So what's up with the en:Arbcom these days?

[Anroth]

This is all very amusing, but unfortunately it would appear likely to end rather soonish.
So, here's the link - it may be the broederbond for you: https://www.wikipediasucks.co

Aw I have my own thread there. How cute. How full of wrong...

Ming has to settle for a few snide (and deeply wrong-headed) analyses from Krähennest.

I'm sure if you try harder they will make one about you too.

It never ceases to amaze me that when someone gets rejected multiple times from different groups of people, its always everyone else that is the problem.

[Midsize Jake]

It never ceases to amaze me that when someone gets rejected multiple times from different groups of people, its always everyone else that is the problem.

Well... to be fair, I don't think he's saying everyone else is the problem, he's saying that we're too inclusive of people who are essentially pro-Wikipedia (at least in his estimation) and that those are the people who (naturally) complain about him. That's not entirely true, of course, but I can sort of see how he might perceive it that way - most of the really anti-Wikipedia people who complain about him (simply for being abrasive/divisive) aren't doing it where he can see it, because presumably they don't want to be seen complaining about someone whom they fundamentally agree with (at least as far as non-personal issues are concerned).

This is all off-topic for the thread, of course, so I apologize for that, but that said... I think we're still open to suggestions as to what to do - if anything - to somehow accommodate him.

[Poetlister]

This is all very amusing, but unfortunately it would appear likely to end rather soonish.
So, here's the link - it may be the broederbond for you: https://www.wikipediasucks.co

Aw I have my own thread there. How cute. How full of wrong...

Ming has to settle for a few snide (and deeply wrong-headed) analyses from Krähennest.

Three guesses who said this about me there. "Now, Poetlister does have a tendency to run his mouth off and speak authoratively about things he clearly hasn't researched, things which are easily debunked (which sends him into coward mode, and sees the staff rush to protect him)."

[Midsize Jake]

Three guesses who said this about me there. "Now, Poetlister does have a tendency to run his mouth off and speak authoratively about things he clearly hasn't researched, things which are easily debunked (which sends him into coward mode, and sees the staff rush to protect him)."

Well, I don't think so, and what's more, I'll post a stern warning to anyone else who doesn't think so.

[Kumioko]

This is all very amusing, but unfortunately it would appear likely to end rather soonish.
So, here's the link - it may be the broederbond for you: https://www.wikipediasucks.co

Aw I have my own thread there. How cute. How full of wrong...

Ming has to settle for a few snide (and deeply wrong-headed) analyses from Krähennest.

I'm sure if you try harder they will make one about you too.

It never ceases to amaze me that when someone gets rejected multiple times from different groups of people, its always everyone else that is the problem.

It's amazing to me that no matter what anyone says about Wikipedia, that you and some others (pro Wikipedia types) rush into defend Wikipedia with some kind of excuse about why it was justified. The only Wikipedia criticism you do here Anroth is to criticize the critics criticisms.

[Guido den Broeder]

Merchandise is coming, to support a worldwide distribution. A calendar, perhaps. Maybe a game, or action figures. And naturally we plan to crown miss Pimenova as the first queen of independent California.

FFS, leave California out of it - unless you actually want people to immediately assume you're some sort of Russian provocateur, that is. The only people who can get away with that (i.e., without being assumed to be Russians) are diehard anti-Republicans who were definitively born and raised in California. (I'm not saying you wouldn't fit right in amongst them, though, since you probably would.)

Anyhoo, I just noticed that you're using a photo of yourself as an avatar on Everipedia, and it's not a bad photo, so I'm going to restore your avatar privileges in the hopes that you'll do the same here - mind you, I'm not insisting, but if you do that I'll edit out the distractionary avatar-related material in this thread since I'm such a nice guy and all. (And most of it won't make any sense anyway.)

Appreciated. Here is a photo of me planting seeds of love

I'm a finalist in the Mister Senior Netherlands contest, so they will get even better.

[lonza leggiera]

This is all very amusing, but unfortunately it would appear likely to end rather soonish.
So, here's the link - it may be the broederbond for you: https://www.wikipediasucks.co

Aw I have my own thread there. How cute. How full of wrong...

Ming has to settle for a few snide (and deeply wrong-headed) analyses from Krähennest.

Three guesses who said this about me there. "Now, Poetlister does have a tendency to run his mouth off and speak authoratively about things he clearly hasn't researched, things which are easily debunked (which sends him into coward mode, and sees the staff rush to protect him)."

Come on, give us a hard one! Even in such a short passage the style is practically unmistakeable. (And, yes, I did confirm that my first knee-jerk guess was correct.)

[Randy from Boise]

This is all very amusing, but unfortunately it would appear likely to end rather soonish.
So, here's the link - it may be the broederbond for you: https://www.wikipediasucks.co

Aw I have my own thread there. How cute. How full of wrong...

Ming has to settle for a few snide (and deeply wrong-headed) analyses from Krähennest.

I'm sure if you try harder they will make one about you too.

It never ceases to amaze me that when someone gets rejected multiple times from different groups of people, its always everyone else that is the problem.

It's amazing to me that no matter what anyone says about Wikipedia, that you and some others (pro Wikipedia types) rush into defend Wikipedia with some kind of excuse about why it was justified. The only Wikipedia criticism you do here Anroth is to criticize the critics criticisms.

.....which should have a great deal of value if one is trying to find one's way to Truth. On the other hand, if one is just trying to make propaganda by spouting any bogus bullshit that comes into their head, not so much. Then again, one can get elected President of the United States following the latter approach, so maybe Truth is overrated...

RfB

[Kumioko]

No not really. You're in the same camp honestly Carrite of someone who nearly always tries to spin things to the positive for Wikipedia. You, Anroth and others from the WMF projects come here and make excuses about why bad behavior on Wikipedia, especially among the WMF, the arbcom and the admins should be tolerated. You justify bad behavior and bad policy by the worst offenders like Floquenbeam, Fram, the various members of Arbcom who protect abusive admins with legalistic bullshit and run down critics here in an attempt to stifle comments and criticism about the WMF projects.

[Randy from Boise]

No not really. You're in the same camp honestly Carrite of someone who nearly always tries to spin things to the positive for Wikipedia. You, Anroth and others from the WMF projects come here and make excuses about why bad behavior on Wikipedia, especially among the WMF, the arbcom and the admins should be tolerated. You justify bad behavior and bad policy by the worst offenders like Floquenbeam, Fram, the various members of Arbcom who protect abusive admins with legalistic bullshit and run down critics here in an attempt to stifle comments and criticism about the WMF projects.

I try and look at each case with honesty and an open mind. There are two sides to every story and here at WPO it's a revolving door of people coming in with their "Admins was MEAN to me!!!" individualized complaining. They stick around long enough that it becomes more or less obvious why it was they got chucked. And then they get chucked from here.

There are legitimate complaints to be made about Wikipedia and WMF, ranging from an inexhaustible addiction to money for wasting to the bad behavior of roque administrators to narcissistic leadership to instances of official hypocrisy and so on down the list.

And then there are those who are motivated by their obsessive "Admins was MEAN to me!!!" "Admins was MEAN to me!!!" "Admins was MEAN to me!!!" "Admins was MEAN to me!!!" "Admins was MEAN to me!!!" middle school mentality — the real issue generally being their own obsession and inability to examine their situation dispassionately rather than bad actions by bad actor wikipedians.

RfB

[Kumioko]

Personally it seems less about having an open mind than having the ability to spin it to positively justify whatever the WMF wants.

For me it's honestly less about the admins being mean to people than in the WMF and the communities inability or lack of desire to do anything about it when you see the same behavior, routinely, from the same admins over and over.

People can say I have a middle school or high school mentality or that I dwell on the same issues. Of course it could also be said that from day one my message really hasn't changed much, people continue to ignore the problems, people continue to make excuses for those problems, admins continue to abuse and betray the communities trust, the WMF continues to be incompetent and waste money, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I really don't think anything we say or do here is going to make much difference, but, if we continue to get the word out about all the underhanded things the WMF and their projects do, then maybe, just maybe, people will start to catch onto it.

[Randy from Boise]

Personally it seems less about having an open mind than having the ability to spin it to positively justify whatever the WMF wants.

For me it's honestly less about the admins being mean to people than in the WMF and the communities inability or lack of desire to do anything about it when you see the same behavior, routinely, from the same admins over and over.

People can say I have a middle school or high school mentality or that I dwell on the same issues. Of course it could also be said that from day one my message really hasn't changed much, people continue to ignore the problems, people continue to make excuses for those problems, admins continue to abuse and betray the communities trust, the WMF continues to be incompetent and waste money, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I really don't think anything we say or do here is going to make much difference, but, if we continue to get the word out about all the underhanded things the WMF and their projects do, then maybe, just maybe, people will start to catch onto it.

It all comes around to the really big question: reform or revolution?

I just don't see a message board patronized by a couple hundred Wikipedians and anti-Wikipedians as a realistic path to the revolution you desire. How has WPO impacted WMF fundraising, to raise one example? Zip. That's unfortunate, but a spade remains a spade.

This board DOES have the capacity to curb some abuses and help make some ameliorative changes. This is the reason that it appeals to the dreaded Wikipedians in the first place — because it is clear to us that our Project does have systemic problems to be addressed and that a venue for candid off-wiki discussion is necessary. But if you think threads like this have the potential of moving the world, you are sadly mistaken. The most they can do is move the handful of people needed to fix little things.

RfB

[Kumioko]

I just don't see a message board patronized by a couple hundred Wikipedians and anti-Wikipedians as a realistic path to the revolution you desire. How has WPO impacted WMF fundraising, to raise one example? Zip. That's unfortunate, but a spade remains a spade.

Exactly my point.

Lets be realistic here about the WMF's intentions. The WMF doesn't care about anything else EXCEPT fundraising because that is what the ED wants. She/they do not care about the projects, they do not care about the community, they do not care about accumulating or improving knowledge or any of the other mantras. Anyone in the community that thinks the WMF wouldn't hang them out to dry if they ever got sued or harassed for their work on Wikipedia (or any of the other projects) is kidding themselves. That is why the WMF doesn't get involved, so that can treat the community like Kites! If anything happens that draws trouble, the string is cut and they are on their own...twisting in the wind! Just like WormThatTurned did to me when he unblocked me, I was just too naïve and trusting in him to see that's what he was doing.

With any company, it really all points to the leadership, in this case the Executive Director. Ever since Katherine Maher started working at the WMF you can see the WMF accrue more and more money ever year, when she became the ED, more of the same. You can also see that WMF waste and spend more and more. When she was the communications director, she didn't respond to emails or correspondence outside the WMF unless you were asking about who to make a check out to, then she would respond in minutes. That is still the case now that she is ED.

Try this sometime: Send her an email and ask a question, then use a different email and ask who to make checks out to and find out which one gets a response. That is why the community and the admins are the way they are. The admins can do whatever they want because they protect each other, the WMF doesn't care and everyone knows it, and the community is powerless (made so by the WMF and the admins) so they cannot do anything about it.

[Guido den Broeder]

And then there are those who are motivated by their obsessive "Admins was MEAN to me!!!" "Admins was MEAN to me!!!" "Admins was MEAN to me!!!" "Admins was MEAN to me!!!" "Admins was MEAN to me!!!" middle school mentality — the real issue generally being their own obsession and inability to examine their situation dispassionately rather than bad actions by bad actor wikipedians.

So let's take a look at Salvidrim! now. This is someone who abused their admin bit to support their own paid editing. Yet somehow, this character is trusted to claim that I am the same person as one The Jolly Bard, despite a CU mismatch. And after Arbcom has reviewed and discarded this, he gets to say it again. The result: two constructive users permanently blocked.

[Randy from Boise]

I just don't see a message board patronized by a couple hundred Wikipedians and anti-Wikipedians as a realistic path to the revolution you desire. How has WPO impacted WMF fundraising, to raise one example? Zip. That's unfortunate, but a spade remains a spade.

Exactly my point.

Lets be realistic here about the WMF's intentions. The WMF doesn't care about anything else EXCEPT fundraising because that is what the ED wants. She/they do not care about the projects, they do not care about the community, they do not care about accumulating or improving knowledge or any of the other mantras. Anyone in the community that thinks the WMF wouldn't hang them out to dry if they ever got sued or harassed for their work on Wikipedia (or any of the other projects) is kidding themselves. That is why the WMF doesn't get involved, so that can treat the community like Kites! If anything happens that draws trouble, the string is cut and they are on their own...twisting in the wind! Just like WormThatTurned did to me when he unblocked me, I was just too naïve and trusting in him to see that's what he was doing.

With any company, it really all points to the leadership, in this case the Executive Director. Ever since Katherine Maher started working at the WMF you can see the WMF accrue more and more money ever year, when she became the ED, more of the same. You can also see that WMF waste and spend more and more. When she was the communications director, she didn't respond to emails or correspondence outside the WMF unless you were asking about who to make a check out to, then she would respond in minutes. That is still the case now that she is ED.

Try this sometime: Send her an email and ask a question, then use a different email and ask who to make checks out to and find out which one gets a response. That is why the community and the admins are the way they are. The admins can do whatever they want because they protect each other, the WMF doesn't care and everyone knows it, and the community is powerless (made so by the WMF and the admins) so they cannot do anything about it.

Sue Gardner is the mother of microfundraising on WP, they've been hauling in more and more money ever since her watch...

Their fundraising people seem to be not only competent, but good at their job. Their ads remain annoying.

Sorry to be so nice to WMF,

RfB

[Kumioko]

Oh no, I grant you that, the fund raising group is one of the only ones IMO that are pretty good and I do agree their banners are annoying. There are even certain individuals that are good, or that care about the project, etc. but those are generally outliers. The vast majority of the WMF doesn't even edit. They are literally paid to do work for the WMF and wouldn't volunteer to fix a typo. The IT team is hit and miss, but there is a huge amount of work that needs to be done on the IT side but they can't seem to pull it together.

But looking through https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/St ... ontractors lets see what we have to work with:
- Office of the Executive Director= Worthless
- Trust and Safety= Completely worthless
- Audiences and Audiences design=Worthless
- Contributors and all it's subgroups=Virtually worthless with the occasional lucky bit of good work
- languages=Worthless
- Program management-Worthless
- Readers=Worthless
- Technology (this is where the fundraising group lives for some ungodly reason) = Mediocre with certain groups balancing out the worthless aspects of the division like the MediaWiki Platform that is horribly out of date and behind in bug fixes and improvements; the mobile platform, etc.
- Community Engagement = Completely worthless. When is the last time the WMF engaged the community on anything
skipping down a few to the end...
- Talent and Culture = Again...worthless!

I could really go on and on with more details to the end of the page but I think I have made my point here. Although you are correct, there are some competent people and sections, the organization as a whole is failing to do their job.

[Randy from Boise]

The other department that I think is well run and actually beneficial to the task of writing an encyclopedia is the Wikipedia Library.

As for most of the rest of it — that stuff could be outsourced to Albania and everything they did each year committed to paper and sunk in a chain-laden chest freezer in the middle of the Atlantic and nobody would be any the wiser.

RfB

[Poetlister]

I think we can see more or less the full spectrum of opinion on here from the most pro to the most anti Wikipedia. It gives us all plenty to consider, as long as people are good-tempered.

And of course Jake is doing a masterly job of keeping it all in order.

[Kumioko]

Well needless to say I disagree. It seems that those who favor Wikipedia far outnumber the critics on here these days.

[Midsize Jake]

Well needless to say I disagree. It seems that those who favor Wikipedia far outnumber the critics on here these days.

Well... to be fair, we've had several prominent members (nearly all of whom are, or were, highly critical of pretty much everything WP and the WMF do) either leave or severely curtail their activities here during the last year or so. Personally, I blame Trump, but of course he's a lot like the internet in that respect - you can blame him for pretty much anything and nearly always be able to make a valid case for doing so.

Just so this thread can sort-of stay on topic, though, Mr. Kumioko has started a private thread on this problem here, so members might do well to post their opinions on that thread instead of this one. Sorry if that ultimately means exposing less of our dirty laundry to the public, but at the end of the day it's just laundry, after all.

[Poetlister]

Three guesses who said this about me there. "Now, Poetlister does have a tendency to run his mouth off and speak authoratively about things he clearly hasn't researched, things which are easily debunked (which sends him into coward mode, and sees the staff rush to protect him)."

Come on, give us a hard one! Even in such a short passage the style is practically unmistakeable. (And, yes, I did confirm that my first knee-jerk guess was correct.)

I was being sarcastic!

[Randy from Boise]

Well needless to say I disagree. It seems that those who favor Wikipedia far outnumber the critics on here these days.

Blame the multiplicity of factional criticism sites... The hardliners peel away, leaving the moderates. Same thing happens as a result of party splits in radical politics — hardline purity lies elsewhere.

RfB

[Anroth]

Well needless to say I disagree. It seems that those who favor Wikipedia far outnumber the critics on here these days.

Blame the multiplicity of factional criticism sites... The hardliners peel away, leaving the moderates. Same thing happens as a result of party splits in radical politics — hardline purity lies elsewhere.

RfB

Replace 'hardliners' with 'lunatic fringe' and you would be more accurate.

[Kumioko]

Well needless to say I disagree. It seems that those who favor Wikipedia far outnumber the critics on here these days.

Blame the multiplicity of factional criticism sites... The hardliners peel away, leaving the moderates. Same thing happens as a result of party splits in radical politics — hardline purity lies elsewhere.

RfB

Replace 'hardliners' with 'lunatic fringe' and you would be more accurate.

There are a lot of lunatic fringes on Wikipedia as well I might add. Ever edited a US Roads article or one controlled by some of the other projects that won't allow infoboxes or some other arbitrary thing on "their" articles?

[Guido den Broeder]

Or who won't accept an infobox on a micronation page because 'micronations don't exist' or 'people might think it is a real country'.

Even though the box says 'Micronation' at the top.

[Poetlister]

Are you suggesting that people are allowed to WP:OWN articles? Surely not!

[Ming]

I try and look at each case with honesty and an open mind. There are two sides to every story and here at WPO it's a revolving door of people coming in with their "Admins was MEAN to me!!!" individualized complaining. They stick around long enough that it becomes more or less obvious why it was they got chucked. And then they get chucked from here.

Ming has said it over and over: most people who get into trouble on WP could go back and edit quietly, except they can't, because they cannot back down from their causes.

[Kumioko]

It's sorta like the whole fallacy of a clean start. In order for someone to make a clean start they first have to be dishonest and stay that way, living in the lie. Next, they need to be able to get interested in a topic they probably don't care about. Most people edit the topics they are familiar with or are interested in, so expecting someone who likes military history to suddenly start editing about butterfly's isn't realistic. That's why most people don't succeed, because they aren't natural liars and they can't easily start caring about things they don't care about.

[Midsize Jake]

Replace 'hardliners' with 'lunatic fringe' and you would be more accurate.

That may be true in some cases, but frustration is a natural human reaction, and in most cases these folks are just frustrated that other people aren't seeing things in starker terms than they are now. Personally I don't think there's anything crazy about seeing Wikipedia as dangerous or even "cancerous," to culture at the very least, and maybe even to society-in-general... especially in light of what's going on now in international politics.

Even if you restrict it to the issue of bans and the ever-present problems of human interaction, there's always going to be some argument between those who say "Wikipedia is awful because they ban too many people" and those who say "Wikipedia is awful because they don't ban enough people." You can't get away from it; you just have to hope that people will disagree respectfully, but of course you don't always get that.

[Bezdomni]

Ming has said it over and over

Ming should think about the wisdom of such a doddering approach.

most people who get into trouble on WP could go back and edit quietly

In my case this would involve creating socks rather than clearing my name from bogus charges. In 9 months, I have not been allowed to appeal. My letter to ArbCom was disregarded because BURob13 said that this would bypass public discussion by the community of six who encouraged blocking me rather than Cirt. In the text, my own block has always been an ArbCom block (I think), not a community ban. It is written in such a way as to make it seem as though it is an Arbitration Enforcement:

The first year of the block is an arbitration enforcement action.

source

though this was explicitly rejected in admin discussion during the case. Now that it's clear that Sagecandor was Cirt, I understand why the "community" has never been asked for input on the case.

because they cannot back down from their causes[,]

Ming has said it over and over

addendum: I've kept the cookie that blocks me from registering a new account on my computer. This way I don't have to ask myself any difficult questions about why I would even think of providing them with free labor. It's a convenient cookie. :-)

[Guido den Broeder]

Even if you restrict it to the issue of bans and the ever-present problems of human interaction, there's always going to be some argument between those who say "Wikipedia is awful because they ban too many people" and those who say "Wikipedia is awful because they don't ban enough people."

I'd say it's awful because they ban the wrong people. Everyone who wants to ban Fram raise your hand.

[Guido den Broeder]

My letter to ArbCom was disregarded because BURob13 said that this would bypass public discussion by the community of six who encouraged blocking me rather than Cirt.

Yeah, I don't count a few little pov soldiers as 'the community' either. I'm blocked - without a provided reason - not really banned.

[Anroth]

My letter to ArbCom was disregarded because BURob13 said that this would bypass public discussion by the community of six who encouraged blocking me rather than Cirt.

Yeah, I don't count a few little pov soldiers as 'the community' either. I'm blocked - without a provided reason - not really banned.

No you have been banned. You are not just 'blocked'. You realise even people who might feel sympathy for you here are capable of looking at a discussion linked to on the first page as well as your block log. That you dont agree with it does not change the outcome.

[Poetlister]

It's sorta like the whole fallacy of a clean start. In order for someone to make a clean start they first have to be dishonest and stay that way, living in the lie. Next, they need to be able to get interested in a topic they probably don't care about. Most people edit the topics they are familiar with or are interested in, so expecting someone who likes military history to suddenly start editing about butterfly's isn't realistic. That's why most people don't succeed, because they aren't natural liars and they can't easily start caring about things they don't care about.

You make a couple of hundred edits in some new area to establish your credibility, then you start inching back to areas you like. Especially if you have one or two influential people to guard your back, that should work.

[Kumioko]

Maybe, but even then most of the time it will end in a check user block and accusations of sock puppetry unless you take a break for a few months and let the check user logs go stale. Using myself as an example, if anyone in the DC area (and there are about 7 million people here) creates an account they assume it's me first and then try to prove otherwise. Even when I don't edit they still see me in the tea leaves and in the shadows. From a critic and HTD standpoint it's funny. As a former high output and dedicated editor who did more to improve Wikipedia than 98% of the population including the WMF employees and admins, it's disappointing and frustrating. I'm sure a lot of the innocent IP's and editors who were blocked and accused of being me find it annoying as well.

[Guido den Broeder]

My letter to ArbCom was disregarded because BURob13 said that this would bypass public discussion by the community of six who encouraged blocking me rather than Cirt.

Yeah, I don't count a few little pov soldiers as 'the community' either. I'm blocked - without a provided reason - not really banned.

No you have been banned. You are not just 'blocked'. You realise even people who might feel sympathy for you here are capable of looking at a discussion linked to on the first page as well as your block log. That you dont agree with it does not change the outcome.

Pathetic. Block logs don't change themselves. The same Black Kite (also an involved user btw) who falsely claimed the ban created the entry.

There are several conditions to satisfy before an opinion can become a community ban. They were not satisfied, so there is no ban, regardless of how many trolls claim there is.

[Guido den Broeder]

(...) I'm sure a lot of the innocent IP's and editors who were blocked and accused of being me find it annoying as well.

Yes. Everyone forgets about all the innocent people that get blocked as collateral damage. There are at least a dozen who were falsely claimed to be me for no other reason than that they opposed the same pov, despite editing from a different IP, system and area, a different attitude and style, and little overlap in topics.

[Kumioko]

(...) I'm sure a lot of the innocent IP's and editors who were blocked and accused of being me find it annoying as well.

Yes. Everyone forgets about all the innocent people that get blocked as collateral damage. There are at least a dozen who were falsely claimed to be me for no other reason than that they opposed the same pov, despite editing from a different IP, system and area, a different attitude and style, and little overlap in topics.

I disagree, the problem is they don't forget...the flat out do not care. The admins, the WMF and the arbcom congratulate each other on the numbers of blocks and protections they do as if they are a good thing. There is no reason in the world to preventatively block IP ranges that have never done one edit just in case someone uses it to do vandalism. The notion that they are preventing vandalism by blocking a quadrillion IP's is idiotic! But that's the Wikipedia mentality of lazy admins. it's better to block everyone so one vandals edits don't post than to revert 100 bits of vandalism so an incalculable number of people can edit. It's even worse when they treat edits like vandalism when they are from IP's or revert good edits and improvements because they think the editor doing it is banned. That is what creates vandals. If all your edits are going to be treated as vandalism, then there isn't any point of even trying to make a positive edit.

[Anroth]

My letter to ArbCom was disregarded because BURob13 said that this would bypass public discussion by the community of six who encouraged blocking me rather than Cirt.

Yeah, I don't count a few little pov soldiers as 'the community' either. I'm blocked - without a provided reason - not really banned.

No you have been banned. You are not just 'blocked'. You realise even people who might feel sympathy for you here are capable of looking at a discussion linked to on the first page as well as your block log. That you dont agree with it does not change the outcome.

Pathetic. Block logs don't change themselves. The same Black Kite (also an involved user btw) who falsely claimed the ban created the entry.

There are several conditions to satisfy before an opinion can become a community ban. They were not satisfied, so there is no ban, regardless of how many trolls claim there is.

The only requirement for a community ban is a discussion at AN/ANI that has attendance of more than 3 or 4, and an admin willing to close it. Given you had previously been community banned and even leaving aside the temptation of people to overturn arbcom decisions because 'fuck arbcom', your banning more than met the criteria for reimposing the original community ban. The block log is merely a reflection of the discussion that got you banned. Any admin who closed the discussion would have left the same entry. Denying you are banned is not going to get you anywhere. Let alone unbanned.

I really would like to see the discussion on ENWP about that. 'Please unblock me because I'm not actually banned'. It would be hilarious.

At this point since you seem to have a reasonable grasp of English. I am assuming you actually have a mental block on your basic situation. You are banned. You are about as banned as anyone could be short of a San-Fran-Ban.

[Guido den Broeder]

My letter to ArbCom was disregarded because BURob13 said that this would bypass public discussion by the community of six who encouraged blocking me rather than Cirt.

Yeah, I don't count a few little pov soldiers as 'the community' either. I'm blocked - without a provided reason - not really banned.

No you have been banned. You are not just 'blocked'. You realise even people who might feel sympathy for you here are capable of looking at a discussion linked to on the first page as well as your block log. That you dont agree with it does not change the outcome.

Pathetic. Block logs don't change themselves. The same Black Kite (also an involved user btw) who falsely claimed the ban created the entry.

There are several conditions to satisfy before an opinion can become a community ban. They were not satisfied, so there is no ban, regardless of how many trolls claim there is.

The only requirement for a community ban is a discussion at AN/ANI that has attendance of more than 3 or 4, and an admin willing to close it.

That's not what WP:CBAN says. A gathering of people doesn't automatically have the authority to ban. They have to be uninvolved and the admin has to check the arguments for validity. We've already disproven the first, and since the closing admin didn't provide a reason for the 'ban' but merely counted !votes, the second is lacking as well. No disruption, no community ban.

Any admin who closed the discussion would have left the same entry.

We will never know, because Fram's buddy Black Kite hurried to be the first and closed the vote in record time.

At this point since you seem to have a reasonable grasp of English. I am assuming you actually have a mental block on your basic situation. You are banned. You are about as banned as anyone could be short of a San-Fran-Ban.

Well, you see, that's the problem with you. You always assume that people are like you.

[Midsize Jake]

At this point since you seem to have a reasonable grasp of English. I am assuming you actually have a mental block on your basic situation. You are banned. You are about as banned as anyone could be short of a San-Fran-Ban.

Mr. Anroth, I know it's frustrating dealing with people whose perspectives on reality can be somewhat, ehh, tenuous, but you should really try to act better than this. If Mr. den Broeder wants to believe he's "merely blocked," what's the harm? Is it really necessary for us to go out of our way to disabuse him of this notion? I don't see what purpose it serves, personally, though I suppose you could make the argument that the endless re-litigation of his status on WP wastes the time of people who might not all deserve to have their time wasted in such a fashion.

Also, let's not completely ignore the fact that on Wikipedia, "ban" is a social construct, whereas "block" is a technical construct. If you've spent a large part of your life treating conventional social constructs as things to be either avoided or eliminated, it's hardly surprising that you'd reject the one in favor of the other.

[Poetlister]

Maybe, but even then most of the time it will end in a check user block and accusations of sock puppetry unless you take a break for a few months and let the check user logs go stale.

Use a different IP. It's easy in Britain because most ISPs have IPs that cannot be geolocated accurately. if they're paranoid enough to assume that any edit from Britain is probably by a sockpuppet, fine.

[Guido den Broeder]

Not everyone has easy access to another IP. In The Netherlands, IPs are often fixed. And a CU will still show that you're on the same system.

[Kumioko]

Maybe, but even then most of the time it will end in a check user block and accusations of sock puppetry unless you take a break for a few months and let the check user logs go stale.

Use a different IP. It's easy in Britain because most ISPs have IPs that cannot be geolocated accurately. if they're paranoid enough to assume that any edit from Britain is probably by a sockpuppet, fine.

That's not really how it works in the US. I can easily change my IP whenever I want but they still geo locate in the DC area. Now I can use other means like HOLA or any number of tunnels and proxies or use a number of public IP's, but the majority of users don't have that desire or even perhaps the technical skills.

[Guido den Broeder]

(...) Also, let's not completely ignore the fact that on Wikipedia, "ban" is a social construct, whereas "block" is a technical construct. If you've spent a large part of your life treating conventional social constructs as things to be either avoided or eliminated, it's hardly surprising that you'd reject the one in favor of the other.

Exactly. A block log can only prove a block. There is no objective indicator for a ban. However, one can hope that explaining to the ban-sayer the lack of ban validity might help to lift the block.

[Anroth]

At this point since you seem to have a reasonable grasp of English. I am assuming you actually have a mental block on your basic situation. You are banned. You are about as banned as anyone could be short of a San-Fran-Ban.

Mr. Anroth, I know it's frustrating dealing with people whose perspectives on reality can be somewhat, ehh, tenuous, but you should really try to act better than this. If Mr. den Broeder wants to believe he's "merely blocked," what's the harm? Is it really necessary for us to go out of our way to disabuse him of this notion? I don't see what purpose it serves, personally, though I suppose you could make the argument that the endless re-litigation of his status on WP wastes the time of people who might not all deserve to have their time wasted in such a fashion.

Also, let's not completely ignore the fact that on Wikipedia, "ban" is a social construct, whereas "block" is a technical construct. If you've spent a large part of your life treating conventional social constructs as things to be either avoided or eliminated, it's hardly surprising that you'd reject the one in favor of the other.

To address as to why I feel the need to correct him.

He clearly wants to be back on wikipedia, like most other rejected editors who have an over-inflated opinion of themselves, his very first post in this thread is complaining about the lack of response (although given his constant lying subsequently in this thread, I can only assume they filed it in the 'hell no pile' - it wouldnt be the first arbcom to not want to waste time on his emails, see the block log for Roadcreature). But he is flat out not going to get unbanned while claiming he is an innocent party, never did anything wrong, I was framed guvnor! and while he persists in this idiotic and divorced entirely from reality belief, no one is going to unban him. Even should arbcom smoke a fuckton of crack and decide 'you know, we need to hide that we have fucked up the infobox case by doing nothing again, lets unban someone and distract everyone' it would be re-imposed within a day. People dont get normal block requests overturned without kowtowing let alone community bans.

[Guido den Broeder]

A silly comment since Arbcom did in fact unban me after I had explained to them that none of the allegations are true. They did not decide this overnight but took their time, and found the evidence against me unconvincing.

Events in the distant past aren't of much relevance anyway. I have many years of editing without incident since, including the two months on en:Wikipedia after my unban. The only question is, what would happen if I were to be unblocked. What is it that you are so afraid of, and would there be a way to take your fears away?

[Poetlister]

(...) Also, let's not completely ignore the fact that on Wikipedia, "ban" is a social construct, whereas "block" is a technical construct. If you've spent a large part of your life treating conventional social constructs as things to be either avoided or eliminated, it's hardly surprising that you'd reject the one in favor of the other.

Exactly. A block log can only prove a block. There is no objective indicator for a ban. However, one can hope that explaining to the ban-sayer the lack of ban validity might help to lift the block.

If the block log says "Do not unblock without consulting ARBCOM", that's objectively a ban.

[Guido den Broeder]

Block logs have been filled with the most ridiculous statements as well as vile attempts at defamation. Just because an entry says it, doesn't mean that one should comply. A blocking admin doesn't outrank policy or other admins.

It's not in my log though.

[Ming]

More lawyering.