? If so, do you think that will ever be possible? Also, if so, why?
I want my ban lifted in a way that absolves me, but as far as editing goes I don't know how much interest I would have in it at this point. Certainly, I can see myself making the occasional edit or change as I have done to some extent on other Wikimedia sites. Having that option available is nice. When it comes to the possibility of it happening, I believe anything is possible albeit unlikely.

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: Explanation of my ban from Wikipedia

Post by Flip Flopped » Sat Sep 23, 2017 2:22 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:48 am
Flip Flopped wrote:
Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:23 am
Can you at least detail what you think ArbCom ought to be addressing in this situation.
Not sure what you mean by that one. Should you be asking what I think should happen to the admin, then the only thing I am certain about is the admin should no longer be an admin and some form of public disclosure of a conflict of interest should be provided.
I was asking about this: "What I will say is that I don't think the concerns mentioned publicly by ArbCom are really the ones they should be treating too seriously," but I could have been more clear (and used a question mark). So I take it you think ArbCom should be concerned about Wikipedia policy and the admin breaking it. Instead ArbCom seems to be making you out to be a harasser since you warned the guy that this might come out and you looked into his publicly accessible social media accounts. That's the basis of this harassment claim and it's paper thin. Unless ArbCom alleges you did something else, but if they do, they won't tell you. So that's convenient for them.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Explanation of my ban from Wikipedia

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Sat Sep 23, 2017 2:54 am

Flip Flopped wrote:
Sat Sep 23, 2017 2:22 am
I was asking about this: "What I will say is that I don't think the concerns mentioned publicly by ArbCom are really the ones they should be treating too seriously," but I could have been more clear (and used a question mark). So I take it you think ArbCom should be concerned about Wikipedia policy and the admin breaking it. Instead ArbCom seems to be making you out to be a harasser since you warned the guy that this might come out and you looked into his publicly accessible social media accounts. That's the basis of this harassment claim and it's paper thin. Unless ArbCom alleges you did something else, but if they do, they won't tell you. So that's convenient for them.
The concerns I am referring to in that comment are the claimed concerns about the consequences of mentioning the administrator. Of course, part of the reason they don't show themselves to care about those concerns is because those concerns presume people will recognize this admin's editing as a problem.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest